Who killed Teresa Halbach if it wasn’t Steven Avery?

A new opinion piece: ‘Injustice porn’ like Making a Murder and Serial celebrates men who kill and abuse women

If you’ve watched the new Netflix series Making a Murderer, you’re probably left wondering who killed Teresa Halbach and why. The 10-part documentary makes a very convincing case that the local police planted evidence and provides a strong motive for why they might have done such a thing.

The filmmakers don’t, however, try to make the case that the police actually killed Teresa. Instead they do something highly unethical and cast suspicion on her brother, her ex-boyfriend and her roommate.

Almost every time Mike Halbach, the brother of the victim and the family spokesman, comes on the scene, he’s made to say something that’s just been carefully debunked for the audience. The camera stays focused right on Halbach to let it sink in just how wrong he is. From his very first quote, about how the process of grieving his sister might take days (yes, days), the directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos never miss an opportunity to make him look bad. Halbach doesn’t get so much as one sympathetic quote. The only thing the filmmakers don’t do is play spooky music whenever he appears.

They also make Teresa’s ex-boyfriend look terrible on the witness stand, suggesting he hacked into her voicemail for nefarious reasons. Ditto the roommate who helped out the ex-BF.

Mike Halbach

Entirely predictable results of unethical filmmaking: Mike Halbach never was nor never should have been a suspect

Ricciardi and Demos are good at casting doubt  and the well-primed audience got their message loud and clear. The internet is now chockablock with justice warriors demanding Teresa’s brother’s head and spreading rumours about her ex-boyfriend and roommate. But there’s a problem and it’s a big one — in the eight years since Steven Avery’s trial ended, the filmmakers don’t appear to have followed up to see if their suspicions were actually merited. Based on their final product, they either didn’t bother to  look or turned up zero.

In other words, they made Teresa Halbach’s brother, her ex-boyfriend and her roommate look bad without having a single scrap of evidence against them. They appear to have provoked a mob for nothing more than narrative tension, which is especially ironic in a documentary about the dangers of witch hunts.

Alternate suspects to Steven Avery

Here are the people the lawyers wanted to point the finger at: No brother, no ex-BF, no roommate. It’s an Avery-heavy line-up

What’s more, the Making a Murderer team did all this without mentioning that none of these three men were included on any list of alternative suspects. All we hear is that Avery’s original defence team was prevented from discussing other possible suspects in court. The filmmakers don’t tell us that those suspects were all related to the Avery clan and the salvage yard and that they included Steven Avery’s brothers, Earl Avery and Charles Avery, his brother-in law Scott Tadych, his nephew Bobby Dassey and — wait for it — Brendan Dassey.

Yes, you read that correctly. All the while Making a Murderer is building a case that the prosecution of Brendan Dassey as a murderer alongside his uncle is a gross miscarriage of justice, they neglected to acknowledge that taht Avery’s very competent defence team was also prepared to throw Brendan under the bus. Turns out real life is way more complicated than even a 10-hour documentary.

The problem for the filmmakers is the lawyers were probably right. If Steven Avery didn’t kill Teresa Halbach, it was likely one or more of the people on their list. That’s not as good a story as leaving it up in the air and implying the cops or the victim’s brother or her ex-BF and the roommate did it. But if you think about it, it actually makes a lot of sense that the murderer was connected to the Avery clan.

It explains why no one ever saw the victim again after her stop at the salvage yard, why her cremains were found on the property and why there were multiple calls to her cell phone from Steven Avery’s phone, including calls using *67 to block his ID. As the appeal defence lawyers’ documentation shows, the Avery clan had a long history of violence against women. It’s not unthinkable that one of them might have tried to lure and sexually assault an attractive young photographer. And there’s no reason they couldn’t have done this with Steven Avery’s phone.

Imagine this scenario: One or more of the extended family members got rough with Theresa and ended up murdering her. If the cops hadn’t come a calling, they could have used her murder as a way to blackmail Steven Avery out of some of the multi-million dollar settlement he was about to receive for his false rape conviction. If the cops did start poking around, the real murderers could accuse, even frame, Steven.

Needless to say the cops had a much stronger motive to pin the murder on Steven than they did to go after the other Averys. If Steven was the murderer, the county’s settlement payment problems vanished and their reputations were well on the way to repair. If it was just another Avery or Avery in-law, they still had the settlement and reputation problems.

The documentary makes a convincing case the police helped things along by planting evidence, especially the key. As for the car, that could have been the police or the actual murderers. Steven Avery could have been in on it or oblivious.

Either way, however, having an Avery or Avery-in-law as the culprit puts up some narrative obstacles for the filmmakers. Ma and Pa Avery are portrayed lovingly as salt of the earth types. They’re never asked how they managed to raise three sons with such a long and documented history of violence. And the directors gloss right over the well known fact that before his wrongful rape conviction, Steven Avery doused a cat in oil and threw it on a fire.

Such are the demands, however, of creating a wrongfully convicted protagonist the public will flock to support. It’s far more difficult to be sympathetic to Steven and Ma and Pa Avery, if it was their own dysfunctional brood framing up Steven and Brendan alongside the cops. It doesn’t quite reach the required outrage levels if the family did it. Much better to be vague so that the public can go to town on the  police or the victim’s brother or a mysterious German man.

Not to mention that if the filmmakers had decided one of the brothers, nephews or brother-in-law likely did it, Ma and Pa might have pulled right out of the multi-year film project and left the directors empty handed. A Shakespearian or Faulkneresque tale of a dysfunctional and dangerous family is of no use to anyone if you don’t have the legal rights to tell it.

748 thoughts on “Who killed Teresa Halbach if it wasn’t Steven Avery?

  1. It seems clear to me that the county police and the county itself hated the averys bc they are inbred and they find them embarrassing. Still no legal excuse for false imprisonment. However the police were obviously manipulating that body. The place where it was actually cremated was never revealed. No bonfire can do this. This is a large scale problem in India where funeral fires dont complete the job. Finally, teresas brother Mike never seemed right to me. Not one tear. Maybe Teresa was being punished for something. Maybe she was gay. But the roommate and ex boyfriend were definitely aware of something.

    • I am not excusing police malfeasance and the planting of evidence, and the film pretty much convinced me there was both.

      That said, you think the brother was off because the filmmakers led you right down that path by your nose. And I think that was a despicable and unethical thing for them to do.

      He’s the brother of the victim. They’ve been on this case for 10 years. They have nothing repeat nothing to suggest he’s involved. They should not have set him up like they did — for the sake of narrative tension.

      • I think part of the point of the documentary was that both the brother and the ex boyfriend should have been looked at more closely from the beginning. There’s a possibility nothing pointed to them because no one ever bothered to look, which is really bizarre in itself for a murder investigation.

        • I’m pretty sure the defence team looked at the brother and the ex and found nothing.

          They could easily have subpoenaed the phone bill to find out who the supposed stalker was and I bet you they did.

          The real alternative suspects are on the defence lawyers’ list.

          • Agreed Katie. I am astounded at the reply to your comment by Ann B – “I’m pretty sure the defense team looked at the brother and the ex and found nothing.” – I’m pretty sure?

            That is a pretty big presumption on your part. Yet, you accuse the makers of the documentary of being unethical, when in fact they presented facts. The testimony by police in around the 3-5th hour shows that the police DID NOT follow-up and in fact allowed them on the Avery property when it was supposed to be limited. Not only that statistically when a woman is murdered in the USA, it is MORE likely that a family member, intimate partner are the perpetrators more than 60% of the time So they absolutely should have been considered as suspects and investigated thoroughly.

            ” Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23). In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18). More than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husband or intimate acquaintance than were murdered by strangers using guns, knives, or any other means” (source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1635092)

            And please don’t lead me to believe that you are so naive to not understand how media – film, video and television actually work. The film-makers had a unique and rare opportunity to follow the case and documented it in real time in real life since 2005. They told a story and stories can be told from a myriad points of view. Besides the film actually is much more than this case. It is clearly symbolic of the bigger problems in the US system of justice – specifically in Wisconsin.

            So, calling the film-makers despicable and unethical is basically unwarranted and not based in any fact whatsoever. If you’re going to call people names, please back it up.

          • We’re both presuming here because neither of us have the all the necessary information.

            You presume the defense team didn’t check out the ex-BF and roommate. I presume they did.

            What’s the basis for my presumption? Defence lawyers typically employ investigators to do this type of work. Even Brendan’s lawyer had an investigator. If there were anything there, Avery’s defence team, which was highly competent, thought they could use, they would have been all over it.

            I’m not sure you understand how real-life investigations work. Let’s assume — yes I’m going to make an assumption for the sake of discussion — that police did find Teresa’s cremains on the Avery’s property. Under those conditions they are not going to investigate the ex-boyfriend unless they find he’s connected to the Averys.

            Should they have asked him about the voicemail, sure. But it’s fantastical to think they should have conducted a whole investigation of him with zero evidence that he was involved. You go where the evidence leads you, you don’t chase statistics.

            Finally, I have no problem with the filmmakers having a point of view, giving AVery’s side of the story, not being neutral, etc.

            My problem is with what they did to the brother, the ex-BF and the roommate. That’s what my article is about.

          • The defense team wasn’t allowed to present alternative suspects, so is it really that strange the documentary didn’t bring it up? I feel that would have been unethical, seeing as they weren’t on trial. Plus there is little point to putting resources on investigating a lead they knew wouldn’t be able to use in court. The only reason they were questioned about their interaction with the police was to show that Avery was the police’s only suspect from the get-go.

            The police didn’t even question them when she was still missing. They did however want Avery in custody, not caring there was no body, no evidence of foul play.

            The Halbachs declined being interviewed, so the filmmakers had very little to show. It’s not necessarily manipulation how the brother et al were portrayed or came across; it could just as easily been that the audience’s sympathy for Avery and his family colored their view, since they were able to show depth and emotion. The brother was just a spokesperson, the ex and roommate were just witnesses.

            Avery’s defense team had an investigator. He was frequently shown commenting on the case.

          • ” defense team had an investigator. He was frequently shown commenting on the case.”

            Where? Which episode? I don’t recall this at all. Are you sure you’re not confusing him with the investigator on Brendan’s case?

            The brother was just a spokesperson, the ex and roommate were just witnesses.

            The hating on these three guys — and, yes, there is lots of hating — was entirely predictable. When you cast a convicted person and his family as protagonists, the natural reaction of the audience is going to be to point the finger at someone else, and who better than the innocent men the filmmakers have set up to look suspicious?

          • I can’t remember which episodes, I’m sorry – he popped up quite regularly. But he sat at a table in a corner, only seen talking to the filmmakers, and once or twice outside the courthouse. He looked about 50, and bald. And no, I haven’t confused him with the Kratz investigator – because it’s him you’re referring to? He who coerced Brendan’s confession at school? Butin and Strang’s investigator thought the trial was a travesty and more or less believed Brendan and Steven were innocent. Does that description help?

            That’s my point. They will come across as “villainous” because we never get to hear their side of story, since they refused to appear. It doesn’t necessarily mean the filmmakers set them up in my opinion. I thought the same thing as many others about the brother’s statement about grieving for example and when he talked about Teresa in past tense, but then I thought, “I’ve learned to think like that from crime shows on TV.” Not being interviewed, the filmmakers’ and the defense team’s need to show what was left out of the investigation, because, as they tried to prove, the police chose Steven as the perp straight away, will make them look slightly bad, I think.

          • Thanks for the investigator information. I must have missed him as a result of binge watching into the earlier morning hours.

            I think you might have misinterpreted my question to think that I’m surprised that they had an investigator. Not at all. I was actually surprised I didn’t see him in the film because it’s standard practice.

            The filmmakers could have easily cleared up the suspicion issue by just asking the investigator if the brother, ex-BF and roomie should have been suspects. And he would likely have known whose calls Teresa was avoiding too. I would genuinely like to know why they didn’t do this.

            Teresa’s family has no obligation whatsoever to appear in a documentary. That they declined to do so does not give the filmmakers a right to make them look bad. They are still ethically obliged to treat them fairly. In my opinion they failed to do this.

          • ” defense team had an investigator. He was frequently shown commenting on the case.”

            Where? Which episode? I don’t recall this at all. Are you sure you’re not confusing him with the investigator on Brendan’s case?”

            I just noticed this comment. Emelie is correct, Ann – Pete Baetz is Dean & Jerry’s investigator, and he’s shown commenting several times in different episodes. I’m not sure when he first appears, but you can find one of his appearances in Ep.#4 at 30:50.

          • The cremains were found on his property so, unless you believe the police moved them there, of course they were going to focus on someone from the salvage yard. Her body was burned with steel belted tires atop it. Who do you think they should have looked at based on that evidence?

          • Seeing as how it was a week from when Halbach was reported missing (or 10 days since she was reported last seen) until the cremains were found – or, if you prefer, 2 days until her car was discovered, I guess it depends on whether you think the police had any time to interrogate anyone at all in the interim. Apparently, they didn’t.

          • Look, I’m not denying the police had tunnel vision. What I’m saying is that the opposite of tunnel vision is not investigating or “looking at” a whole lot of other people for the sake of numbers. The police should have called her family, roommates and friends to get as much information as possible about her whereabouts that day and patterns of behaviour, but they should not have considered them as suspects because there was no evidence that they were.

          • Sounds like maybe we found some common ground 🙂 I agree with you that once the evidence led to the Salvage lot, there wasn’t much reason to keep investigating anyone else (even if some cops were manipulating evidence, there still had to be some of them that were just honestly following the leads). It just seems like they were dragging their feet at the beginning, either expecting or hoping for an Avery family connection to the crime.

          • I dunno. Sometimes police aren’t the quickest at jumping on missing women cases. I would have to know more. How soon did they know she had been headed to the Averys? From the very first missing report? Where was she reported missing? It can take time for one force to notify another.

            Also, the fact that she wasn’t reported missing for a few days would seem to suggest that she might stay at friends regularly or that there was no one keeping close tabs.

            But we should probably stick with our common ground. I’m very struck by how casually everyone’s calling for police investigations of this one, that one and the next one. It’s no fun to be investigated by police and to live in a police state.

          • I’d be fine with Avery and Dassey just getting new trials somewhere slightly removed from that community. If, without the hysteria and inflammatory press conferences, a new jury finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so be it.

          • no they didnt follow up….the DA and the ex and roomate are both on record saying how they were brought into questioning together but not as an interrogation…no alibies were corraborated, no further investigation into them….what is despicable is trying to re-write the facts and not see that those three ppl shouldve been more thoroughly investigated, and that the facts and gaps and their own demeanours and possible otives were laid out well by the film….if the reaction is to suspect them that is because they are suspectful, and besides, the point was to show how they solely focused on avery and the question of reasonable doubt with other possible theories and motives…..thats kinda the whole point of a defense and the process of arguing a case in a court of law, not just some film fantasy approach concocted up out of nowhere without any basis….and standard police work always looks at those close to people….if u got out of that a sinister or unethical aspect and now are pushing that as truth, you are the despicable untethical person for shutting down such alternative notions when an innocent man set up sits in prison….your whole piece is essentially an apologist ploy for people you dont know and facts you ignore…..thats in general unethical ‘journalism’

            Note from AnnB, editrix of this blog:
            After this comment, Blair ramped up his rants and left several more comments, each one ruder than the other, and culminating in this one-word classic of the internet comment genre. No one ever responded to any of his comments and he has been banished from this site.

          • AnnB,

            While I agree that the brother and ex-BF don’t come off looking especially good, I think you are imagining, or way over stating, and suggestion by the film that they were somehow involved in the murder. I believe the film implies, based on the facts brought out by defense questioning, that they are hiding something or not being fully truthful with regard to the voicemails, and the search leading to discovery of the car. There are unexplained questions involving these important issues

            I’m also surprised by your vehement outrage over the fact that the film does make the brother and ex-BF look somewhat bad. While I certainly sympathize with the brother’s loss, he did not simply assume the role of a grieving family member hoping for justice. Throughout the case, and long before the trial was over, he made speeches to the press expressing the view that certain witnesses were lying and, of course, his certainty that Avery was guilty. Certainly entitled to those views, but those who frequently and publicly pass judgment on others are not, and should not expect to be, immune to judgments being made about them.

          • “The only reason they were questioned about their interaction with the police was to show that Avery was the police’s only suspect from the get-go…..”
            Emelie December 25 11:08

            Ding ding ding we have a winner!!! That was exactly why the brother, roommate, ex boyfriend were highlighted so much in the documentary. It wasn’t to cast suspension on them but to call into question why they were not even questioned at all. Somewhere this author accuses another commentator of “not understanding how investigations work” are you kidding me? Questioning and checking the whereabouts of those closest to victim, if to do nothing other than rule them out as suspects IS STANDARD (freaking) PROCEDURE!!! Unbelievable!!!!

          • We don’t live in a police state. You investigate people when the evidence leads to them not because of statistics. There was no evidence leading to people without ties to the Avery salvage yard.

          • The defense team was not allowed to bring in alternative suspects as the court wouldn’t allow it. They would have investigated those alternative suspects, and obviously did bcz they filed a motion requesting to do bring those names into evidence, but the court denied it.

            The red herring for me is the blood sample being tampered with.

            There was reasonable doubt all over this case.

            Steven Avery was born under an unlucky srar

          • the defense wasn’t allowed to look at anyone expect Steven Avery all they could do is try and prove he didn’t do it and that the police had motive and lied about certain things to pin it on Avery. Also watch episode 2 go to the 35:00 minute mark, watch the entire minute. It is a scene shot 3 days after she was reported missing and it showed the ex boyfriend, he is handing out maps and information. watch at around 35:40-36:00 he is bent down and freeze it when you see his hands, because there are scratches on his hand 3 days after fresh wounds on his hands.

          • The defense wasn’t allowed to suspect anyone else by name. Or ask why others weren’t investigated. The court made sure to tie the defense teams hands so tight behind their backs.

            Also note that the Halbach family declined to be interviewed or say anything to the film makers. So they (the film makers) used the media coverage that they ( the Halbachs) were in.

            I truly believe that’s Scott (Brenden’s step-father) had something to do or knows more than he is leading on about the murder of Teresa.

            I respect the Halbach family and pray for their loss. i just hope the truth comes out for both families involved.

          • I believe when they found the Rave 4 on the property. Steven was in Crivitz at there cottage for the weekend. that would have givin anyone that knew they were gone time to burn the body ,plant the car, (not crush it on the car crusher) and the key could have been placed in his house by another family member while he was in jail and investigators left the premises. I don’t believe Steven Avery did it.

          • The prosecution didn’t look into other suspects. If you remember the phone call from the officer 30 minutes after the car was discovered, the cop asked if Avery was in custody yet. No investigation, just a question of whether the guy we believe did this is in custody. I don’t believe the state did much to look at all possible suspects n

          • The x, roommate, and brother were not properly investigated from the beginning and the police had a history of ignoring leads in order to fulfill their own confirmation bias. A cop is supposed to ask everyone where they were at the time of the crime. You check out everyone’s alibi, and when Mr Perfect #1 has no alibi he goes from being not the type of person who would kill to someone whose whereabouts are unaccounted for. A good cop isn’t blinded by their own theories they explore any and every possibility. The lawyers can’t search anyone’s house and they don’t even necessarily have the right to contact the people in the victim’s life. They have nothing close to the power of the people who are hired to independently investigate the crime. It makes me sick that people think that this girl’s relations should not be questioned because they aren’t the kind of people who would kill but a dirty mechanic is a stereotypical murderer so therefore he is guilty. How many times did the defense say that the Avery family’s social status meant that they were killers? It isn’t just janitors and other poor people who kill. Doctors, lawyers, brothers, lovers, fathers- they all kill. Mothers kill their own children. The people who knew Teresa were statistically more likely to have killed her. The point is that no one is to be ruled out. This is what the cops did to Avery that put him in jail for 18 years. The directors may have painted the brother to be biased but the brother did happen to say some things that made him look like he wanted Avery to be strung up without proof. Who can blame him for that. It doesn’t make Avery guilty. Why would the brother not want a fair trial and why would he not want everyone to be questioned. If my sister had been murdered guess what I’d suspect her husband and closest relations first. The very man who built this case around Avery being a scumbag was in fact a holier than thou scumbag who used his status against people

        • Do you think about these words before you type them. All of you with your wild allegations and theories should be ashamed of yourselves. Every stupid comment made by some moron trying to play Clue is disrespectful.

          • Ridiculous! If more people had spouted crazy views/theories back in 1985, Mr. Avery likely would not have gone to prison to begin with. I hardly see the harm in people raising questions and demanding answers.

        • The tampering of the blood evidence, lack of Theresa’s DNA on the key, the lies and the lawsuit should be enough. The first comment of “is he in custody?” The evidence that the body left was not caused by a bonfire. Nobody has to be implied( even though I think the brother and X are getting payed ) is enough to throw the case out. The people involved will be spending Lot longer in punishment then Steven Avery! God has a plan ! I wish everyone involved would pray and confess to avoid the consequences! It’s not worth it to save money on this life!

        • Katie that is exactly the point! I agree totally! No one, but one in that town’s law enforcement community looked for any other suspect. The blatant “railroading” of Steven and Brendan should scare everyone in the United States! Kratz and his minions, how do they sleep at night knowing that they did this to these two individuals. Their wives, their children, will all see and pass judgment. From the very beginning, with the press conference, how could they even says those things publicly! And I also believe that Attorney’s and law enforcement around the country are appalled at the wanton disregard to these two individuals civil rights.


        • I agree Katie. Why was the old boyfriend hanging around 5 years after Theresa broke up with him.

          • Oh, stop, you know nothing about the ex-BF and yet, here, you are throwing around accusations while pretending to advocate against wrongful convictions.

          • And here you are calling the makers of the documentary unethical, as you call Avery a lowlife and a creep!! Do you honestly think that regurgitating unverified information as facts is ethical on your part?? You repeated Ken Kratz’s version of the towel incident and stated that she told her boss she never wanted to go back there because he was creepy, despite the fact that this is not what the receptionist testified to!!

          • I will happily call anyone who douses a cat in oil and gas and throws it on a fire a lowlife and a creep.

            Do you have a link for the receptionist’s testimony? I’m always ready to correct the record if it needs correcting.

        • especially the roommate, whom at the very least may have had a wealth of information to contribute, how ever, under oath fassbender testified that no one else was a suspect, no one else was, deposed, no one else was questioned as to where they were around the time that teresa was alleged to have disappeared, further their phone record were never checked

        • there was circumstantial evidence of others that should have been suspects, but judge would not let it in, some as damming if not more damming than any real evidence against steven avery at that time. All part of stacking the deck! IMO

      • the brother should focus more on finding the killer than keeping Steven and Dassey in jail for life. I haven’t even suspected the brother being involved. But he is still no better than the killer in my eyes, by not staying objective in the case and seems only to care that somebody paying for his sisters death. I understand he misses his sister, but it is despicable to judge a person take Averys and Dasseys life without any proof. The evidence speaks for itself – i dont think Steven Avery and Dassey did it. I can’t prove it, but i can’t prove that they did either. I’d rather have a guilty person on the street than an innocent person in jail. And this stuff is happening all the time it seems – WM3 worth mentioning – had a better ending than “making a murderer” though :/

        All the selfish bastards only thinking about their career instead of justice, should have a taste of their own medicine. Judge and officers implied in the case working against Avery and Dassey by planting evidence and not staying objective.

        I hope they make it out!

        • the brother should focus more on finding the killer than keeping Steven and Dassey in jail for life. I haven’t even suspected the brother being involved

          The brother doesn’t have to focus on anything. He’s a private citizen whose sister was brutally murdered. He has no duty to behave the way you want him to.

          But he is still no better than the killer in my eyes, by not staying objective

          This is crazy talk and exactly the problem I was referring to in my original article.

          • so what if he’s a private citizen? anyone that loses a loved one by murder, should and would want to find out with certainty who the killer is….he’s a “human citizen”, and thats what most normal human beings would want as ‘justice’….are u a moron?

          • Danny, he doesn’t need to focus on finding the real killer, because as far as he’s concerned, the real killers are in jail.

      • He was not “set up.” The lawyers merely questioned law enforcement’s lack of interested in investigating them as thoroughly as they do loved ones in other cases. It was very valid to bring this point out in the series as part of law enforcement’s tunnel vision on Steve Avery.

      • This is so funny to me. It is not the defense’s burden to perform criminal investigations. It’s not documentary film makers’ burden to perform criminal investigations. The defense and documentarians both simply showed how standard police investigative procedures were ignored in both of Steven Avery’s cases.

        I would hope that should I ever turn up missing, my husband will indeed be questioned along with a myriad of other people I had recent close contact with. And that my husband, brother or any other civilian will not be escorted into the crime scene where my remains and other physical evidence will be found. No law or film school degree or police academy training needed to conclude that’s reasonable. It’s certainly far from unethical to highlight that.

        On a side note, I don’t think specifically speaking to Avery’s animal cruelty case from multiple perspectives is exactly glossing over it – he served jail time for killing his cat and it was directly dealt with in the series, with Avery himself speaking to how he missed the birth of his first child because he was serving time for that crime.

        It’s so much easier for us to look at Making a Murderer and believe the producers tried to dupe us, or that Steven Avery absolutely had to murder a human being because he once killed a cat. It’s easier because the alternative is pretty terrifying – what happened twice to Steven Avery could happen to any of us.

        • I’m amazed that so many people are convinced that there is an underground cult, consisting of police, lab techs, even the FBI… All dead set on tampering with evidence and intent on coercing the judge and jury to put Avery away again… And for what? It’s not their money he was suing for? Is this a vendetta? That many people in on the game? Maybe the simplest explanation is the right one here. Her keys in his trailer, his and her blood in her car, which was found NOT to have come from the vial. The cut on his hand, the placement etc. It just seems to make sense. How Brendon even came up with his tale is beyond me though. He has a lower IQ to be sure, but why would he confess? They didn’t give him a script? I would say SOMETHING happened here, and in the taped phone conversation to his mother he lays it out… No cops, no coercion. He later recanted when the significance of what he admitted hit home.
          But what really got me is this. Steven Avery took a cat, covered it in gasoline and threw it in the fire pit – Alive. Who does that? Who could do that? Ask yourself that. So if he was found guilty of a crime he didn’t commit, and served 18 years… Then did the crime he was convicted of, I’d say tie 18 years is irrelevant.

          • Very stupid comment. There are numerous cases of people who have been exonerated by DNA evidence (and the actual perpetrator convicted) who at one point confessed to a serious crime that they did not commit. If you’re to lazy to do the research, just reply and I’ll throw a bunch of examples your way.

          • An expert testified the test did not detect the added ingredient in the blood. It did not prove it wasn’t from the vial sample. HUGE difference.

          • I found a comment via Internet.. ( Where else)
            That the Manitowoc County was going to run out of Money to pay the lawsuit and additional monies would be coming from Manitowoc County monies ie: all employee’s of the county, police, DA’s office, and Judges Pensions. That could turn several people thoughts about becoming involved to make sure Steve Avery was guilty for good…!
            Please do not hesitate to scream at me if you say I am wrong… I can sway very easily.

          • The FBI believes the blood did not come from the vial. He testified their test proved that. You choose to believe the defense expert because you were groomed the whole show to believe the defense. The FBI investigates and prosecutes police for civil rights violations, it’s what they do. They have no interest in protected cops who plant evidence, its quite the opposite, that’s why they invented the test in the first place. If you watch the defense attorneys face when he finds out they had the test up and running in time for the trial its telling. He has a concerned expression because he knows if that blood wasn’t planted his whole they planted everything theory is toast. He’s worried because in his heart he knows it wasn’t planted.

          • “The FBI believes the blood did not come from the vial.”

            “Believes” being the operative word here. The FBI test didn’t find EDTA at the specific levels they tested for in 3 (of 6) blood samples – that’s the extent of the factual information that can be inferred from those tests.

            Unfortunately, the test did little to explain how someone would leave obvious blood smears from a supposed finger-cut, but no fingerprints around the vehicle.

            Or, even more perplexing, why Avery (assuming he was the killer) didn’t go back to the car at any moment during the next 4 1/2 full days it was supposedly sitting on the lot, visually check inside, and simply wipe up those obvious blood smears.

          • And, BTW, if you’ll recall, Buting said on camera, before the trial ever began, that he expected the FBI to come up with a test to prove the blood wasn’t from the vial. So I’m not sure why you think Buting was surprised to hear in court exactly what he had predicted in much earlier.

          • I thought the source of Brendan’s story was pretty apparent…every time he said “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” or “I wasn’t there”, the detectives interviewing him said “Oh, come on Brendan. Don’t lie to us. You were there doing XYZ, weren’t you?” and Brendan said “I was doing XYZ”.

          • Avery’s blood found in the car was not proven to not come from the vial. As the analyst testified, the test is accurate when it tests positive for the anti-coagulant, but if it tests negative (which it did) then you can’t tell if it’s negative because it’s really not present or if it’s negative because the test didn’t detect it (I.e. The test missed it because it didn’t see it). There was zero proof that it did or didn’t come from the vial. There is certainly room to speculate since the evidence was clearly tampered with.

          • It’s not their money he was suing for? Is this a vendetta? That many people in on the game? Maybe the simplest explanation is the right one here. Her keys in his trailer, his and her blood in her car, which was found NOT to have come from the vial. The cut on his hand, the placement etc. I
            Actually, it was the individual detectives money he was suing for. Did you not watch the episode where they stated that the insurance provider for the police dept. had deemed that they would not cover the City in the lawsuit, so the damages would have to come from the city and the individual law enforcement involved in the original trial? ?That’s a whole lot of motive for a small town with a smalltown operating budget, let alone the individuals that faced financial ruin.
            Her keys, which she’d owned for many years, had NONE of her DNA on the key or the fob. How is that possible? Someone had to have completely scrubbed them for them to have only contained Steven’s DNA. Was the vial containing his sample ever tested to see if it even contained the EDTA it was supposed to have contained? Not that I ever heard mentioned. Why was it opened to begin with? Explain the hole in the stopper. His blood was found in the car but not one fingerprint. So either he was wearing gloves (which would mean that he left no blood) or he managed to get his blood in her car without leaving any prints (ridiculous). Please explain the cop Colburn’s call in to dispatch to run the plates on her RAV4 several days before her car was found. You could tell by his testimony that he had no explanation for that discrepancy, none. You had better believe that Colburn and Lenc had motive to frame Steven Avery. They were about to be hit with a very large lawsuit.

          • “I’m amazed that so many people are convinced that there is an underground cult, consisting of police, lab techs, even the FBI…”

            It’s just that the historical evidence that such a cult exists is so overwhelming. The rampant corruption evident in this case is seen repeatedly in other high-profile murder cases, including many of those later attributed to ‘serial killers.’ And let’s not even get started on the various interconnected pedophile rings that have been exposed in Manhattan Beach, Omaha, D.C., Arvida, Atlanta, and too many other cities (and countries) to name.

            The ‘conspiracy theory’ slag just doesn’t carry as much weight as it used to. Big conspiracies happen. All the time. I think more and more people are starting to figure that out.

        • I would hope that should I ever turn up missing, my husband will indeed be questioned along with a myriad of other people I had recent close contact with.

          I can guarantee you if you ever go missing and your cremains are found on the salvage yard of a bunch of lowlifes with criminal records with no evidence whatsoever pointing to your husband, and the police turn up the heat on him, no one in your family is going to be happy.

          A proper investigation follows the evidence not statistics.


            If Steven had no bad intentions planned for that day, why then would he twice block (*67) his number when requesting Halbach’s services? Conversely, if someone else called and was trying to frame Steven, why then would they *67 when calling from HIS phone? Makes no sense. The “framer” would want EVERYONE to know whose phone line they were calling from to more easily implicate Steven.


            If Steven had no bad intentions planned for that day, why then would he twice block (*67) his number when requesting Halbach’s services?”

            Bad intentions don’t have to be disproved – they have to be proved.

            Steven made the *67 call(s) when Halbach was late for the appointment and due at the lot to meet him (she left a message saying she would be at the lot around 2pm). So how exactly do you spin this as something bad? He didn’t want her to know it was him calling – the exact guy she was late to a meeting with? She would know it was him – the exact guy she was late to a meeting with – the second she answered the call.

            A stalkery motive requires her to be anywhere but on her way to see him when he calls using *67.

          • Oh, c’mon, quit with the silly rhetoric about police states and turning up “heat” on the brother.

            Police certainly do routinely question family members, ex-boyfriends and the like at least early in an investigation — the cops acknowledged this was routine practice when questioned by the defense. As you know, Avery was the only apparent suspect before the police found any evidence, including the cremains. Your “logic” would also lead to the conclusion that the police should never have investigated anyone but Avery for the 1995 rape, right? They had a witness, so why bother considering anyone else? Heck, why even pay attention to a phone call from some other department about some guy who says you have the wrong person in jail. You know better!

            I’m beginning to wonder if the reason for your attack on the filmmakers is your version of “narrative tension” for the purpose of generating some talk about your site.

          • Have you ever been investigated by police? It’s not fun. And if someone in your family’s just been murdered you should absolutely not be investigated without cause.

            If you have one stick of evidence about why the internet’s favourite whipping boys should have been investigated, please, go ahead and speak up.

          • AnnB,

            You keep using the vague and loaded word, “investigated.” I’m talking about being questioned, not being charged or given the third degree.

            Have I ever been questioned by police? Yeah, not that big a deal. Not about a murder, but then I’ve never had a family member murdered.

            There’s evidence the brother and ex-BF accessed her voicemail soon after her disappearance, combined with evidence of deleted voice mails. Certainly something to question them about. They organize a search of the primary suspect’s property, give the searcher a camera and direct number to the sheriff, and it’s followed by discovery of the vehicle (amongst 4000 other cars) in 30 minutes. Raises some questions in my mind.. Evidence of being murderers? No. Evidence warranting questioning? Absolutely.

            Investigation to find a murderer and to make sure the right person is convicted may be uncomfortable or painful for family members. Unfortunate, but the lesser of two evils.

          • I’m using the word investigated because that’s what many, many people on the internet are calling for.

            Obviously when a murder happens, the police show up and question lots of people. But then they go away unless the people they question are overtly suspicious. So long as they have alibis, the cops are gone — until they learn the alibis were no good, and then they come back.

            There is absolutely no reason here to suspect the brother, ex-BF and roommate. In fact, the whole voicemail thing appears to be a red herring.

            Zimmerman, a voice mail support tech, cleared up confusion about a Nov. 2, 2005, call to Halbach’s voice mail.

            During testimony on Feb. 27, managers from two cell service providers created confusion over when Halbach last took a call on her cell phone and when her voice mail last was accessed.

            Zimmerman testified Wednesday that a record of activity at 8:05 a.m. on Nov. 2, 2005, was someone leaving Teresa Halbach a message, not someone accessing her voice mail account.

            Zimmerman testified that there were 18 messages in Halbach’s voice mail when the account records were pulled. Ten of the messages had been opened, but not saved.

            More at http://archive.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0101/703080688/Prosecution-closes-its-case

          • AnnB,

            The voicemail “red herring” you describe does not appear to be the voicemail issue I was talking about. I think you’re talking about whether or not Teresa (or someone) accessed the voicemail on November 2, when the prosecution says she was no longer alive. In the relevant part of the film, the judge prohibits any evidence on that issue. But that’s not what I was talking about…

            There also was evidence that someone (Teresa’s mother?) got a message saying the voicemail was full, but the cell phone rep said it would not have been full due to he messages in the system, raising an issue about a voicemail or voicemails from around the time of the murder being erased. Of course, the only evidence regarding anyone accessing the voicemail involved the brother and ex-BF. As defense counsel said, it would seem to be important to learn who erased anything, and why.

          • We don’t know if there was suspicious voicemail because we haven’t read the transcripts. All we know is that the defence would like us to think it was suspicious. And, given you’re a lawyer, I’m sure you know all too well how things flip in court once the other side presents its case. Given that neither of us have the full voicemail info at the moment, let’s leave it at that for now.

            My basic point, which I’ve repeated over and over again in these comments, is that you investigate people based on the evidence not statistics. When you’ve got cremains, the victim’s car and the last sighting of the victim at the Avery Salvage yard, you have no reason to investigate her brother or the ex-BF unless they are somehow connected to the AVerys.

            Calling for them to be investigated or checked out, based on nothing other than a feeling that an investigation must always check out multiple people, is just silliness. That’s not how it works.

            You go where the evidence leads you and it wasn’t leading to TEresa’s family and friends.

          • While I agree that the rebuttal to the claim that someone accessed the voicemails on the 2nd should have been included in the film (or better still, the initial discussion of it should have been edited out), you’re conflating two completely separate things.

            The following are facts:

            Mike Halbach testified in court that his mother told him that she had gotten the “mailbox full” message on Nov.3rd.

            Tony Zimmerman, Cingular network engineer, testified that if someone received the “mailbox full” message on Nov.3rd, at least one or more messages had to have been removed subsequently.

            Since I don’t think anyone in the Hallbach family is lying or involved in Teresa’s death, I have to assume someone outside the family deleted voice messages.

            Unless you have some evidence to the contrary, this is an established fact. Perhaps it’s unrelated to Teresa’s death, but you have to admit it’s a bit suspicious.

          • Didn’t we discuss the possibility that they just expired? My messages expire after five days.

          • That was *your* explanation. There was no testimony from Cingular employees that it is a possibility in this circumstance.

            In fact, Livingston testifies, “…then at least one or more messages *had* to have been removed before the message at the top of this document was received.” No mention of automatically-deleting unsaved messages, etc.

          • I have no explanation because I’m not familiar with the evidence. It was a suggestion not an explanation. My hunch is that the whole voicemail thing is a red herring.

          • Fair enough. But it’s a little disingenuous to mix your hunches up with what we have as actual evidence/testimony to. Personally, I find it bizarre that the ex was accessing the phone records of his missing ex (I can’t imagine doing the same thing if one of my ex’s I’m friends with went missing), but without evidence of anything else, it proves nothing.

          • You had my full support of your logic and thoughts behind your article until this comment here:

            ….and your cremains are found on the salvage yard of a bunch of lowlifes with criminal records with no…..

            “lowlifes”…..really? Who’s passing judgment here? It’s obvious the entire family is lacking sophistication, but to name call them like that reveals your hidden (or not so hidden) agenda. Because people are of a certain class or not from a certain class, does that make this case somehow ok?

            The whole investigation and trial were a travesty of justice from the beginning.

          • You’re stereotyping an entire family, the Avery’s, stating that they are lowlifes! That’s a problem. I hold a doctoral degree and have a very successful career in education, so does my mother and several other family members. However, we have many family members who have chosen the path of what you would consider “lowlifes”. By your statement, I can assume that you would judge me the same based on how others in my family choose to live and that is he problem I have with the entire justice system. What did the parents do? Were they criminals as well? It seemed to me like they had a functioning, somewhat successful business however you stated that the “Avery’s” are lowlifes. What did Brendan’s mom do? Why should they be held accountable for what their kids did. Maybe we can say that Brendan was not supervised. He was a minor. (Not that I believe he did it) Stevan was grown though.

          • I’m not stereotyping them. I’m calling them lowlifes based on the facts:


            The parents managed to bring up three boys who were criminals with a history of abusing women. The sister married a guy with a history of abusing women and who helped to put her son in jail.

            You can keep on pretending that they’re nice people, but they’re not. They’re one hell of a dysfunctional family. Ask the cats.

          • You are incredibly self righteous and have become quite belligerent in your responses. To call a woman who was a victim to domestic violence a lowlife is about as low as one can go……

          • You are stereotyping them…unless you don’t understand what that means. You are calling the parents lowlifes based on choices that their children made. Do you have any facts that show that the parents encouraged this behavior? It sounds like its your opinion. As stated, I hold a doctoral degree in education and my hus is in the military. We have 3 children. Two are thriving and one slips up every now and then. My son wants to fit in with the wrong crowd. Hes in several leadership programs that are designed to divert negative behavior. He just was accepted to the police cadet program. He has a state troop who is his mentor. He has a BIG Brother through BIGS. He has two hands on, hard working parents. He has a huge family network that supports him and yet, I still manage to get phone calls from the school and he just turned 14. I can’t imagine what we will go through in high school. The other two are smooth sailing.

            Example two: I was raised by a single mom. Hard working, college educated. I followed in her footsteps. My two siblings chose the street life. My brother has served prison time for choices he’s made.

            So, by your logic, my mother is a low life and so are me and my husband if my son continues to make poor choices and ends up down the wrong path. My girls are lowlifes because of their brother’s choices. I’m also a lowlife because of the choices my siblings choose to make because by your logic, my mother managed to raise them that way. Even though she didn’t make those choices and did everything she could do as a mother for all of us. SMH

            As I stated, people who think like you are what’s wrong with the system. Sad.

          • “A proper investigation follows the evidence not statistics.”

            It is fantastic to me that you keep repeating this regarding a case when pretty much every piece of evidence was found or handled in a suspicious or just plain wrong manner.

          • Ok, after you find (did they really *find* or *put* it there is another point) the remains in Avery’s pit, he has to be suspect #1. But she was missing for 5 days before that. You have no leads on anyone else. How is family and people who are close to her not at the top of the list at that point?

      • Jerry says at one point that since the police didnt follow up on any leads or suspect anyone else, that makes it much harder for them to look into it a year later after “the trail has gone cold or it has been altered.”
        Also, the ex and the brother made themselves look bad on film, i dont know what to make of the brother, but they should have at least asked the boyfriend where he was the day ahe went missing…they didnt even ask! It just makes the police look bad that they didnt explore every possible suspect.

        • Also, the ex and the brother made themselves look bad on film

          No,the directors did. And it’s very easy to make anyone look bad if that’s your goal.
          It just makes the police look bad

          they didnt explore every possible suspect.

          The brother and the ex weren’t suspects.

          • The brother made himself look bad. Was there ever a time where he showed emotion? I didn’t feel as though the documentary made him look bad. From the moment I saw him, I just felt there was something odd. What’s more odd to me is that in her home video, Teresa said “I love my sisters!” Not once did she mention her brother. There’s a lot of questions I have that will perhaps never be answered but I really believe that someone other than Steven did this. I’m not totally convinced that Brendan and another family member didn’t do this though either.

          • Siyan I completely agree with you! I too from the beginning thought something was off with the brother and the ex. There are many odd things I noticed, especially on episode 2 at 45:27. Both the brother and the ex are being questioned about being on the Avery property where the vehicle was found. They both become tripped up and studder through their response. To me they both seemed nervous and defensive. I am also unsure why they were asked by police to search a restricted area, and how that one women was lucky enough to be given a camera to document any possible findings (and a direct line to a detective). Oh and found the vehicle in less than 15/20 mins with over 40 acres full of vehicles. (Also he had every opportunity to crush and get rid of any evidence of the vehicle and it’s contents 4/5 days prior to its being found)

            Secondly, when the ex took the stand he made himself look very guilty! He made a distinctive face when he admitted to accessing Teresa’s cell phone account by “guessing a username” and “figuring her password had to do with her sister and their birth dates”. (Again sisters) He knew he violated her privacy by illegally breaking into her account. I find that extrodinary that he was able to figure all that information out on his own. (Notice the look of concern and fear on the brothers face through the the ex’s testimony and through most of the defense’s case).

            Thirdly, I believe the brother to be cold and fixated on Avery’s guilt. Not only that, he seemed emotionless in almost every interview or statrement. (That is not the documentary portraying him that way, that is cold hard video taken not only by them but also could be seen on any media outlet at the time).

            I was very much taken aback that when Avery was found guilty that the family did not crack a smile! For them the case was closed and the murderer was going to be bought to justice! Even in his statement following the conviction there was no emotion showing his happiness.

            It angered me that during Brendan’s case the brother insinuated that the 15 year old cousin Kayla perjured herself under oath to save her cousin! You could see from her sitting on the stand that she was about to break. She herself could have faced serious consequences by doing so. Again another minor questioned without representation.

            Lastly I too notice she made no mention of loving her brother. She mentioned a plethora of things she loved, but not him.

            While I am not saying the brother or ex killed her, I think they definitely seemed to know more than they led on.

            The ex couldnt even remember if the last time he had seen her was during the day or evening! That is a little odd! The ex even admitted on the stand that he was never asked for an alibi, nor could he remember if he was alone or with the roommate when being interviewed…and if they were, where were their written statements? That is another example of how Avery was the only one being looked at as a suspect.

            Also any reason why a polygraph was not given to anyone? Avery, Brendan, or the officers who were being accused of wrongdoing and whose reputation and integrity was Being questioned?!

            Anyway, I am not saying Avery is innocent or guilty, I honestly don’t know. I can see both sides. However, I do believe that most evidence from the prosecuter was circumstantial and I am still unsure of the motive Avery would have had. I do think he should be given another trial in a different state to be given a chance!

      • Well, I read an interview with the directors where they say they tried to talk to the Halbachs, so they could engage on the production like the Averys, give their side oh the story, etc. But they didn’t want to.

        They prefered – and had the right to – stay distant. So that’s why all the production have is Mike’s official’s statements after court sessions. So from a journalist’s perspective: the filmmakers couldn’t explore the Halbachs family history, they couldn’t show Mike crying, or the family grieving, because the Halbachs didn’t want to.

        So yeah, when you chose to not give your side of the story, you are necessarily admiting a risk of being misrepresented. That’s life.

        And I have to disagree. I don’t think the film makes you think the ex-boyfriend or the brother did it. The lawyers kind of pointed this out on court. That’s it. They were on stand. They were not giving interviews for the filmmakers.

        • So yeah, when you chose to not give your side of the story, you are necessarily admiting a risk of being misrepresented. That’s life.

          Even when you tell your side of the story, there are zero guarantees, it will be told as you want it.

          Whether they participate or not, the filmmakers are always required to be fair in a situation like this. And they weren’t. That’s why thousands of people are calling for the boyfriend’s head and an investigation of the ex-BF.

      • Your argument fails to take into the account the fact that the defense team very clearly intended to cast suspicion on the ex-BF, questioning him about the voice mail inquiries, calling a phone company witness to show deleted messages, etc. These questions were not raised by the filmmakers alone — and the defense either did not get all their questions (contrary to your assumptions) or else it was the defense not the filmmakers who should be blamed for underhanded tactics.

      • Just got done watching the film and there is nothing that i saw that says anything adout them being involved in any murder only layed out a series of events as they unfolded. Take it as you will. But based off of what i see there is alot of things that dont make any sence reasonalble doubt and thats what leaves it open. Its obsered to me that the powers to be are alowed to manipulat the system so unethiclly. Acountable for nothing. It a terrable thing that happend and truth not a conviction is whats important there is no blood exept in that car and how did that happen??

      • I don’t think that documentary filmmakers did that at all. I watched the thing from start to finish with no breaks. At no time did I feel I was being lead to suspect anything about the brother, ex boyfriend, or roommate, other than they were just as manipulated and victimized by the complete and total mishandling by the police. I did however immediately feel uncomfortable with Scott and Bobby’s inconsistencies coupled with Scott’s publicly proclaimed hatred of Steve Avery.

        • Alma,
          After watching the film, I need the unanswered questions of forensic science to be answered. I want Smart CSI Persons to put the puzzle together for me to satisfy the obvious exclusions of the Documentary.

          1. How did the body of this women transform from a dead body into multiple bone fragments?

          The Evidence places Teresa on the Avery Property in a RAV4.
          The Evidence Indicates Blood from Teresa in the back of the RAV4.
          There is Evidence that bone Fragments of Teresa Halbach are in & around the burn barrel.
          The evidence proves Bone Fragments of Teresa Halbach are found in the burn pile located in the back yard of S. Avery Home

          To The 12 Jurors who Convicted Brendan Dassey of Mutilation of the Body of Teresa Halbach.

          1. Where was the original Crime Scene located on the Property that provided Blood & DNA from Teresa Halbach’s Body mixed with DNA & Fingerprints from Brendan Dassey?

          2. Where is the evidence of Tools, Equipment, Machinery, Knives, Hammer’s, grinders, blenders, crematories, and other objects that Brendan Dassey utilized to mutilate the Body of Teresa Halbach?

          3. How did the 12 Jurors decide that Brendan Dassey should be Charged with Mutilation of a Corpse? ? ? ? What “Evidence” convinced 12 persons who were sworn to listen to the evidence and prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt….. That this was True???

          Somebody tell me …..
          Where is the Evidence of Sperm from a Donor that was found in the body of Teresa Halbach?

          How about Semen from any male found in the RAV4?

          Or… . Semen mixed with DNA of Teresa Halbach anywhere among the thousands of Vehicles on the 40 acres of Wisconsin Land.


          How did 12 Persons Convict Brendan Dassey BARD that he committed 1st Degree Sexual Assualt?????
          Was there Semen on the Bedspread located in Steve Avery’s home?? Or some kind of Telepatic Secret Sauce spread across the perfectly clean bedspread..

          IMO, unlike the “Fargo Mentally Challenged Inbreds of the Brendan Dassey Jurors”, I believe that the search of Professional CSI Staff would find out theses answers and maybe the Evidence would lead to Brendan’s Step – Dad, Scott and Brother Bobby.

          • in Brandons interview with the police he said that Avery burned the body than smashed it up with a shovel. Steve Avery is truly an evil man who prison is to good for, Brandon also confessed to having sex with her,

          • Say what you will about Steve Avery. Anyone who believes anything from BRENDAN’s “confession” is just as twisted as Kenny “The Prize” Kratz.

      • The Halbach’s declined to participate in the documentary. The footage you see of Mike Hallbach is from The media. I never got the impression that the brother or ex or roommate were involved from viewing the film. I always thought it had to be an Avery because this all boils down to access.

      • Thank you for your analysis. I didn’t get the impression that the Halbach brother did it, although he’s unlikable. I thought it was Bobby Dassey. Interesting theory about the need to keep the parents on board by playing down the other sons’ possible involvement….Steven shouldn’t have hurt the cat.

      • I never suspected the brother. He just did appear to have something off about him, and I dont think that was the filmakers intention to lead you to that conclusion. They simply just filmed him. His behavior is what made him suspicious. I think the ex bf and roommate should have been looked at closer, I don’t actually ever recall ever seeing the roommate.

      • I think the filmmakers’ focus on the brother and boyfriend stems from these two men’s willingness to throw Steven under the bus, rather than look for justice for their murdered sister and girlfriend.

        When the brother says that he knows what Steven is like as a person on the inside, and that is why he knows Steven did it… Sure, the filmmakers probably cut the film to make it more compelling, but that is a very STRONG, DRAMATIC statement to make. One that wasn’t edited. One that speaks to the brother’s mindset. Why would you throw someone under the bus like that?

        If one of my loved one was, god forbid, murdered, I would want to know everything I could about the murder. If the investigators of the crime had a very negative relationship with the prime (or only) suspect, I would want different investigators, because the worst fear would be that the wrong person would be convicted and the murderer of my loved one go free.
        Why was Teresa’s family not so concerned for justice?

        • To be frank Carly, I don’t think you or I have any idea how we would react if a daughter or sibling were brutally murdered.

      • Ann, some nice thoughts of yours and thank you for sharing. However, there are some things you might want to consider:

        1. The police suspected Mr. Avery while Teresa (even to the point of wanting him in custody) although there was no evidence of a crime or of foul play and certainly no evidence that Mr. Avery had an involvement.

        2. Teresa’s brother, ex-boyfriend, and roommate were never suspected and never investigated by the police. This was stated by the men themselves and by the police. As several astute posters have pointed out, in a murder those closest to the victim should be investigated. This never happened. This is simply a fact.

        3. The police never investigated the messages left on Teresa’s phone. It was the defense that called the expert witness from the phone company. It was the defense that provided the evidence that the phone and its messages had been illegally tampered with. And it was Michael Halbach and Teresa’s ex-boyfriend who admitted under oath that they had tampered with the evidence. This was never investigated by the police, never followed up by the police or prosecutor.

        4. Those three men were allowed to conduct a search for Teresa soon after she went missing, and this included entering private property. In the normal world the search would be conducted by the police, perhaps with the participation of family members. Further these men were allowed onto the crime scene by the police after it was cordoned off.

        5. Teresa’s brother Michael seemed strongly bent on seeing both the Avery’s convicted. You may accept this and that is fine. But for many people they acted very suspicious, especially Michael. One would think that the family would want the real killer(s) caught.

        6. Just bear in mind that Mr. Avery has already served 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Perhaps this does not move you. Bear in mind too that it was the same police department that wrongly prosecuted him and let another rapist go free to continue to rape for 18 years. Perhaps that does not move you either. Consider that if Mr. Avery did not do this, a killer is still on the loose and likely still killing.

        7. Mr. Avery is just one person who has been wrongfully imprisoned. There are thousands and thousands in our country. Maybe you do not care about these men, women, and children. Just bear in mind this is due, not only to police, prosecutors, federal investigators, and judges that are not held responsible, but even more so due to a public that permits and encourages an abusive justice system. Again, you may not care about this. But your children and family members should because this not only means that such sentiments participate in the miscarriage of justice, but it also threatens the well-being and even lives of those you care about.

        It would be enjoyable to read your response. Thank you for your interesting blog. Perhaps do your homework and it will be improved.

        • This is probably the best comment in the whole thread and im just wondering why there is no response from the author.

          • Because it’s full of misinformation. As Alberto Brandolini so wisely said, “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

      • How then would you charcterize. the news media blitz, and the yellow journalism, displayed by all the news stations, would that also be dispicable.

    • Agree with Ray. A bonfire would never cremate a body like that.

      Why was her SUV called in by one of the officers days before they “found” they found it on the Avery property?

      Also agree with amy marie, pretty sloppy journalism in this article.

        • WHY would Steven Avery burn the body at the quarry and then move the remains to HIS OWN PROPERTY to be discovered and incriminate him???

          • People hide bodies on their own properties all the time. It’s not easy to dump a body.

            Both scenarios have their advantages and disadvantages.

          • May be true, AnnB, but it is perplexing to think that Avery would use the extreme care needed to remove fingerprints and trace amounts of dna and blood from numerous places, and then do stupid things like dumping the body in a huge fire right outside his door . . . particularly since he would surely know that he would be linked to Teresa’s visit to his property the same day. Any idiot would realize it would be a lot less risky to dump or burn the body just about anywhere else.

      • Exactly! It is very very difficult to burn a body into small fragments in a bonfire in your back yard! A body can burn beyond recognition of course, but the fragments that were found seems unrealistic. Poor forensics!

        I also think the judge didn’t do the defense any favors. Murder 101…. most murders are committed by someone the close to the victim.

        I am wondering why the Halbach family isn’t actively pursuing the real murderer!? I know they want to place blame, but come on! Seek the truth…. not a conviction!

        • Perhaps the reason the Halbachs were not interested in getting at the REAL truth is because they knew who the real killer or killers were and did not want to FACE that truth. It would be far easier to accept that a stranger killed their daughter rather than their own son. If the authorities find someone else to blame then they are relieved of the real truth. There are far to many inconsistencies throughout the entire case for any of the evidence to be trusted.

          • I let this ugliness through as an example of where MaM led. I can’t blame the filmmakers for this person’s vile opinions, but I do blame them for making Mike Halbach look terrible.

        • Hearing them lie like that, LIVE, on camera. Regardless of the “editorializing” by the filmmakers, or even the decisions of this article writer… It’s very disgusting, evil, to think that cops need to lie in order to get a conviction, even if all they were doing is “stretching the truth” as allowed for by the defense team. (stating that cops plant evidence when they think someone is guilty).

          It’s just very sad that we live in a country that Judges give so much lee way to the cops; that we ALL know that cops lie, they are NEVER telling the truth. I’ve seen it in courtrooms myself. When the truth would suffice? They choose to lie. And they are skilled and practiced at it, they have years of getting on the stand.

          That cop who called that in? It makes you wonder how they sleep at night? How they can have children, and wives and families and yet still sleep knowing that they have to lie in order to do their jobs. Even if Avery did it? Why lie?

          Kind of turns my stomach, and makes me sad.

        • When is it stated that steel belted tires were placed on the body? How would anyone even know this?

          • It is my thought — as I keep hearing this across the internet as some sort of clue to SA guilt — that Brendan and SA when they drove around the lot picking up things to burn that night in their bonfire, inadvertently put those items (steel belt included) on top of the cremains that were already placed into his fire pit. Otherwise, someone went back to that pit, stirred it up with the bones being placed within and everything got jumbled together.

            Most important of all is the thing people keep missing here: there is way too much reasonable doubt to have convicted him. It is not beyond all doubt in this country, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt…a lower threshold.

    • Have all of you forgot about the call one of the cops made back to his office asking about the licence plate number of Theresa’s car and he told the office it was a green Rav4 before the lady at the office informed him. Sounds to me that the cop was trying to identify a dead girl in a rav4 and then used the vehicle to transfer Theresa to wherever she was burned (bood stains in the back of vehicle)

        • And the thing that made it even more suspicious was that Colborn didn’t seem prepared (he didn’t seem to be aware of the fact that it was coming up in the trial), so his story of not having a memory of making the call or of getting the plate number from Weigert seemed a stretch (he could have arranged a story with Weigert beforehand). I mean, it was the day that Halbach was reported missing – wouldn’t you have some memory of whatever prep. work you might do at the start?

      • You don’t want to forget however, that it was the Defense Lawyer’s argument that “Police set up guilty people… They plant evidence when someone is guilty… ” then… “The police plant evidence when they THINK someone is guilty..”

        The Lawyer handed the case to the prosecutor at that point, I cringed when I heard that argument….

        Avery should have taken a Hung Jury, when the juror excused himself for an emergency, it was Avery’s choice… bad move. Anytime you get a hung jury? Take it.

        • Police aren’t judges – *any time* they plant evidence it’s because they think the suspect is guilty – or else some ulterior motive.

          And it wasn’t a hung jury – it would have just been a mistrial. Same thing again; more money. And I personally think Steven’s defense lawyers did a good job – I think he would have been acquitted in any community that hadn’t been so prejudicially affected by salacious pre-trial press conferences.

          • I think the US should switch to the UK model – e.g. no suspects or names of those arrested are released to the press. The only time info should come from the police should be when trying to solicit the help of the public, and the only time info should come from the prosecution is post-trial.

          • The US doesn’t routinely announce names of suspects or people under investigation.

            And the UK definitely announces the names of those arrested who are charged.

            ETA: What shouldn’t happen ever is crazy press conferences like Kratz held. That would never happen in the UK, and I can’t understand how they got away with it even in the US.

          • “The US doesn’t routinely announce names of suspects or people under investigation.”

            Of course they do. It’s common practice in the US – “person of interest” being one of the euphemisms.

            “And the UK definitely announces the names of those arrested.”

            No, they don’t. They normally do it when the person is charged, which is a separate procedure (although police can even withhold a name then if they have consulted the prosecutors). Many times people are arrested, questioned, and never charged – so their name is never made public.

          • Well, I’m in Canada and we use “person of interest” here too, mostly in gang related matters.

            And, whoops, I should have said charged, which is what I meant. AFAIK, the US doesn’t name people until they’re charged except in exceptional circumstances, which also happens in the UK.

          • It happens a lot in the US that the name of someone being investigated is leaked (I guess by cops or prosecutors). And sure, many times the person being investigated is eventually charged. But quite a few people have had their lives ruined merely by the taint of investigation.

            Of course, leaks happen in the UK as well – but I would hope that the Canadian system is closer to that of the English, and as such, wouldn’t allow that horrible sideshow for the press which was put on by Ken Kratz, describing lurid, invented details of the crime one year before Avery’s trial.

          • The Kratz sideshow should not have happened in the US. Period. It was exceptional even for the US. It doesn’t happen regularly there, and, frankly, I’m astounded there weren’t major consequences.

            And no it would never happen here. Once someone is charged the police pretty much no longer talk about the details of the case unless they need public assistance with the investigation.

            I’m a little surprised that you’re now going on about how leaking of investigations can ruin people’s lives. Of course it can, which is precisely the point of my article.

            POlice and journalists should not point the finger at people unless they are going to be charged.

          • It’s not quite the same thing. It isn’t an ongoing investigation (Wisconsin will *never* spend one more cent investigating this crime unless forced by the Federal Government) and it’s almost 10 years in the past.

            But I don’t disagree with you that people are formulating outrageous ideas and lies about the brother and Ryan based on virtually nothing; I just don’t agree that it was intentional by the filmmakers. Even as an observer, you must have noticed how waves of hysteria seem to be able to sweep over large portions of the not-very-well-educated American public at the drop of a hat. After the recent Paris attacks, many Americans were in a tizzy over terrorism (there was talk about banning Muslim immigration) even though it had nothing to do with the States. It’s like the country has an “OUTRAGE” button, which causes many of them to start acting crazy and saying idiotic things.- and “Making a Murderer” has pushed it good and proper.

            I’ve read a lot of interviews and statements by Ricciardi and Demos, and it sounds like they were trying to be as careful as they could to avoid smearing people unduly,etc. but of course they’ve made some mistakes. But they had to condense hours of courtroom material down, and to me, it appears they tried to get in the most important pieces of evidence, most important pieces of testimony, and everything that was unexplained or seemed suspicious – because of the whiff of evidence tampering by the police.

            As you know (since I’ve commented here a lot), I’ve been trying to investigate many of the claims made by people that the filmmakers left out a lot of information that is damning to Avery. But virtually everything I’ve seen so far that was left out was circumstantial in the slightest – such as Avery having bought the bondage toys. Does it look good? No. But that’s because of the story invented and perpetuated by the prosecution. We don’t even know if Teresa was raped, let alone imprisoned. If we knew for certainty that she was shot during commission of a robbery, no one would even pay attention to the sex toys.

            So far, the thing I think they screwed up worst on was the rebuttal of the Nov.2nd checking of voicemails. Why did they even leave the part in the film where it was mentioned since it was refuted in the end? It makes me wonder if they somehow missed all or a portion of the last day of prosecution testimony, since it’s hard to imagine they’d leave such a blatant error in the film intentionally.

        • The defense never said that, they said they frame them because they think they’re guilty, little different

        • Avery did not know it was a hung jury at that time. His lawyer mentioned it after the verdict was in. Until then, they just guess how things are going—the longer the better.

    • Clearly justice did not take place in this case … What are the people of Wisconsin going to demand of their officials? What is the state going to do ? What a sad example of good justice and police work.

    • How were the police “obviously manipulating the body”? Also, the fire pit location, is behind the garage; clearly pointed out several times. The rest of your statements are weirdly speculative. You’re an idiot, in short.

      • Bone fragments were found in three seperate locations on the property. Questions…
        1. Were all fragments found in all three locations tested and proved to be the victims?
        2. Were all fragments tested for mineral exposure to try to pin down the original burn site? The barrel contains more steel, the fire pit contains more soil, the quarry contains more natural stone.
        3. Were there any mineral contents present that did not exist in all three of these locations?

    • This is ridiculous. Mike lost his sister and your “opinion ” is unwarranted and completely ridiculous

    • Honestly, I don’t think that the filmmakers were really implying that the Brother, roommate or Boyfriend were the killers. Ever heard of contrarian view? The purpose of casting a small scintilla of doubt on them was to reinforce the Lawyers point of the police being so one-tracked minded on the avery case. It is a fair point that the closer ones should at least be considered ALONGSIDE the person who last saw her.
      Just my opinion

      • Agreed.. I also feel that if it was the filmmakers’ intent was to smear or cast suspicion on the brother or make him seem cold and unfeeling toward his sister’s death they would have left out his plead to the judge on the day of Avery’s sentencing where he clearly expresses emotion at the loss of his sister.

        • Stop blaming the film makers for uncovering the corrupt police work in letting the real rapist go while arresting and convicting with coerced testimony a man they knew or should have known was innocent. Then because they wanted to save face and 36 million dollars planted evidence to try and convict the same person of another crime.

    • Where is the documentation of this inbreeding in the Avery family? If it was my family that was being accused of Inbreeding ,I would file a lawsuit for Defamation of Character against my accusers. Does this happen a lot in Manitowoc County?

      I find it fascinating that O’kelly testifies that one of his friends told him about this inbreeding problem in the Avery family and it needs to be stopped. Implying that there are more people involved in this. It also implies that there are a group of people out there that are bent on taking justice into there own hands.

      I’m not going to give an opinion here on guilt or innocence. All this documentary does is show how corrupt the Manitowoc Justice system is. And they are digging themselves a deeper hole in the ground. I bet the property values are starting to go down.

      And then Kratz gets fired over a sexting scandal. A corrupted evidence file. WOW. The integrity of the Manitowoc County Justice System is now lower then Whale Shit!

    • Why was Avery’s Dna (not blood) found on the hood latch of the rav 4. Brendan told the investigators that he helped Avery disconnect the Battery in Teresa’s Rav 4. Why did this not get in the series?

      • My best guess? Because the story of the discovery of the DNA raises even more questions of either the competency or the truthfulness of the law enforcement officials involved.

        According to their accounts, the DNA sample from the latch was taken on March 3rd, as a result of Brendan’s statements. But if that’s true, then it means one of the following two statements is also true:

        1) The police, although in possession of Halbach’s SUV, did not bother opening the hood and discovering that the battery was disconnected for 4 months.

        – or –

        2) The police, although discovering that the SUV’s battery had been disconnected in November, did not then check the latch and battery compartment for DNA for 4 months.

        In either case, there *is* one thing they did do during those 4 months. They arrested Steven Avery and took DNA swabs and samples from him.

      • I am of two minds on this point.

        First of all, and this is pure speculation based on the facts available, it is possible that during one of several documented interactions between SA and TH she asked for (or he proffered) assistance with her vehicle while at the yard. My understanding is that SA has auto mechanic skills, both from the salvage yard and from his time in prison. This could have come up in conversation between the two regarding vehicles arising from their Auto Trader affairs. For instance, suppose they were discussing the attributes of the van (“it’s got a fresh battery, n’all!”) with a segue to a problem with TH’s vehicle that can be quickly inspected.

        Having discovered this DNA evidence, the investigators could have fed the scenario to Brendan in the same manner as other aspects of his “confession”. He has proven to be very malleable in the hands of seasoned interrogators.

        An alternative scenario is that the evidence was planted (or attributed – theoretically it need not even have been planted for physical collection, but I would hope there is some documentation to back it up) in this location based on evidence collected from SA’s person following information obtained from Brendan.

        Essentially, since SA and TH did have prior interactions that involved vehicles it is not difficult to imagine scenarios that would account for his DNA on the hood latch that are not specific to a theory that places him at a crime scene.

        • Except that he gave her the creeps and she asked her boss not to send her there again. He tricked her into coming there that day…by giving a different name and phone number and blocking his number using *67. No way She wouldn’t ask someone like that to look at her car.

          • “Except that he gave her the creeps…”

            False. This is a fabrication by Ken Kratz and is unattributed to any of Teresa’s co-workers.

            “…and she asked her boss not to send her there again.”

            False. This is a fabrication by Ken Kratz and is unattributed to Teresa’s boss.

            “He tricked her into coming there that day…by giving a different name and phone number”

            False. This is a fabrication by Ken Kratz. He gave the name of Barb Janda – the actual owner of the car that Teresa would be photographing and selling – totally standard operating procedure. Teresa knew she was going to the Avery Salvage lot, and mentioned it to other people at work.

            “…and blocking his number using *67.”

            Another “embellishment” of Ken Kratz. According to Dean Strang, Avery’s lawyer, Steven used *67 often to maintain his privacy, due to his “celebrity” status surrounding the Innocence Project release and subsequent huge lawsuit against the county. And Steven was calling Teresa using *67 when she was 30 minutes late to their meeting – absolutely noting unusual here at all.

          • You keep saying this is false when you have no idea if it is true or false.

            What you know is that the source of the current story is Ken Kratz.

            We have no idea if this is how the receptionist would have testified if her testimony on this subject had been allowed.

          • Actually Ann it is in the trial transcript. The jury was not allowed to hear the receptionist’s testimony, but she testified. And she did not say that Theresa said he was creepy and that she never wanted to go back there. As a PI and a journalist, I would expect you to be more responsible about what you say and claim as facts.

          • I’m not claiming it as fact at all. I just finished saying “we don’t know.”

            And, yes, the transcript would clear it up except AFAIK, the transcripts are not available for me to check.

            If you have a link, please provide it and we will clear this up once and for all.

          • “We have no idea if this is how the receptionist would have testified if her testimony on this subject had been allowed.”

            The receptionist told her story to reporters outside of the courtroom. You think she just forgot to mention the important detail of Halbach saying she was scared of Avery and that she didn’t want to go back to the salvage lot?

            “What you know is that the source of the current story is Ken Kratz.”

            There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone associated with Halbach ever said the things Kratz claimed they heard Halbach say about Avery and the Salvage lot. And considering that Ken Kratz was responsible for so much misinformation, wrong information, and outright fabrication around this case in general, unless evidence surfaces to the contrary, I will assume it is more of the same from Kratz: untruths.

          • The receptionist told her story to reporters outside of the courtroom.

            That’s strange because where I’m from you can’t report on stuff that’s said in court when the jury’s not present until the trial’s over. Nor would you be able to report on it just because someone repeated it on the courthouse steps. You might cause a mistrial.

            So either the law’s different in the US or something’s not quite right in your account.

          • She said it in court outside the presence of the jury. The judge did not allow her to testify about the towel encounter because date and time weren’t clear. She then continued to testify in front of the jury that Avery called the morning of the 31st asking for Theresa to come take pictures. She also stated that she knew she was going to the Avery’s for the appointment.

          • Where’s the transcript? What’s your source?

            In Canada, while a trial is in progress, you can’t report on what’s said in court when the jury’s not present until the jury retires to make its decision. So I’m curious as to where you’re getting this information.

          • I wonder why the article fails to mention the Weigert phone call to Remmiker to get him to tell the searchers to look on the salvage lot? I’ve been assuming it wasn’t introduced at trial, since in the documentary it seemed as if the filmmakers had gotten a copy of it, but that it wasn’t presented as evidence. I’d love to hear from Strang and Buting if they knew about it, and if so, why it wasn’t used?

          • You started this by saying it was in the trial transcript but you have failed to produce the transcript.

            The newspaper report is helpful so thank you, but, as I have just pointed out, in Canada reporters are not allowed to report — while a trial is still in progress — what is said when the jury is not in the room. My point is that the receptionist may have provided details that authenticate the Kratz account, but without the transcript we simply can’t know.

          • Well, I don’t know what the law is in the US, but the news story specifically mentions where/when she repeated the story and quoted her verbatim. In any case, it’s the only record we have of someone that actually knew Halbach relating the towel incident.

    • The police don’t care about being legit, they just need a story so they throw a few bones in make a claim and its accepted. It probably isn’t even her bones. She is probably still alive. Its easy for cops to just plant the evidence as they have all the access they need to do so.

      • Me too! But not from the film makers slant on things, just from how he behaved, the film makers cannot falsify his behaviours, what he said, or his demeanour. It is weird that he had her voicemail password – my brother doesn’t have mine, nor does my ex-boyfriend! All weird and not followed up on, weird! Both Steven Avery and Brandon Dassey are innocent. I was right about Ken Kratz – he looked very ‘wrong’ from the outset and then his sexting case was revealed. My instincts are usually right and they were about him, so one day I maybe saying, ‘see I was right about the brother’, who knows.

    • If Steven Avery killed Teresa Hulback why would he leave her keys in his bedroom and her car on his lot both sure to be found?

      • Because he has an iq of 70? And he probably thought because of the previous case he would be untouchable… Again. IQ of 70

        • “Because he has an iq of 70? And he probably thought because of the previous case he would be untouchable… Again. IQ of 70”

          People seem to think a low measured IQ means that someone’s a drooling idiot that would forget the most basic things and be unable to comprehend the ramifications of actions. It doesn’t. IQ tests measure a certain type of educated learning, and they are loaded with bias.

          • Why do you keep saying this is false? The receptionist said she didn’t like Avery nr appreciate him opening the door in a towel. Are you disputing these facts?

          • “Why do you keep saying this is false? The receptionist said she didn’t like Avery nr appreciate him opening the door in a towel. Are you disputing these facts?”

            Yes, these aren’t facts – you (and Kratz before) are embellishing. The only non-Kratz-attributed story ever reported is:

            “She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel,’’ Pliszka said while the jury was outside of the courtroom. “I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’

            Sounds a normal female reaction to a-not-very-attractive, middle-aged guy in a towel; nothing more.

            If you can find any source (not attributed to Kratz) that ever says she didn’t “like” Avery, etc. feel free to post it.

    • One thing I found very intriguing was in the closing arguments of Stevens trial the prosecution said Teresa was killed in her car.
      Then at Dasseys trial they said his story about killing her in the trailer was true, so which is it???

      • That has been bothering me as well. How can there be 2 kill sites with one body? It seems like the lawyers for both defendants missed questioning a lot of inconsistencies. I guess maybe we didn’t see it in the 10 hours presented.

        • One of the tricks the prosecution was able to get away with because the two defendants were being tried separately. They knew they had to use Brendan’s account in his trial because his “confession” was the only evidence they had. In Steven’s trial the prosecution didn’t ask Brendan any questions about what he allegedly saw or did in the trailer so they could use the bullet/garage evidence without being inconsistent. Their wasn’t any inconsistent evidence before Steven’s jury, so the defense couldn’t make an issue of it. And of course the defense wasn’t going to call Brendan

    • I completely agree with you Ray on the fact that this case was railroaded form the beginning to put Steven Avery away for something he never did and to show how corrupt the legal system is being the Wisconsin. How many searches do there have to be to finally find something, maybe 8 with 2 officials who were never suppose to be inside the home of Steven Avery.

      Thanks to James Lenk the infamous key was found by him in which he defiantley planted it and Andy Cohburn who called in the license plate 3 days before the Toyota Rav 4 had been found by the Aunt of the family member, this is just a little too suspicious. And just to note when the Aunt said she was on the property and found the Toyota Rav 4 within 20-25 minutes of a very large property that from an Ariel view looks the property was holding about between hundreds to thousands of vehicles and she finds the one vehicle her niece was driving in under 30 minutes, tell me that’s not just dumb luck.

      Lets also look at the fact that during the investigation that Teresa had mentioned to a college about a suspicious cell number that had come up more than once and she mentioned infront of him ” Oh not him again ” and proceeds to hang up. Did anyone follow up on who this caller was and this could be a stalker that Teresa had that we didn’t know about. Let alone the fact that the ex-boyfriend hacked into her phone and got the password and he’s telling us they guessed it from birth years, give me a break.

      The ex-boyfriend should be heavily looked at, he played very coy when asked by Avery’s Lawyers that he doesn’t recall the time of day when he last saw Teresa when he stopped by to drop something off and she was there. Like Avery’s Lawyers said, when someone goes missing or ends up dead you look at all the people close to them first, boyfriend, room mate, family etc.

      I do 100% believe Steven Avery is not guilty and their should be a closer look into the ex-boyfriend,

      I also believe they should look at Bobby Dassey and his father as i would also not hesitate to think that these two could have killed Teresa, burned her body and planted the bones in the burn pit behind Steven Avery’s house. Bobby and his father are the only two people who can verify there whereabouts in which no one else can. That makes for a pretty tight alibi for both and a possible blackmailing from Bobby’s father for the $36 million Steven Avery may have received from the first settlement.

      • Bobby & Scott good team.
        Knows the property.
        Both saw the woman.
        Both have each other for time line.
        Both have same story of going hunting but in ” different Directions.
        No discussion of where they hunted or what they Killed..???

        The Avery Brothers…. .???
        I bet the Police just voted not to investigate these 2…
        Too much work.. Easier to just hang one Brother.
        Great for Speculation… But If the Police would have Stayed on the Salvage Yard and did “Some” type of investigation maybe we would have know the real Truth. Maybe we would not be speculating Who Really Killed the woman.
        We would know that Steve Avery did not.

        I think that every CS investigation team member Cringed at the “Story” of Brendan Slicing her Throat on the Bedspread. Steven stabbing her in the stomach on the bedspread. Brendan raping her on the Bedspread… And this Team of Bizzare Policemen….?? Do not even send the non- Bloddy, Non- Semen Stained Bedspread to the FBI… Why?? Because the Eagle Eye of the Team did not want to know the Forensic Truth to become evidence that There is no truth to Teresa alive or half dead body was ever lying on that Bedspread… Case Closed no Rape…..

        Yet, but up there in Wisconsin Twelve Wisconsinites Saw the Same Bizzare Twisted Scene that Brendan Saw…
        They envisioned the Image of Brendan’s Strange False drawings and found him Guilty…of 1st Degree Sexual Assault.

        Footnote… Do not Travel near Manitowok Wisconsin. Unless you want to be Present for Brendan’s New Trial, Steven’s release, new Evidence obtained that ……….was or were arrested for the Real Murder of Teresa Halbach.

    • I lived in Wisconsin from 2000 to 2010, 20 minutes from Mishicot. Teresa’s murder was the heading lining story for 2 years. I know the trial well. Her brother had NOTHING to do with her murder. To suggest or imply it, is wrong. This documentary is not about justice for Steven Avery, it’s about filmmakers distorting the truth for their own benefit. Any person that watches this one sided 10 hour story and thinks they know what happened has been fooled. Sadly, a beautiful young girl was horrifically murdered and people should respect her memory. Thank you for your story and clarifying the truth.

    • This artlicle is nonsense. “Evertime Mike speaks he is made to say something that has just been debunked by the defense”…. Really? He isn’t MADE to say anything. This is’nt a scripted soap opera. He just SAYS things that have been debunked by the defense. He isn’t a character in a story, his lines were not written they were spoken.

      • She’s speaking of how his comments were spliced and edited and presented adjacent to defense debunking.

    • Talk about wild speculation!

      A psychopathic women hatting abuser whose sexual obsession was thwarted – what do you think he did when he finally got her alone. Bow out gracefully and let her go on her way? He raped her, murdered her and burned her body.

      God bless her, she was innocent and suffered a horrible death. But any compassion for her and her family is a mere inconvenience in this fairytale. Thankfully, he will spend the rest of his miserable useless life in prison.

      The good thing is that he is thinks he will be freed to rape and murder again. Won’t he be enraged when he doesn’t get what he wants. His lawyer better not be in the cell with him.

      • Can we all agree that those who are not familiar with this case, and I’m not just talking about the documentary but also media coverage, Nancy Grace etc… Should keep their uneducated opions to themselves because a lot of people on here obviously have no knowledge of this case out side a documentary or one sided media. If your gonna have an opinion at least be able to support it or know what your commenting on.
        I mean bring up a past rape is ridiculous. He was cleared of charge. They even have the guilty man behind bars who was taking others in that area. Even the other counties police department told them that it was not Avery. Rather than admit they were wrong they buried the evidence. The women who was rapped has even met Avery talked to him and apologised for her mistake. And some of you are still judging him by a past crime that he never commited.
        Seriously educate yourselves on this case then come give an argument cause you just sound judgmental and dumb right now.

    • I would like to know who killed Teresa. I personally think Steven Avery’s lawyers did a VERY good job showing that Tersea’s DNA is NO WHERE found in Steven’s trailer (which it would be all over the place if she was raped and throat slit). No marks on the bed post where she was tied up with chains. Her DNA was NOT found in the garage (where she was reportedly shot). Her DNA was NOT even found on HER keys that were found in Steven’s trailer. There is also no evidence of any cleaning that went on to get rid of any of her DNA. Steven Avery’s DNA had been tampered with from his 1985 conviction (easily could have been placed into Teresa’s RAV4 – the FBI test that they ran to dispute this is a joke). There is no murder weapon(s) – knife or gun. The cops had 8 DAYS alone at the Avery compound. The cops interviewed Brendan ALONE when he was 16 (those interviews should not have ever seen the court room or should have been shown in their entirety). Brendan’s first lawyer was totally out to get him. So going back to my first sentence. . .who killed Teresa? She was obviously NOT killed on the Avery property. Yes her bones were found there, but I think it was the cops who burned her body there (over the 8 days). I don’t think they killed her but I do think they found her and moved her there. They had a $36 million dollar to think about. . .it’s a small county and not a lot of bank to back up this lawsuit. I know this sounds extreme, but look at the lack of evidence in both cases and tell me this isn’t a set up. I think there needs to be a impartial party (from another state or government) that needs to look into both of these cases. The Manitowoc County CANNOT be trusted.

      • 100% agree with everything you say here, well said! Anyone who can’t see this is, sorry to be blunt, but naive and stupid.

    • I have never seen such blatant hatred from law enforcment. The fact that the men who WRONGFULLY prosecuted him the first time were involved with the murder case (in the searching of his house) was a clear conflict of interest. He was in the middle of suing them! Not to mention if this man was guilty I HIGHLY doubt he would leave her keys in the middle of his floor-unreal. They obviously planted that and knew he would let them search his house because he didn’t know his rights. I have never been so angry watching something. This man is clearly innocent and anyone who can’t see that is blind.

    • Note from the editor of this blog: Here we have a conspiracy theory comment that borders on victim blaming. I approved it to give an indication of the range of reaction a series like this generates.


      Did she fake her death?? It hit me, if she faked her death with the help of the cops and State and the Halbachs, then everything makes a lot more sense. -36 million is enough motivation for just about anything… -Unless you are brain dead, you know the cops and prosecutors were on a mission to convict Avery, who DID NOT KILL ANYONE. If they planted all the evidence, then they planted the bones and blood. If Teresa was in on this for whatever reason(million dollars and a house in Canada?) EVERYTHING would be all to easy for them to set up. Take some of her blood, get the key, car, camera,etc. I believe the only “evidence” linking Teresa to the bones was a piece of muscle tissue. If she was in on it, it would be all too easy to set this up. And we know the cops were in on it. – How many times did you hear them say “Last person to see Teresa alive?” They just pounded it into you that she was dead. Mabye not. -Teresa made video saying if I die soon , i had a great life with a smile on her face. About the only context that a video of this nature makes sense is if she faked her death. She knew people would never see her again, and wanted to make them feel better somehow. She was way too happy saying this to the camera, almost as if she was taking some delight in duping everyone. “Duper’s Delight” -Strange calls she kept getting. Wouldn’t answer near anyone. Possibly during the planning stages? -Brother Mike Halbach never seems to show any feelings of grief. Just dutifully goes to the mic to slam Avery. Knows his sister is alive. In episode 9 or 10 That fatass p.o.s. Kranz prosecutor has a huge smile on his face and the whole Halbach family looks like they are at a comedy club before the Avery’s appeals hearing. They are all in on it. I think the makers of this Documentary might believe this as well. They included this little snippet if you remember: “Brendan had a dream of seeing someone in black veil who lifted it up and it was Teresa, and it was all a joke.” Brendan’s Mother at the end getting in her car says “You want me to say something?, I think the Halbach’s set this all up, I really do.” ME TOO!!!

      • I actually think you may have a point, I hadn’t thought of it, but hell, why not, even 1% of 36 million dollars is a lot of money to an auto trader worker. Stranger things have happened! Ann, you posted this to show how ridiculous comments had become, but can you not see how this works. They cannot afford the bill….they have to do something AND they cannot have the sheriffs office’s integrity undermined, didn’t Kratz even say that at some point, something like public confidence was paramount. I do not believe Steven Avery did it. I do not believe Brandon did it. The case is a total shambles and everyone through to judges and jury have been bribed or threatened to ensure this case was won by the slimy and proven sleaze ball, Kratz. I am sickened by this whole debacle.

    • It’s clear to me that whoever wrote this is highly uneducated and bias. Learn how to use spell check buddy. This article doesn’t even have an author.

    • you can pay a lot of people good money when you save 36 million dollars. Money is the motive most likely. Authorities probably paid someone to kill her to stop the lawsuit. Worked like a charm.

    • Let me just say, I agree with you! This is the crazyest shit I have ever seen! I have never been happier to live in Norway! This crazy “shit” would never ever happen here! Thank mother earth ❤️

    • Before we even address the sensationalism of the very well documented detailed of events spanning 10 years of this mans unfortunate life, let’s look at the evidence! It’s not there!!!!! And yes, why is it that the brother talked?? I never heard one comment from her mother or father..maybe they opted out of being a part of this film? But why?!! The brother had no problem …the state did a poor job of proving their theory and the defense debunked pretty much everything…why wouldn’t the police find Scott or Bobby suspicious ?? Oh yes, they weren’t sueing them for 36 mil

    • I agree the county and police were imbarrassed of the Avery’s. Steven has just become a scape goat. I believe the person who killed Theresa was her ex- boyfriend. The whole police department and prosecutor seem like dumb ego maniacs. I would never want to move to that state or that town. It’s like a Stephen King movie where nothing’s right. They should be ashamed by this documentary on this story about Steven Avery. They seem like uneducated red necks. It made so angry to watch. To think this is real, not just some made up movie. I think hell is where the law enforcement is headed!

    • I think Theresa Halbach and Jodi Stachowski were probably part of a bigger plan to frame Steven Avery. That weird clip of Ms. Halbach speaking about if ever she was found to be dead that her family should know she was happy seemed so scripted that I find it hard not to think that she had entered into an arrangement with the Manitowoc County agencies 3 years before her disappearance (they would be well aware of her continuing business with the family), to bring Avery down after his release, she is probably living the good life on tax payers money (less expensive than Mr. Avery’s compensation settlement would have been) and the video was her way of ensuring the least amount of distress to her family after her ‘departure’. The DNA evidence cannot be trusted.

      As for Ms. Stachowski, she was an obvious plant in order to have a ready made ‘expose’ of his bad character after his frame and subsequent incarceration. All the protracted attempts to make it look as though there were impartial investigators in the case against Avery were blatant and clumsy. The depth of corruption in this case is terrifying and disgusting and should be investigated by powers above and not connected in any way to the legal system that already stole 18 years’ of this man’s life.

  2. Ann – I think your placement of sympathy for how the filmmakers made the brother, ex-boyfriend, and roommate look is terribly misplaced. It’s true that most victims of murder, die at the hands of someone close to them (i.e. ex-boyfriends, brothers, roommates) so why would someone not be suspicious of their actions – deleting voice mails, giving a digital camera to the person who found the car in the salvage yard, etc. Don’t you think that those things are odd to do? I think it strange how opposed you are to the filmmakers raising suspicion that it could have been one of those parties. The reality is that the policy could have conspired with many parties to frame this man – including all of the parties that the filmmakers raise suspicion. The paragraph you posted is a joke because EVERYONE had access to the Avery’s property – there is no evidence the property was gated with limited access to the public. In fact, there were multiple entry points. Casting a wider net, in my view, was nothing more than listing persons that were known to have been on the property the day the victim went missing. It’s incredibly evident that the lawsuit brought upon the responsible parties for wrongful imprisonment would have bankrupt a municipality – which I believe is enough motivation to explain the improper treatment of both Steven and Brendan’s investigations.

    • Please, make no mistake, I think the ex-BF and roommate should have been questioned and then investigated by the police if there was evidence pointing to them.

      And, yes, I do think there were lots of oddities. However, I also think that in eight years, the filmmakers would have found something if there was something to be found. That phone caller, for example, who was made out to be stalking Teresa. The defence team could have subpoenaed her phone bill and found out who it was in a second. It was almost certainly a red herring.

      If they were suspects, why was a crack defence team uninterested in pursuing them?

      The answer is they weren’t suspects and should not be made to look as if they are or ever were for the sake of narrative tension.

      • You mean the evidence that was propagated by the investigating parties? That would make sense why there is NO evidence pointing to any other parties.

        Regarding evidence, a thought that keeps coming back to my mind. How does Steven have the ability to clean up the large bloody mess in the garage but doesn’t think to wipe down the small streaks of blood in the Rav4. You mean he goes through all the trouble to clean up probably pools and pools of blood but forgets to clean up the few areas of his own blood in the car? Then he burns the body in essentially a glorified camp fire and doesn’t use the tools at his disposal? Nor does he think to hide the Rav4 deep within the pit of the salvage yard? That deserves a “c’mon man” or a “you got one job” reference. Not sure which would be more appropriate….

        Also, if my memory serves me correctly, the defense team, in exchange for being able to review Stephen’s previous case file, were excluded from pointing to other parties they felt were guilty of the crime. Essentially, shadow boxing the prosecution. I believe that was in an episode – I don’t think I made that up. If I did, I apologize. Ultimately, my point is, I don’t think that it was the defense’s strategy to find and accuse a guilty party – it was to prove that Steven Avery was being framed by the Manitowoc County Police Force. At least that’s my interpretation of the story line.

        Lastly, I’d just note that I think placing the burden on the filmmakers to find some sort of evidence that points to a guilty party is really unfair. They were there to capture a story.

        • You have absolutely NO idea of the crashing sound that my jaw made when it hit the ground when they “found” that bullet in Steven Avery’s garage! Did you see that garage??? I mean, REALLY??? It is the States claim that Steven and Brendan stabbed Teresa in Steven’s trailer in Steven’s bed, then, dragged her out to Steven’s garage and shot her at least once in the head, but up to 11 times. Now, putting the fact that they had searched that garage many times previous and meticulously tore it apart searching for evidence aside, that garage was a cluttered mess. It was a cluttered mess previous to all the searches. It was not neat and tidy and then the investigators messed it up. The state would like for us to believe that Steven Avery was SO meticulous that he was able to clean every single spec of blood spatter (from Teresa being shot) and every spec of blood that Teresa must have left all over that garage due to bleeding from a stab wound to the abdomen and her throat being slashed??? He was SO meticulous that he was also able to clean that bullet of any brain matter or tissue or visual blood evidence from it, hide it so no investigators would find it on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th or any other search previous to the searches done on the 2nd and 3rd of March? (I am being sarcastic about the cleaning and hiding of the bullet that was miraculously found in March to accentuate the ridiculousness of what the state wants people to believe happened) The state wants us to believe he cleaned up THAT well, but left a teeny tiny itty bitty bit of her DNA on that bullet? He did ALL this but did NOT remove the 11 shell casings that were in plain sight? OMG!! This would be so freaking laughable if it wasn’t so utterly deplorable!! That garage would have REEKED with bleach for weeks with the amount he would have had to use to get rid of ALL of the blood that would have been present from Teresa, and then of course, after cleaning that garage so thoroughly of any trace evidence, he had to go back and blow dust, dirt, and grim BACK onto the junk, parts, floor, walls, and cluttered mess in order to make it not look so suspicious. 70 IQ?!? Oh HELL NO!! This dude is a forensic freaking genius!!! NO DNA, blood, body fluids or Anything in his trailer either. Nothing! Nodda! Zilch! Not Brendans either. I realize that this article is about WHO did it if it wasn’t Steven Avery, and to be honest, I am suspicious of a couple members of the Avery family. But I am even MORE suspicious of the roommate and ex bf of Teresa’s. I also want to point out to those of you who are reading this that the population of Manitowoc Co. is 33,000. The Steven Avery case was HUGE in their community and the Avery’s were well known, liked and disliked. And when you have an entire police department who does NOT like the Avery’s or their extended family, and they have ONE of the members of that family making THEM look like criminals, there is NO problem believing (because of everything that was lied bare right in front of all of us) that the Manitowoc PD took advantage of Teresa’s disappearance and subsequent death and used it to benefit the removal the thorn in their sides which was Steven Avery and the entirety of the Avery family.

          • You are arguing with me about things I never said. I didn’t write about the state’s case because it seems to be largely fiction.

            I wish the filmmakers had stopped there.

            My point stands. You don’t deliberately make innocent people look guilty, and that’s what Making a Murderer did to Teresa Halbach’s family and friends.

          • Hi AnnB
            I wish I would have written this sooner because I didn’t want you to think I was arguing YOUR point. I was actually just replying to a previous reply. So, please excuse my statement from anything that had to do with anything YOU personally wrote. It was more of an emotional response to the reply above mine concerning the lack of blood in the garage. I actually think you made some legit points in your article. After seeing this docuseries many people, including myself are especially emotional about it. I had to stop my husband from Criticizing Teresas brother for being un-emotional and I told him that we didn’t see him enough in the movie to really get a “good” impression of him. Thank you for your post as it opened up even more dialog about this case. It needs to be heard and it needs to be rectified. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.

          • Nothing to excuse.

            Merry Christmas to you and your husband too, and thanks for reading and commenting.

          • It’s not hard to find a bullet. You just have to remember where you planted it. Not hard to find human remains. You just have to remember where you planted them.

          • I believe you’ve summed that up rather well! Hard to believe he was convicted. I wouldn’t be surprised if a money trail is eventually discovered leading to the bank accounts of the 3 very vocal jurors who apparently persisted in persuading the other jurors (7) who believed Steven to be innocent into changing their verdict to guilty. Just speculating here but paying off a few jurors and perhaps even some of Teresa’s family would cost the state far less than $38M.

        • Do you even know what you are talking about? You only hear want you want to believe. They were unable to suggest other suspects. Is it that hard for you to comprehend this? The defense team had to disprove the “evidence” that the prosecution presented.

          • What evidence?? Come on..the jury was made up of sheep…they didn’t care, that whole county is something out of the twilight zone…it’s scary to think that can happen to someone, hold your loved ones close…Steven Avery and Brendan dasey trials are nothing more but poorly disadvantaged people are exploited and bullied by small town mentality…

        • Agreed! And where is the writer of this blog getting evidence of a history of violence for the family? Please cite your sources. I don’t think the filmmakers tried to say anyone was guilty including the brother. They are just showing everyone how they were acting at the time and how EVERYONE should have been a suspect. To me the film was not saying the brother did it.

          • My sources are linked in the article but since you asked: http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery%20document%20page%2023%20+.pdf

            And no everyone should not be a suspect. That’s not how investigations work. Investigators are supposed to go where the evidence follows them. And unless you think the police planted Teresa’s cremains, it led them to the AVery yard so unless you find a connection between the ex-BF, the brother and the roomie to the AVErys, there’s no evidence leading to them.

            There’s no investigative requirement to look at multiple suspects. Tunnel vision happens when you don’t follow the evidence and shut down people trying to tell a story different from the one you want to hear.

        • I just finished watching the doc in a marathon session and you are right. The defense was NOT allowed to propose other suspects.
          And police do not need evidence to question people close to the victim. They sure didn’t have any evidence about Avery.
          A friend is in law enforcement and they are taught signs of when people are lying. In every case (including the ex) the prosecutions witnesses all displayed signs of deception. Google it (do their eyes go up to the right or down when they are trying to remember something, blink rate etc…)
          BTW- In all of Canada, the accused (still innocent) does NOT sit in court in prison attire, nor to juveniles have their names in the paper. The courtroom is closed to press.

      • Unanswered incoming phone calls would not show up on a phone bill. From what we heard, Teresa was not, at least not consistently, answering the phone calls from her “stalker”. So that angle was probably looked into (at least by the Defense), but probably didn’t lead to anything substantial.

        • Not the “phone bill” … cell phone “records”, obtained by the cellular company, would have a list of what phone numbers called that phone, and a date-and-time stamp, whether she answered the call or not. At least, that is what I am assuming folks in this blog were referring to.

          Regarding the phone, no mention was ever made (was it?) as to whether or not anyone attempted to get a history of the cell phone’s location (i.e. what cell towers it ping’d) on the afternoon that she went missing. Maybe Cingular Wireless didn’t track that data back then; I don’t really know.

          But then again, as has been mentioned several times here, it’s easier to believe that they *did* “turn all those stones” and such research didn’t lead to anything. We simply can’t find this out yet. I say “yet”, because I am hoping that at some point, the entire video of the trial proceedings will be one day be made available. I hope that that is not wishful thinking.

          • THANK YOU! that’s what I kept asking myself, why couldn’t they get information as to where the last “ping” for her cellphone was? even if he did kill her and burn the body he wouldn’t have destroyed the phone in the fire for a long time after she was in his trailer taking pictures. did she ever use the phone after 3pm? she didn’t make any calls or receive any calls after 3pm? I highly doubt that. if her phone was turned off it would have still recorded the “ping” and it’s location. I think I read the new lawyer is on this exact trail and said the phone records will prove that the last “ping” on her phone was 12 miles away from the Avery Salvage.

  3. Why can’t the ex-boyfriend remember the specifics of when he talked to her for the last time on Sunday? He says he stopped over on Sunday. He remembers that she was sitting at the computer but he cant remember if it was morning, noon, or night. If you asked me when was the last time I talked to anyone, I can tell you if it was morning noon or night. Also he is smiling when he replies he doesn’t remember, which shows he is nervous. Why can’t he answer a very basic question, unless he is lying about seeing her or lying about something else.

      • In order to put “Reasonable Doubt” on a defendant, lawyers will often offer up other people who could have been the murderers as well. It’s a really common thing. Since those other people could very well have killed her, they bring that to light so the jury can doubt the absolute-ness of the defendant’s guilt.

        I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s a witch hunt, because there’s still a HUGE possibility that the brother DID kill her, or was involved, or whatever. I don’t think he killed her, but I do think it’s strange that throughout the entire process, not once does this guy question everything that’s going on. After seeing all these things, hearing all these holes in the logic, he still is like “He’s absolutely guilty.” If you really want to find your sister’s killer, you don’t want to just put anyone in jail, you want justice. But he didn’t seem like he cared about justice, he just seemed like he wanted to put Avery away. After all that he heard how does he not start to question Avery’s guilt? Wouldn’t you want to find the real killer? Wouldn’t you want justice instead of joining the witch hunt against Avery? That’s what made it so suspicious to me. Because no one can hear all that, and not have even a shred of doubt about all this crazy crap, you know? I don’t think the filmmakers did anything unethical. I think they cast doubt on three very likely suspects that (As stated in the documentary) were for some reason never even considered suspects because they all had tunnel vision for Avery. It was brought to light in the case that they never even questioned those guys except as witnesses and never as suspects because Avery was already on their radar.

        You have to admit. It’s suspicious.

        And if the brother is uncomfortable under the sudden heat he’s getting, imagine what Steve Avery must feel? Thirty years he’s been doing this. And the brother certainly wasn’t in any hurry to help him.

        • It’s actually very common in wrongful conviction cases for the victim’s family not to be able to let go of the idea that the originally accused and convicted person was the killer.

          Meredith Kercher’s family is still committed to the idea Amanda Knox did it. And, in the David Kamm case, despite the police finding out who killed his wife and having DNA, etc, her family continues to cling to the idea he did it.

          So, no I find absolutely nothing suspicious about the brother. And I don’t think you should be telling people whose sisters have been brutally murdered how to react and behave.

          • Given the chance and hopefully this is it right here I will tell him that he is stupid at best and evil at worst for not being objective and trying to seek the truth about his sister’s death. Anyone who puts on blinders in grief does not deserve respect when it comes to destroying another man’s life if that is what has happened here.

        • What is wrong with you people? They find her car and dead body on this guy’s property. Her DNA on a bullet fired with his gun. DNA from his sweat on the latch of her car hood. There’s firm evidence she was at his property that day, and that he tricked her into going there that day. He called her twice that day and blocked his number. He specifically requested auto trader send HER and no one but HER. She had already asked her boss not to send her there again because he was creepy. But he’s innocent, and there’s a “huge” possibility her brother did it??? Based on what exactly? You don’t like his demeanour?

          • “They find her car and dead body on this guy’s property.”

            A property inhabited by many others, several of whom have a much more well-documented history of violence against women.

            “Her DNA on a bullet fired with his gun.”

            No, they didn’t. The test was “inconclusive” for her DNA. Many scientists from around the planet (outside of the Wisconsin Crime Lab) have been writing articles about the junk science the prosecution used in the trial (i.e. the DNA “match” on the bullet and the EDTA tests). I suggest you do some research – here is just one of many I’ve read, from a Dutch scientist:


            “DNA from his sweat on the latch of her car hood.”

            Again, another Kratz invention. It wasn’t “sweat” – it was epithelial DNA ( a few skin cells), and during the trial, the defense lawyers got one of the crime lab personal to admit that they hadn’t changed their gloves between the time when they handled articles that may have contained Avery’s DNA and when they opened the hood. In other words, the skin cells could have been easily transferred by someone working around the car because correct protocols were not followed.

            “…and that he tricked her into going there that day.”

            False. Read my previous reply to you for details.

            “He called her twice that day and blocked his number.”

            He called her when she was 30 minutes late to their meeting – and as to the blocking, read my previous reply to you for details.

            “He specifically requested auto trader send HER and no one but HER.”

            They had done business together 5 or 6 times that year. Absolutely nothing strange about requesting someone you worked with before again.

            “She had already asked her boss not to send her there again because he was creepy.”

            Again, totally and completely untrue and invented by Ken Kratz. Read my previous reply to you for details.

        • Wasn’t it Kratz who said in his closing statement that ‘reasonable doubt was for innocent people’?!?!?!?! …he also said in Brendon’s case that ‘incocent people don’t make confessions’, well Steven Avery never confessed his his first case and it was, eventually after 18 years, proven that he didn’t do it….just sayin!

      • The only Witch Hunt that happened was to Steven Avery. How do they call to ask if he was in custody yet? simply because the vehicle was found on the Salvage that was 40 acres? how did they know already he would be the guilty party? why arrest him? why ask if he was in custody? did they not learn from the first time they wrongfully convict him of a rape he did not commit?

  4. The 64,000 question is, who had motive to biggest kill Teresa Halbach? There are more questions that arise than answers. The only way I can imagine Avery being so stupid, is if he and his nephew were very high. Toxicology report? It does seem set up, but where would this killer get Avery’s blood? What part of Avery’s body did the bood come from- there would still be scraps, scabs from where Teresa would have fought back. Who else knew Teresa was going to that salvage yard? I seriously hope Avery and his nephew are rightfully convicted of Halbach because I couldn’t imagine their hell if they they are innocent. The law officials, being sued and embarrassed, is a strong motive. But would they go as far as to killed a girl, burn her, and plant evidence? What motive would Teresa’s brother or roommate have? The ex-boyfriend could have a reason, being an EX. How would any of these 3 suspects have access to Avery’s blood? A buddy that works for Lab Corp? All seem to just point back to Avery, but why?

    • The defence lawyers name family members with a history of violence as the alternative suspects.

      Maybe the motive was sexual assault and it got out of hand. Maybe STeven Avery was in on it, maybe he wasn’t.

      I agree, it’s hard to see a motive for STeven Avery.

      The motive for the lawyers’ alternative suspects could also be blackmail. They might blackmail SA to get some of the settlement money.

      As for the cops they preferred to arrest Steven AVery because if he did it, it solved some very big problems for the police. Arresting another AVery wouldn’t have helped them.

  5. What makes me seriously question the roommate is (a) how long he waited to report Teresa missing, (b) the digital camera he gave Teresa’s cousin and c) the 30 minutes it took her to find Teresa’s car in a 40-acre auto salvaging lot. Also, the Rav4 was covered with branches? You couldn’t have made it clearer that you were trying to draw attention to it if you tried: “Look here! Here is the car! Under these branches!” So many damned questions, and probably too late to question the persons of interest at this point, as they can all claim it was so long ago that they’ve forgotten.

    • I agree, it’s weird it took the roommate so long to report Teresa missing, but he may have a completely reasonable answer as to why.

      I also agree that the cousin finding the car was very strange. But the lawyers also found it strange back then and presumably they had an investigator and looked into it in 2006/2007 so I don’t think time passing is the problem. If the cousin was lying, she knew it then and she knows it now. The only thing that would make a difference is for someone who knows the truth to speak out.

      Now, I did read that the cousin was a private investigator, which would suggest she had police connections, which might explain the whole camera thing and how she came to — cough, cough — just stumble across that car.

      It’s possible that some of the victim’s family and friends might have (inadvertently) helped the police plant evidence incriminating Steven Avery — or that they did nothing of the kind. My point was you don’t throw shade like that unless you have a very strong case.

      • You’re forgetting a key piece of evidence that’s in the documentary (although it wasn’t clear, I don’t think it was ever presented at trial – so perhaps discovered later by the filmmakers): On the morning of Nov.5th, there was a telephone call from Calumet County Detective Weigert to Manitowoc County Detective Remiker telling him that his “boss” wants him to go out and reinterview Steven Avery, as well as to ask the “citizen” search party to search the Avery Salvage lot (this is after police had already questioned Avery once and looked through his trailer on Nov.3rd).

        This seems to impeach what Pamela Sturm says (i.e. that it is was her idea to search the Salvage lot), otherwise to believe her story, one has to accept as entirely coincidental the fact that police wanted to send the search party there at the precise moment in time that she decided to do it herself.

        And what prompted this decision and phone call by the police? I would like to hear deposed statements from the various law enforcement officials involved. There was absolutely no new evidence that had appeared by this point to prompt a reinterview with Avery, let alone a searching of the Salvage lot.

        To me, it heavily suggests a “tip” of some sort that Halbach’s car is on the lot, but by making use of the “citizen” search party, it skirts the law that says the police must get a search warrant by providing some corroborating evidence.

  6. Despite some bungling by the police force, Dassey’s questionable confessions & other oddities of the case, the most far-fetched theory by far is that an entire police force hated some random redneck so much that they were willing to put their jobs & freedom on the line (not to mention letting a real murderer roam the streets) just to stick him in jail. Honestly, if an angry customer tried (unsuccessfully) to get you fired & was going to cost your company some money, would that be enough to drive you – and many of your coworkers, no less – to frame them for MURDER?

    • It wouldn’t have taken an entire police force to plant a key or a car. One or two people could have done the job and no one else would have had to be any wiser.

    • When a customer tries to (unsuccessfully) get you fired, does it cost 36 million dollars or potentially put you in bankruptcy?

    • It is not as far fetched as you think, and yes there is plenty of proof that, at the very least, the “higher ups” of Manitowoc PD hated the Avery family. (Re-listen to what Brendan Dassey’s first lawyer’s investigator said about Brendan Dassey and his entire family and remember WHO he was working for. And, if you were to watch any type of criminal documentary’s, you would see that people commit far worse crimes for far less. This law suit from Steven Avery was not only going to cost Manitowoc millions, but it was also going to cost a lot of people their reputations. I don’t believe that the Manitowoc PD committed the murder however. I believe, because of the circumstances of Teresa’s disappearance and subsequent murder, Manitowoc found an “Out” of their dealings with Steven Avery.

      • The boyfriend said he knew her schedule, listen to her messages, etc. The expert witness stated that the bones showed she was beaten violently. Violence is typically personal. He could her met her as she was pulling out, killed her, placed evidence like car and remains at Averys. The police took this opportunity to make sure they had plenty of evidence to commit him. ( like a key, a bullett, and blood in the vehicle). I don’t think it was proven without reasonable doubt who did this…….

        • Didn’t a cop or sheriff make a statement to a reporter that if they wanted to kill Avery it’d be easier than framing him? Or something along those lines? Perhaps I’ve it mixed up but if i don’t then if it’s easy to get rid of him than who’s to say one man isn’t crazy enough to oh kill a girl and frame him? The civil suit stops and the thorn in their side goes away. I would hope and pray someone of the law wouldn’t do that but…. they also let a rapist be free for 18 years and he could have escalated to killing the women he raped. So perhaps it’s not so far fetched that they could let a murderer go free too. I don’t know what i think. I just know somethings don’t add up but to where it points it’s anyone’s guess. Though to be honest i don’t like the ex or the other nephew of steven avery’s bobby. A little fishy…

          • Yes, Kratz said it, I was horrified that he would even have that thought, nevermind say it on the record for a news crew!

    • It wasn’t just to stick him in jail. At the time this all happened, Steven Avery was seen as a victim and suing the county for $36million and was having wrongful conviction bills passed. They had to do something to stop the mess they made of his first trial. It’s a lot bigger than just getting him thrown in jail. They had to discredit him

    • They had no problem with framing the same man in 1985 and he didn’t have a 36million dollar lawsuit pending back then. When you are trained to watch body language when someone is questioned that tells it all with the law enforcement. When they got caught in a lie they all of a sudden couldn’t recall. I know one place I sure as hell wouldn’t live. Serve and protect is a crock in that state.

    • Money is the motive.

      The police force was going to be paying out big to SA.

      Some of them would have been personally liable for SA’s claims.

      Money is a strong motive to murder and frame a person.

  7. I didn’t get the sense that the directors were suspicious of Mike Hallbach. He simply personified the public: emotionally driven and unquestioning of authority.

    • Google what people are saying about the brother or look it up on Twitter.

      This was entirely predictable and calculated.

      • Right. I saw your screen capture. Just awful.

        The directors may have made him look foolish, but not once did they portray him suspiciously. The ex-boyfriend, sure, but not Mike Hallbach.

        But I guess ignorance and blind trust in the justice system is the same as suspiciousness, according to Redditors.

        • Every time Mike Halbach comes on the scene, he’s made to say something that’s just been carefully debunked for the audience. The camera stays focused right on Halbach to let it sink in just how wrong he is. From his very first quote, about how the process of grieving his sister might take days (yes, days), the directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos never miss an opportunity to make him look bad. Halbach doesn’t get so much as one sympathetic quote. The only thing the filmmakers don’t do is play spooky music whenever he appears.

          Remember, this is a young man whose sister had just been brutally murdered that we are talking about. And the only alternative suspects the lawyers proposed were all related to the Avery clan so it’s hardly surprising the brother reacted as he did.

          • I agree with Jeffrey. I never thought the directors portrayed him suspiciously, and I think relying on feedback from loudmouths on Twitter, etc. to gauge overall public response is a mistake. People that react more reasonably are less likely to rant in public.

            Also, I think you’re overstating how the filmmakers shoot and edit his footage – and I can cite many examples that contradict your claims (“Every time Mike Halbach comes on…:”), but the most obvious one is when he’s crying about his sister during Avery’s sentencing.

          • Twitter certainly isn’t a well designed poll so I take your point.

            But we’re not talking about one or two idiots here, there are lots and lots expressing this POV.

            ” and I can cite many examples that contradict your claims (“Every time Mike Halbach comes on…:”), but the most obvious one is when he’s crying about his sister during Avery’s sentencing.”

            You’re right about the sentencing. I will edit it to “almost every time.” But I challenge you to find more examples.

            Thanks for your insights and the correction.

          • I don’t think he was made to say these things, he just said them. However, I don’t for a minute think he is suspect – I just think he was in a state about his missing sister. All kinds of things must have been going through his mind and then to have cameras and microphones pushed in his face and countless questions – it must have been daunting. I think he just messed up with his choice of words but I feel it was entirely innocent.

          • i never thought the producers of this show tried to make her brother look suspicious when i saw the episodes..more likley averys brother or cousins or whatever they were to him anyway the 2 guys that was hunting i mean or her ex…i only saw that the attorneys tried to show the court and jury that more people could be or should been suspected and heard of before jump to conclusions that avery was the guy..also noway he would have let the car stay in the yard and not whitout cleaning it to begin with cause he sure as hell cleaned everything else according to them. if he was smart enough to clean up all blood and mess in his trailer and garage that most likley would been impossible to do especially when the garage was full of things in it..and how could he forgett all the empty bullet shells?amazing from being so smart to clean up all traces to be so dumb and forgett about the car the blood in the car and the bullets.also that same cop who didnt even was in service at the time was on the places where all the evidence was found?and why no blood on his mattress?and if he burned the mattress cause it was blood on it wouldnt he have burned it on the place where he burned the body?so why didnt they found metal springs from inside the mattress there?and if they now didnt thought he had changed the matress how could they explain how he could stabb her with a knife and cutt her throat on that mattress without leaving alot of blood there?it would have been impossible to clean up blood on a mattress without seeing traces of it or make the coulor of the mattress to swift in thoose ares..its amazing how the jury could convict this man based on what have been seen and presented as evidence cause they have no crime site only speculation where the murder could have occured..the garage makes no sense and neither does his trailer cause there was no dna from her in thoose places so how could a jury convict and its also beyond no reasonable doubt if convict a man to life in prison.that jury should be ashamed to themself and the police force behind this aswell.worlds dumbest policeforce in history i guess. sry for my bad english

          • Seemed to me Kratz recruited the brother to mug for the state, to comfort the citizens with his stay-the-course-despite-these-slimy-defense-attorneys posturing. He accepts the role, wanting to put his best foot forward for his big sister, but in the process exposes himself to cross-fire as the film-makers and viewers take aim at the state. I don’t doubt they wanted him to look dumb – even bad – in that role, but maybe you can admit that his being targeted in social media as a suspect in the murder over the likes of SA’s brothers is pretty surprising.

  8. Found this case to be very interesting to watch. I read in multiple articles that the Halbach family declined being part of the documentary series and therefore there was very minimal footage of them in the documentary as a result, i’m not sure it was intended to make them look suspicious.

    In the end it was very obvious that who ever did kill Teresa Halbach did not have very much common sense. I found it odd that anyone who would brutally murder someone would then leave all the evidence on their property….it was definitely possible for police to plant certain evidence but the amount of evidence found on the property was overwhelming and almost way too easy to find… that being said i wasn’t convinced that it wasn’t Steven Avery.

    I do believe that someone related to Steven Avery and or part of that circle did kill Teresa Halbach. Watching it i still believe that the nephew knows more than he’s leading on, but his story had changed so many times its hard to say what tid bits of info are truth and what is made up. It would be easy for anyone of the family members in the Avery circle to frame Steven and it for sure benefited the cops to have Steven Avery behind bars as opposed to another Avery family member.

    I will be interested to see how and if this case develops any further.

    • When a crime scene has overwhelming evidence such as bones of a person etc however in the same breath you say they were smart enough to get rid of every drop of blood from a bed and garage then my suspicions are raised.
      The evidence just makes no sense, you cannot tell me he got rid of every single drop of blood, in the garage they showed a crack in the ground where if someone was killed there as they said in Brandons case then blood would have seeped in there and in no way would Avery or Brandon been able to get rid of it. They showed the police dig up that ground and nothing.
      Also in Avery’s case they said she was killed on the bed after being raped, her throat was slit, which means there would have been a spray of blood and the bed would have been soaked through and through with blood, yet they found no evidence of this blood in the bedroom.
      The prosecution could not account for this ….
      Also once the defense provided evidence of a different murder site there would be no way I could then convict because no one and I mean no one would kill and burn a body somewhere else then take the bones and dump it on their own property. NO ONE!!!!.
      Again in each case the prosecutor gave a different murder location. HUH?
      Also you mean to tell me that cops and investigators searched Avery home 6 times and each time they said they did a thorough job yet they only found the key after a certain detective arrived on scene.
      Bullet found and certain detective was on scene.
      Blood file tampered with and it was again a certain detective who initially logged it in, showing that this certain detective knew where to get Avery’s DNA.
      Also so when Avery’s defense team tried to get that blood tested by the feds they were told it would take weeks then 4-6 months for the test to be done. Yet prosecutor was able to ask the Feds and get it done in a few weeks ? Questionable at best, I would love to hear more about how this was accomplished so quickly and just how accurately was this test done.
      Long story short there is just too much questionable evidence to convict avery and in Brandons case there is no evidence at all and his confession was given under direst and without lawyer or mother present as required by law for minors

  9. just watched the documentary and it’s fairly frustrating as imo it’s fairly obvious that the 38 million dollar and embarrassment that Avery was released the first time round is why he’s sitting where he is sitting. I actually believe it was one of the Avery clan who killed the woman and from then on it was basically always going to be easy to point the finger and get all the assistance from the police. The clues are in the average IQ of the Avery clan……

  10. How in the world do you think the filmmakers ‘point the finger’ at innocent men? Lingering camera shots? I didn’t get the feeling they were swaying us in any direction other than to question Steven’s innocence and think deeply about the justice system. My personal feelings about the brother and ex come from the actions and statements of the brother and ex. The filmmakers didn’t make that up…?…..they simply captured it for the film, no?

    • The most viable other suspects are the men in the AVery clan. Those are the people who were on the defence lawyers’ list as alternative suspects and who had possible motive, means and opportunity.

      So where are the other Avery men in the documentary? Why did they get a pass? Why is Halbach made to look stupid over and over again while we get one scene each of Scott Redych and Bobby Dassey? Why is Brendan’s mother never asked about them?

      The reason no one on Twitter or Reddit calling for their heads and them to be investigated is because they weren’t made to look suspicious.

      The film positioned the Avery clan as stoic downhome country folk being persecuted by police.It steered the mob right toward the murdered woman’s brother and her ex-BF.

      • Agreed, but there was zero footage of the brother other than when he propped himself up in front of the press. They didn’t have any quotes that didn’t come directly out of his mouth into a hungry tv camera. The other Averys who were potential suspects didn’t give interviews to tv stations every step of the way…so if the filmmakers were simply documenting the case, they showed us what they themselves were shown. Personally, (and no, my opinion means nothing), Brandon’s stepfather seemed extremely hostile towards Steven. And not being Brandon’s father, do you think he’d be THAT upset to get rid of his slow, dependent, non-working, video game-playing teenage stepson? Maybe Brandon was a source of tension between him and his wife and he knew Brandon wasn’t the type to ever move out and pursue college or a career. And bonus if he thought Steven was a loser, two birds with one stone. (Yet there are zero tv interviews with the stepdad for the filmmakers to use. My guess is if he opened his mouth in front of cameras, it wouldn’t have done him any favors).

        • there was zero footage of the brother other than when he propped himself up in front of the press

          That’s kind of a snarky way to put it, isn’t it? In all likelihood the brother was delegated by the devastated family to handle the press. It was a huge responsibility and, as we saw, he wasn’t a particularly talented communicator.

          The other Averys who were potential suspects didn’t give interviews to tv stations every step of the way

          Again, what’s with the snark and the implication he was grandstanding? Do you have any idea how awful the press can behave without some kind of designated spokesperson to handle things? That’s exactly why families in this kind of situation usually designate someone to do this spokesperson job. It’s not something enjoyable a person does for fun and fame.

          We’re talking about a guy whose sister was brutally murdered. Maybe cut him some slack under the circumstances — even if he’s not someone you’d want to hang out with.

          • I think the term “propped” here refers to how he gathered himself together to do the interviews. It certainly would have taken a lot to have those mics and questions being thrown at you on the daily.

      • I think Scott Tadych (and perhaps Bobby Dassey) is quite a viable alternate suspect as he and Bobby were each other’s only alibis. Additionally, Scott’s alibi was off by an hour (he was likely home when he said he wasn’t), and I believe it was he who was quoted as saying something along the lines of, “It’s the best thing in the world” when Steven was convicted. –> yeah, it’s the “best thing in the world” because Tadych got away with murder.

        • I tend to lean that way as well – he sounds like a nasty character. He also lied about the size of Steven’s bonfire during the trial (10 ft, he tried to claim – although he had testified to 3 ft before). Also, since Tadych was his Mom’s boyfriend, Brendan might truly have some knowledge that was troubling him (e.g. seeing toes in a fire), but since Steven was already in jail awaiting trial for the crime for 5 months, he just went along with detectives and shifted the blame to his uncle.

      • Totally agree with this comment. I think the true answer lies within the Avery Family. From their side, easy to commit the crime and allow Steven to take the fall. They would have the means to “set him up” quite handily. And from the cops side, very easy (and probably quite satisfying) to just grab up Steven without any further investigation into others. Very sad story all around. My heart broke for Steven’s mother. No doubt they are the ultimate of “red neck” as any family we hear tales of but she was still a mother and grandmother and it doesn’t matter that they didn’t have affluence, her devotion was what we all would hope for ourselves. I can only imagine the demons she fights daily in her own mind.

        • Thanks for your comment. I have to confess that I am fascinated by people’s reaction to “the mother” in crime cases. Mrs. (and Mr.) Avery were portrayed very sympathetically in this documentary — and yet, they brought up a brood of criminals, which would seem to suggest there was a lot more going on beneath the surface. I’d be interested in hearing your interpretation of what happened there.

  11. I’m sorry, but people have always said they found her brother’s behavior odd. I remember my mother saying this back when it was all happening in 2005. Don’t blame the filmmakers because there are people who have felt this way about him all along. Also, I didn’t even pick up on that they might be implying the brother was a suspect. From them flipping from clearly debunking something to the brother making his statements to the press, it shows us how trusting everyone was of the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department despite everything that had happened and the undeniable conflict they were creating by being a part of the investigation. No matter what the evidence did or didn’t prove, the brother and everyone else were thoroughly convinced that Steven Avery was guilty. The moment of silence was to give you a moment to think about that. Here’s a man who was just exonerated for a crime he didn’t commit, now on trial for 1st degree intentional homicide, and look at how irresponsibly his case is being handled…..AGAIN. When people were asking how does this happen? How does someone get convicted of a crime they didn’t commit? THIS is how! I don’t think they were suggesting the brother was or should have been a suspect. The majority of people refuse to believe that law enforcement would be capable of such misconduct, even when there’s solid proof of it. Her brother was one of those people.

  12. Hi Ann, i would like know a possible contact to avery’s family, can you help me? I’m sorry about my english but, i’m from Brazil and here don’t have good english’ school.. Sorry and thank you..

  13. My impression was that the defense team wasn’t so much trying to point to a particular alternative suspect as much as show that no other possibilities were even looked at by the investigators. Also, while I agree they (filmmakers) made the brother and the roommate seem suspect through editing, there were also the two of the Avery clan that only had each other to corroborate their stories…they were highlighted as well, so I don’t think they ignored the Avery’s as possible suspects at all. (Unless I’m mistaken and those two men weren’t Avery’s)

  14. I am surprised that you think the documentary was a witch hunt going after the brother. I never felt that way at all. In fact, I finished the series with two thoughts. One, Manitowoc County never liked the Avery family in the first place, they did not live up to the standards of those that essentially ran the town. It goes right to the heart of the prejudicial nature of our society, and how we rush to judgement based on things other than hard facts. Two, I find Bobby Dassey and Tadych very suspicious, and would lean toward thinking they were the ones involved in Theresa’s murder. I think if anyone was really paying attention to the all the facts/info and has followed other wrongful convictions (think West Memphis Three), something’s not right with those two.

    I do find it a bit troubling that the defense didn’t do more here, but I’m sure they had their reasons as they seemed very good at their jobs.

    From my viewpoint, the series simply set out to tell Steven’s story. I think the directors realized he didn’t get a fair trial. How could he? The cards were stacked against him from day one. I believe the documentary is an opportunity for the public, outside of the close minded folks in WI, to determine if Steven is in fact innocent or guilty, not to try and prove who actually killed Theresa. Our justice system says we are to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a lot of reasonable doubt throughout this entire case, however Stephen was still convicted. I don’t know the truth, but I also don’t see how this is justice for Theresa and her family either. There were way too many discrepancies in this case, and I hope that this documentary can help right some of the wrongs here.

    • “I do find it a bit troubling that the defense didn’t do more here, but I’m sure they had their reasons as they seemed very good at their jobs.”

      You’re making an assumption that if it wasn’t in the film that the defence didn’t do it. I think that’s incorrect. If Brendan’s lawyer had an investigator, I’m going to guess Avery’s lawyers did too and that if s/he had turned up anything important we would have heard. The defence team were very competent.

      PLease note, I didn’t say AVery should have been found guilty. Based on the doc, I have no idea whether he did or not.

      I did, however, lose a lot of respect for the filmmakers based on their treatment of the brother and the ex-BF. That simply was not OK, and it makes them less credible to me overall.

      • Every single thing the brother and ex BF said came from their mouths directly. If you have a problem with it, it has more to do with your personal take but it doesn’t change the fact that they said what was said. Right or wrong SA was wrongly judged and it seems that some of that judgement is now being shed on others who were public spokespersons. It’s not fair for any of the people involved to be wrongly judged but it seems to be the way the world is working.

  15. Having watched the documentary I’m left with a number of thoughts

    A bonfire cannot so totally burn up a body as suggested by the fragments found. Search the Internet for pics of bodies burnt up in house fires, car fires and the like. Similarly when a body burns, the fat and other fluids drip off so the surrounding earth should have shown up such things

    Where is Theresa’s DNA ? None found anywhere but in the burn pit and the mysterious bullet

    Where is the evidence of the chaining / tying up in Avery’s bedroom? Damage to the bed, DNA on the mattress etc etc

    Whilst I’m aware any TV documentary can present certain information, part truths, leave out key info etc etc to paint a picture different from the known facts there is a lot of raw footage and fact in this documentary. In particular the finding of the car key after so many previous searches, the finding of a bullet with DNA but no bodily material attached, no blood in the vicinity and how would the bullet have gotten there if fired in the garage? It wasn’t lodged in the floor, it was just sat there.

    The sergeant on patrol was taped by the dispatcher confirming if the vehicle was a blue 199x RAV4 when he couldn’t have known that unless he was at the vehicle at the time of his query

    Why was the victims blood in the RAV4 if she was killed on the property? Why would she have ended up back in the rear of the vehicle?

    I cannot say with 100% certainty whether Avery did it or not but the case against him was certainly fabricated

    Avery was also considered guilty from the start, there is no presumption of innocence present here

    My last thought is that Theresa has not received justice here and in fact just became a bit part in the theatre between the Avery’s and the State

    • You are addressing points that weren’t in my article. I have no reason to believe the prosecutor’s version of events but that has nothing to do with the criticisms I made of the filmmakers.

  16. This firs episode of this series, To me, Was the exact copy of the true story movie called conviction. In fact, So much so, That I thought it was that story I was watching..
    What’s staggering to me is not only how the car key, Found after the 7th search with just Steven Avery’s, DNA. Completely, Minus the victims!
    Not the fact that whoever deleted the mobile phone messages in this matter, Probably killed the victim Not the fact the brother and the ex boyfriend of the victim admitted in court to both separately accessing the victims phone messages.(“But I didn’t delete them”. Ok we believ you)

    Not the fact the judge won’t let the jury here vital evidence, Including how he wouldn’t let the jury here that someone had accessed the poor victims phone messages on the 2nd of November. (Judge is in on it)

    Not the fact the the prosecutor has since been disbarred(For sexual advances), But the fact that Officer Colbalt’ ( I apologise if I have that wrong) Made a vehicle registration inquiry’ Knowing the model of the vehicle without being told.- Why didn’t the defence put the officer from the neibouring county, on the stand and ask him if he had indeed told Colbalt, The model and year.
    Now in the outcome that he would have backed up his fellow officer regardless, Even if he knew he hadn’t told Colbalt the model, He would also then know of a cover up and possibly murder made by the police.( The officer of the neibouring county that is)

    I think to be part of the answer, We should all list the wrong doings of the prosecution and police on here ourselves, What we can remember as its a whole lot to process.

    I’m from Scotland btw, And I’d like to be able to say that this wouldn’t happen here, But since the centralisation of the police force over the past few years, Their behaviour has repeatedly come into question on numerous occasions. Including deaths in the custody of the police where the family were told he was killed by thugs in the street.

    I’ve not finished the series yet as I had to stop watching at the episode with Colbalt making the gaff that he did as I could t believe it.

    How can the FBI or Supreme Court, Now not get involved. Clearly theirs individuals in this matter who are in high positions of authority, Abusing their powers to the detriment of people’s life’s and Liberty to suit their own sadistic needs.

    If indeed, America is a great country then in this day and age. No man or woman’s life, should be regarded as not important enough, To just stand by and not intervene when a soul of this world, Is being treated in such a manner that it goes against humanity and even the Declaration of Independence I believe.

    • I couldn’t agree with you more Danny. I have noticed that the police world wide have become like something out of a Judge Dredd/ Maniac Cop movie. The Judges in the end are people who still have to go home somewhere and they can be killed by cops too. We all need to think hard about how we let ourselves slip closer to a police state and what we can do to unwind this clock before its too late. Justice was not only not done in this case but it was sledge hammered, dissected and steamrolled by power hungry people.
      Teresas death suggests she was pulverized and cremated. There’s no way this happened at the Avery’s place. Her DNA would have literally been everywhere. I have my suspicions that she may have let it be known that she would have testified on behave of Steve in the lawsuit and help him win because she knew him from taking pictures at the lot. Maybe the cops thought, hell no you wont. 3 weeks after it was clear they were all going to end up paying, she disappears. Now Steven is a murder suspect, Teresa is both the murder victim and an absent witness and an unwitting key to redemption for the MCPD. May be far fetched but this whole mess is bordering on pulp fiction level bs.
      Too many members of PDs everywhere can be clinically diagnosed with Narcissistic PD. The PDs themselves can. Its all in the behavior starting with an inability to accept criticism.

  17. The state was lying from the moment that it was claimed that Manitowoc law enforcement were not involved in the investigation beyond providing equipment.
    1. Lenk lied about what time he arrived at the salvage yard when the vehicle was discovered.
    2. Lenk found the key, which so fortuitiously appeared after stubbornly refusing to do so in multiple prior searches.
    3. Lenk was present when the bullet was found, again stubbornly refusing to appear in multiple prior searches, which failed to produce any victim’s DNA or tissue in the garage. No victim’s blood or tissue in the garage, but somehow a killer bullet ends up hidden there.
    4. The evidence presented in the courtroom clearly demonstrated that Sgt. Colborn knew the make and model of the vehicle when he called in the plate, despite his clearly false claim to the contrary.
    5. The brother did not require the filmmakers to make him look suspicious and stunned. He specifically avowed his “love” for the police, who were clearly behaving in an incompetent, unethical and dishonest fashion.
    6. The boyfriend did not require the filmmakers to make him look suspicious. His inability to recall simple details of his contact with the vicitm, and his presence in the search did that.
    7. Tadych and the older Dassey brother came off as being possible suspects.

    • 5. The brother did not require the filmmakers to make him look suspicious and stunned. He specifically avowed his “love” for the police, who were clearly behaving in an incompetent, unethical and dishonest fashion.

      YOur complete lack of empathy for a young man whose sister was just brutally murdered and was thrust into the spotlight is astounding. Maybe if he’d doused a cat in oil and burned it, you might be able to see things from his perspective.

      6. The boyfriend did not require the filmmakers to make him look suspicious. His inability to recall simple details of his contact with the vicitm, and his presence in the search did that.

      He looked suspicious because that’s how the filmmaker’s wanted to make him look. For all we know the guy had an airtight alibi. The defence lawyers weren’t interested in putting him on the suspect list. There’s no excuse for making an innocent man into a murder suspect and sicking the mob on him when you don’t have a shred of proof he should be treated as a suspect.

      • You’d do well in law enforcement or prosecution in Wisconson. The fact that the brother comes across to me as lacking in critical thinking has nothing to do with whether or not I can empathize with him. You conflated those to issues with no evidence to support your conclusion regarding the latter. LIkewise my impression of the ex-boyfriend was based specifically on what he said and what he did. Don’t let the facts get in your way.

        • The brother doesn’t come across to me as a critical thinker either, but that doesn’t make him a “media whore” and lacking in empathy, which is what you just said about him.

          ETA: No one’s asking you to like him. I don’t much like Steven Avery. But, contrary to your assertions, I don’t support what the police and prosecution did.

          Maybe you should cut the brother some slack. He wasn’t the problem here.

          Your reaction is precisely why I criticized the filmmakers. They started a pile-on.

      • I think your full empathy for the family is what might have your judgement clouded in standing up for them so much.
        As stated previously on this thread, family members and lovers/husbands etc are more likely to kill a family member than a complete stranger. Just because you’re a grieving relative does not automatically exclude you from suspicion.
        The role of investigators on the police force is to look at every possible motive from those closest to her. Everyone is a suspect once the investigation starts, however it is clear by evidence provided that the police only had one suspect and one suspect only even before anything got underway. No one else was suspected or looked at and that was horrible

      • Why does anyone need to empathize with the victim’s brother? The documentary was made for viewers to sympathize with Avery clan. Honestly, if it bothered the Halbach family at all that they were being portrayed in a negative light (which I think depends on the viewer, I thought the brother had poor public speaking skills and probably was on some sort of xanax at court) they certainly have a chance now with the popularity of the series to film their own version, their own story! Even if just uploaded to youtube.. In their eyes justice was served, so I seriously doubt we will ever hear their voices 😡

        The whole series was such a side show carnival for me. And scary.

  18. I didn’t come away from Making a Murderer with any feeling that the brother was implicated. He just came across as having blind faith in the police that he shouldn’t have. The ex-boyfriend is a different ball game. There was a lot that made me very uneasy about him. The hacking her voicemail was the least of it for me. The fact that he sent searchers over to the Avery property with maps that enabled them to go almost directly to the Rav 4 doesn’t sit right. In any murder case, partners and ex-partners are usually the top of the suspect list and that guy made me uneasy.

    • Ann. Here’s one massive fact you’re overlooking with her brother. HE did not have to nor was he obligated to speak to the media each and every single time he did. He was a media whore. His career and degree are in communications. You want to talk about empathy?! He had zero empathy! If that was my sister I would have wanted no mess ups or potential screw ups in her case. Knowing how the screwed Avery already I wouldn’t have wanted those officers near her case. I’m sure he was devastated by the loss of his sister. But you literally have to have blinders on to not have seen how detectives battered the nephew. If anyone cop or attorney have the audacity to say, “inocent people don’t confess,” is a bold faced liar!! There’s countless overturned convictions originating by coherced confessions. No one needed to make her brother look like anything but what he was.

      • Oh for Chrissake, he was not a media whore. Most families in cases like this appoint someone to speak to the media because it makes it easier for them. The media doesn’t go away if they refuse to talk. It just makes an even bigger nuisance of itself.

        I’m astonished that you are so insulting to a young man, who shouldered his family’s burden, in such a terrible situation.

        And please, don’t tell people how they should act when their sister is violently murdered. You have no idea what you would do.

        Also, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say a thing about how detectives treated Brendan. For the record, I think everything that happened to Brendan was shocking and his sentence should be vacated. And while we’re at it I have no idea if Steven Avery is innocent or guilty.

      • I am with you Mr. Boston. How come he never came out saying… I want all leads investigated to find the killer of my sister. I am horrified that Teresa Haibach is not resting in peace because the real killer is out there.

  19. That list is just of everyone known to be on the property that day. Basically he’s just saying hey look, all these other people were on the property too, why was I the only one ever looked at as a suspect.

    The paragraph “Yes, you read that correctly. All the while Making a Murderer is building a case that the prosecution of Brendan Dassey as a murderer alongside his uncle is a gross miscarriage of justice, they neglected to acknowledge that taht Avery’s very competent defence team was also prepared to throw Brendan under the bus. Turns out real life is way more complicated than even a 10-hour documentary.
    ” is absurd.

    You sound just as bad as what your are chastising the filmmakers for doing.

  20. Steven Avery killed / burned alive a cat. Does anyone still remember that Jeff Dahmer spent years ‘honing his craft’ by torturing and killing animals in Bath Township? I have the feeling that anyone who is 1. Not a psycho 2. has over a 3rd grade education might find Steven Avery to be very distasteful and an obvious sociopath if they were unfortunate enough to meet him in a dark alley…or junkyard as it were.

      • Ya, the cat died. I don’t know if he threw it into a fireplace (suspect it was more of a contained burn like a woodstove). He did jail time for it and thus “missed out” on the birth of his daughter. Episode 1

      • The documentary did gloss over that part, most definitely. He went to jail for killing the cat because he doused it with oil and then threw it into a bonfire. To me, that’s more than “running with the wrong crowd,” especially in light of some of the other things he has done. (He was in jail for 12 years for the wrongful conviction of rape; the other 6 were for possession of a firearm by a felon.)

        Ann, I don’t think that it showed the brother and ex-boyfriend in a specific light. The brother seemed to be numb, and was purely focused on Avery being guilty. The ex-boyfriend, however, came across as someone who did need to be investigated due to his not being able to remember if it were morning, noon or night for the last time he had seen her. That was from his testimony in court, so the film makers wouldn’t have been able to sway that. I don’t remember seeing the roommate, so can’t speak to him. But for all 3, I find it very suspicious that someone deleted messages from her phone and they admitted to hacking into her voicemail.

        There are too many people who could have killed her. (I first thought that Bobby and the stepfather killed her, but then reading more about Charles and Earl, it makes me wonder since they had access to the incinerator.) Add to that the police planting evidence, and the whole thing is just confusing to me and is a mess.

        • Agree with all your points, jaguaress. Anyone in he ex-BF’s situation, living with the recent death of a someone important and clearly spending lots of time investigating facts, would replay in his mind the last time he saw his friend, which was soon before. And yet he doesn’t know whether it was morning, afternoon, or night…just that it was Sunday.

          AnnB comments at one point that you question family members and the like until you establish their alibi and the evidence leads elsewhere. But the ex-BF, though he admits seeing her soon before and accessing her voicemail soon after, states he was never asked by police where he was at the apparent time of death.

          Contrary to AnnB’s claims, it is also very clear the deleted voicemail issue is not a ‘red herring’ that could be cleared up by phone records or the like. Both sides clearly had all the phone records, and introduced them as evidence. The defense would not have made an argument that could be easily disproved.

  21. I am left to be highly suspicious of Theresa’s brother Mike and ex-boyfriend who both deleted emails from Theresa’s voicemail.The brother also kept saying the police were doing such a great job and smiling for the camera.Even the fact that her cousin or aunt found the RAV4 and coincidentally had a camera with her.She knew where to look on 40 acres of land and found the car in 30 minutes.All too suspicious for me.I wish he was investigated more as well as the ex-boyfriend.They were highly suspicious in their examinations in court.

    • I am left to be highly suspicious of Theresa’s brother Mike and ex-boyfriend who both deleted emails from Theresa’s voicemail.

      We have no idea who deleted the voicemails. They both denied deleting them. They said they accessed and listened to the voicemails. For all we know, the killer deleted the voicemails using Teresa’s phone.

      BTW, you didn’t see the full court testimony. You saw clips that were designed to make you suspicious.

      These guys didn’t even make the defence list of alternative suspects. For all we know they both had airtight alibis.

  22. Or Steven Avery did it. It’s that simple. The documentary is no different than any other case where the defense uses smoke and mirrors and conspiracy theories and wild SPECULATION to get people off. He did it. That’s what the overwhelming amount of evidence shows.

    • So we can’t just say that he did it, that’s what the jury did and if it were that simple they wouldn’t have made a documentary out of it. There really were an absurd amount of inconsistencies and poor protocol throughout this whole case and trial. THAT is why people are speculating, THAT is why people are mad. If I would have been a juror for this I could have ended up putting him away too, I don’t know. But you can’t just say he did it as you just did. Because just as you say there was evidence proving he did it, there was some more evidence right behind it either casting extreme doubt or just making the prosecutor’s story of what happened inconsistent and impossible. He could have done it… I’m just saying he shouldn’t have gone to jail with the evidence presented and the way it was argued.

  23. Over half of female victims are killed by those closest to them. That’s a fact.
    Any normal detective would have questioned the ex, at the very least, if not the family members before ruling them out completely. It’s almost a no-brainer.

    The filmmakers are not blindly pointing fingers at innocent people, they r simply choosing to look at ALL obvious suspects (last known person to see victim alive, family, friends, ex bfs). I don’t think that’s crossing any line or orchestrating any witch hunt — that’s just doing what the cops should have done to begin with.

    Personally, the brother’s comments about his “grieving process” after his sister was missing for only 4 days and before any remains or even her car was discovered really rang some bells for me. And then messengers appear to have been deleted after the brother and ex listens to them. These are all red flags for me…does it mean they killed her? No. But it at least warrants further investigation, which obviously didn’t happen. The filmmakers did not make those two look suspicious…the brother and ex did that all by themselves.

    • Over half of female victims are killed by those closest to them. That’s a fact.
      Any normal detective would have questioned the ex, at the very least, if not the family members before ruling them out completely. It’s almost a no-brainer.

      If police found Teresa’s cremains on the Avery lot, they would have zero reason to be suspicious of the ex-BF unless he was connected to the Averys. Why would they suspect an elaborate frame-up plot when they have a group of men with records of criminal violence who were all at the last location she was seen alive?

      And yes, they should have gotten to the bottom of the deleted voicemails.

      • Except that it was a whole week from when Teresa was reported missing to when they found the remains of what they think “COULD BE” Teresa.

        Police gave the brother and ex access to the salvage area when most people were not even permitted on the property. And they did this without even ruling them out first. Come on….girl goes missing for a week and u don’t even think to guestion the ex bf??

        • No it wasn’t a “whole” week. It was two days max:

          They found her vehicle at the salvage yard two days after she was reported missing. That makes it a very good place to focus their immediate efforts.

          Nov. 3, she’s reported missing by parents.
          Nov. 5, they search the salvage yard where she was last seen and find the car.


          And, yes, someone should have called the boyfriend but their priority was the car as it should have been.

          • Finding her car means nothing….she’s still missing. They didn’t find any bone fragments till November 10. Even then, they couldn’t be sure it was Teresa.

          • Finding her car means nothing

            This is just silly. Obviously finding the car is not the same as finding a body but it’s a huge piece of evidence.

          • To be accurate, Sturm did not say they searched the salvage lot because it was the last place Teresa was seen (since no civilian should have had this information on that date).

            This detail: why the salvage lot was searched on that date – and why it was searched by a ‘civilian’ – is one of the key pieces of the puzzle in this case. That’s the reason Kratz made a point of asking Sturm if she had any contact with the police before she searched (and she claimed she hadn’t – although it’s fishy).

          • Her family and work colleagues could easily have known by then that she disappeared after her appointment at the salvage lot. It made it an obvious place to search.

            I agree the whole Sturm thing is fishy. I read elsewhere she was a PI, which suggests she could have had police contacts.

        • And not to mention that this wasn’t some normal missing persons, turned homicide case. The only reason special investigators and the Calumet county got involved was be of the “conflicting interests” between the manitowoc sheriffs and Avery. Just knowing that, nothing about the case should have been taken at face value and all usual suspects should have been fair game.

          • I’m pretty sure police knew the car was in the salvage yard/planted it there. They told the search party to search the yard because then the police wouldn’t need a warrant!

      • See, I feel like this this is where the boat was missed. If we’re assuming that the cops are planting or fabricating evidence, who’s to say they found the cremains there and didn’t plant them? Seems like as you just said, a great way to exclude anyone else but the Avery’s. You tie remains to a property, you have a damn good reason to exclude people that could very well derail your blindsiding of an innocent man (again) if you have to look deeper into them.

        I feel like before you accuse someone of unethical journalism of any kind when you basically run a site one step above clickbait you should make sure you’re not reaching so bloody far.

        • Dude, you should skip the clickbait insults. The reason my site has such good SEO and generates good comment threads is precisely because it’s not clickbait. But moving along…

          Yes, all the evidence could have been planted by the cops, but I highly doubt that. The key, yeah, the car, maybe, but the cremains, we’re getting into crazy conspiracy theory territory there and I don’t go there without a shred of proof.

          Also think about it, in the context of the discussion we’re having about where the evidence leads, how would that work? The ex-BF kills her and burns the body at the quarry or he just kills her, the cops find the body and burn it at the quarry? C’mon, that’s crazy talk.

          ETA: Some pre-coffee corrections

          • Crazy things happen ALL of the time! For example: the ex cop in Minnesota that strangled two women during sex, then stuffed their bodies into suitcases and drove around with them in his trunk until the smell was becoming obvious. Pretty sure their friends and families were questioned before the evidence led to the ex cop. Interviewing friends and family (seperately) is standard protocol in any police investigation. Maybe that’s not how a PI conducts an investigation, but it is how the police are expected to.

          • >Interviewing friends and family (seperately) is standard protocol in any police investigation.

            This appears to be a popular misconception on this thread. Suspects are interviewed separately not the victim’s relatives.

            >Crazy things happen ALL of the time!

            No they don’t. They happen rarely.

          • No, actually whoever is reporting the missing person should be interviewed, and if there is more than one person reporting they should be interviewed separately.

          • Funny that you should bring this up right now because I am working on the section of my upcoming book where two parents report their daughter missing. And, no, there is zero policy that the police must separate them and ask them questions. You seem to be misapplying rules that apply in certain but far from all circumstances.

  24. Totally disagree with this article. Watched the entire series and did not feel at any point that suspicion was cast on the brother, boyfriend or roommate. And even if the filmmakers did have that in mind, it’s hardly “unethical,” since police routinely include those closest to the victim as suspects — it’s just good police work. And it wasn’t done here, which is actually the unethical part.

    • When police (and I won’t include the Manitowoc Sheriff’s office here) investigate suspects, they do NOT do it in public. It’s a basic rule that you don’t announce that someone is under investigation. It is only announced when a person has been arrested. It would be unethical for the police to announce who is under investigation, which is why they don’t do it.

  25. I understand your concern with the amount of hate and illogical rage that’s being directed at people with little to no evidence of any wrongdoing at all. Many people are expressing precisely the type of lynching-mentality that I feel swept up the Manitowoc/Calumet County communities and led to the wrongful convictions of Avery and Dassey.

    But I disagree a bit with your conclusions. To me, everyone that testified at the trial that either lied or appeared to be hiding something came across badly. This includes Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych (who has a more serious history of violence towards women than Steven Avery), both of whom made misstatements on the stand, had means and opportunity, were each other’s alibi, and were on Steven Avery’s Third Party Liability list.

    It seems that many viewers are focusing less on the lies of those two, and more on the brother and ex-boyfriend simply because of the unsolved mysteries of someone listening to Theresa’s voicemails on Nov.2nd, and someone deleting voicemails on Nov.3rd. People get hung up on the mystery aspect (too many whodunits) and don’t, as they should, assign equal weight to someone lying.

    As far as Avery’s brothers, Charles and Earl (both of whom also have much worse histories of violence against women than Steven), I don’t know whether they didn’t testify or whether their testimony just wasn’t of enough interest to be included in the documentary. But I have no doubt that if they were caught in lies on the stand, as Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych were, then their testimony would have been included in the film. So I can’t really fault the filmmakers for their choices of who’s testimony was shown.

    • It seems that many viewers are focusing less on the lies of those two, and more on the brother and ex-boyfriend simply because of the unsolved mysteries of someone listening to Theresa’s voicemails on Nov.2nd, and someone deleting voicemails on Nov.3rd. People get hung up on the mystery aspect (too many whodunits) and don’t, as they should, assign equal weight to someone lying.

      Agree entirely with the above.

      On the role of the filmmakers, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree, however.

      All the best for Xmas whether you celebrate or not.

      • “All the best for Xmas whether you celebrate or not.”

        Same to you! And we have two Xmas days here 🙂

  26. This one is a bit frustrating, partly because there is definitely a large POV from the film makers, and a lot of unfollowed leads.

    By the end I’m convinced that the guilty conviction was wrong, that evidence was planted and that reasonable doubt was proved. The conviction almost surely came because of the family reputation.

    Its unfortunate the defense was so restricted in their ability to defend, the judge did seem very swayed later on in the trial but it was a bit late.

    But I think the question of if it wasn’t Steven, who was it is tough to answer.
    As pointed out the Avery family certainly had the access and means. If the cops had not jumped to conclusions, maybe the real story would be known.

    Teresa’s family and ex should be suspects. Not because of how the film portrayed it, but because its just procedure. The brother is quiet, but that isn’t guilt, the phone hacking isn’t guilt, and we are given just enough half truth to cause curiosity, but nothing else.. surely there is more information than that. I’d guess not guilty.

    One part I didn’t quite grasp was early on, they caught a cop testifying that he had run Teresa’s plate 2 days before she was reported missing. So I took if they knew where the car was 2 days before she was reported gone, maybe they were able to set this up? I don’t know, maybe I understood what they were pointing to there.

    • On Nov.3rd, the day that Teresa is reported missing, Sgt.Colborn makes a call to dispatch that sounds like he’s running a plate number (Teresa’s) that he’s looking directly at (Colborn is one of the five cops deposed in Avery’s lawsuit, and someone that appears to have buried evidence that would have freed Avery in 1995, 8 years before he was eventually released).

      At the trial, Colborn claims he doesn’t remember the phone call, but he says that he must have gotten the license plate number from Det.Weigert and he must simply be phoning the number in to check that it’s correct.

      It’s definitely rather strange. Couple this with the fact that 2 days later, Det. Weigert calls Det. Remiker and tells him that his “boss” wants him to go out and reinterview Steven Avery, and ask the “citizen” search party to search the Avery Salvage lot – and it gets even stranger.

      • OK, I did get it right, its just something that wasn’t really followed up on. It felt like a caught red handed moment then was ignored.

        The evidence is so bad and the little they have shouldn’t have even been allowed in court because of the surrounding problems with it. I’m really just shocked people could say that without a doubt, he did it.

        The zero evidence and the testimony without parental or lawyer supervision of Brendan is mind numbingly shocking. How can that stuff not be excluded or at least ignored by the jury? This kid was clearly persuaded to say things and not capable of resisting that with his mental state.

        • “its just something that wasn’t really followed up on. It felt like a caught red handed moment then was ignored.”

          The problem is that there wasn’t really any way the defense lawyers (or filmmakers) could follow up on it.

          We saw it, time and time again, throughout the whole documentary, from the depositions to the courtroom testimony: any time there was a question to a cop about something that approached criminal behavior, they just said, “I don’t recall.” Over and over.

          • I’m sorry. As much as I don’t like those deputies, I think there is one word in his conversation with the dispatcher that indicates to me that he is reading the information off a piece of paper, and he probably had just gotten off a phone call with Wiegert, who gave him the plate number.

            When he calls dispatch, at the end of the conversation, he asks her, “A ’99 Toyota?”

            If he were looking at the car, he might have asked the dispatcher, “A Toyota?”

            But he wouldn’t have included the year of the vehicle … not if he were “looking” at the car.

            That one little word, the year of the car, included in the question, makes me think he had written the information down in a conversation, most likely with Wiegert, and he then called his own dispatcher to make sure that he got it right … and of course that she would get it right if she were called to look it up.

            The reason he looked so sheepish is most likely because he wasn’t sure where the conversation was going with Strang … and he almost *always* looked that way during questioning … and he might have even been thinking, “They told me to stay away from this case. If I now testify in court that I called this in on Nov. 3, that isn’t going to look like I stayed away from this case.”

            I’m speculating about the last part that I mentioned. But I simply don’t think that it’s very often that an officer who calls in a plate number of a car that he is looking at will mention the year of the car. He might very well mention that make and model, but not the year.

          • My admittedly speculative explanation of the call is this: Somebody other than the police came across a Rav4 during a search of the Avery lot and conveyed the license number to police, who wanted to verify that the car belonged to Teresa before they then did a staged search in which they “discovered” the car. I don’t think the officer was looking at the car, but he also doesn’t offer any other reason for making the call and I can’t think of a legitimate reason.

          • I don’t know what the answer is, but it’s not necessarily either/or. He could have a few notes written down about the vehicle *and* be looking at the plates, so when he says the vehicle year, he’s inserting that from his written notes.

            For me, the oddest part of the call is the fact that he doesn’t mention he’s just double-checking a plate number of a missing girl’s car, or anything else. He just seems to want to get the info and get off the call as quickly as possible.

          • Of course, I don’t know either. But I would say that your theory that it’s not necessarily either/or certainly sounds more complicated. He’s looking at the plates and he’s reading information from something that he previously wrote down? If he previously wrote it down, he wouldn’t need to call in the plates, right? And if he wanted to be “stealthy” about this, it would be to his advantage to *not* call in the plates, but rather to simply use the piece of paper for verification, right? The fact that the entire conversation is quick and sounds casual shouldn’t be given too much consideration, but it certainly sounded quick, and it certainly sounded casual on the part of the dispatcher.

            I sound too much like I’m trying to defend the guy, so I should stop writing, because I simply don’t trust those guys. 🙂 But the more I think about it, it just sounds like too much of a stretch to think that if he were doing something this heinous, something that could put him in prison for life, I simply do not think that he would come upon this particular vehicle and then call it in, and then expect that to be kept a secret. Imagine the red flag that that would have automatically raised for the dispatcher! I would imagine that at some point, she probably mentioned to somebody, “Hey, Ken called in Teresa Halbach’s plate today; I wonder if he found something.”

            He would have thought of that ahead of calling her. If he wanted to get away with something this nefarious, this dangerous to himself, he would have found some other way to verify the vehicle. At least, in my opinion, he wouldn’t have simply called it in to dispatch. But if all he is trying to do is to verify that a subsequent call to the dispatcher will retrieve the correct information, then yes, I could see him making the call, even if he isn’t supposed to get involved in the case in any way. He might get a slap on the wrist for that, but hell, we already know that they were given secret permission to stay involved; otherwise, Lenk never would have made it onto the property to plan the key, which he almost certainly did.

          • I just meant he might have had some simple notes like, “Missing woman; ’99 Toyota” or something to that effect jotted down, but no plates. Then he would have to call it in to verify it. But I agree that the call alone is not much evidence.

            It’s just that when you combine it with the call from Weigert to Remmiker on the morning of Nov.5th telling him that his boss wants him to ask the ‘citizen’ search party to search the Avery salvage lot, it starts feeling like – not necessarily that the cops moved the car – but that they somehow knew where it was and wanted to avoid the delay/gathering of probable cause that a search warrant would entail.

          • Mark,

            Good point. It might very well have been the case that both things were true:
            – He had scribbled down a couple notes, like “95 Toyota”.
            – He might have been sitting next to the vehicle on Nov. 3 when he called dispatch.

            As an aside: Don’t you wonder what must have been going through the mind of the dispatch lady all these years? The one who received his call on Nov. 3? I wonder if she had to testify. And, of course, I sure would like to ask her if she talked to Colborn after all this shit hit the fan, and what did she ask him regarding “Why did you call that plate in?”, and did she accept his answer.

            But I’ll move on to your theory of how the vehicle and the cremains got onto the property, given that I believe that both were planted.

            I just read your theory again:

            Your theory works … as long as Lenk and Colborn think that they can get away with moving the car onto the lot *and* dumping the cremains near Steven’s house, but I think they will only attempt such an undertaking if they believe *very* strongly that they won’t get caught in the act.

            With that in mind, I just want to bring up the potential problem of “Earl and the German Shepherd”. Pam Sturm ran into both Earl and the German Shepherd at 9:50 AM on Nov. 5.
            Question: Has it been pointed out anywhere whether or not the salvage lot was abandoned on the night of Nov. 4? It’s not easy for me to believe that Lenk and/or Colborn would have attempted this without feeling very sure that they would not have been caught on the property.

            By the way: Just like you, Mark, I am only talking about the theory of “who planted the evidence and how did they do it”. I have no good theory for who committed the murder, because I simply can’t attribute strong means, motive, and opportunity to one individual. I simply don’t believe that anybody had opportunity at the time that Teresa was visiting the property to take those photos. At the very least, Bobby Dassey and Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery were on the property, right? We already know that Brendan’s story is a coerced, concocted fairytale. Steven Avery said that he got a magazine from Teresa, walked into his house, set the magazine down, and by the time he came back outside, her vehicle was already gone. So, I can’t even find a way to claim that Bobby Dassey might have abducted her.

          • Right after Strang played the recording, he asked him why he would tell the dispatcher the make and model of the vehicle, and he replied ” I believe the dispatcher told me that information”. Strange plays it again. He clearly is the one to state that information in the call. I thought the same thing at first. Maybe he was just checking to make sure that Teresa’s information had been updated in the system as a missing person. But when Strang asked him if he was looking at the plates when he called them in, his cheeks literally started to flush and he just couldn’t remember exactly how he got that information. He assumes it was from agent Wiegert, but he can’t really recall. I’m sure he was nervous because of what the defense was implying, but he just fumbled around so much with his explanation and it really makes you wonder why….

          • I agree. And I do believe, by the way, that Colborn and Lenk most likely planted the car, the cremains, the blood on the dashboard, the key in the bedroom, and the bullet(s) in the garage. So, if it were demonstrated somehow that Colborn had indeed called in the plates because he was sitting behind the vehicle on Nov. 3, I would not be surprised in the least.

            I just don’t want to use his body language on the stand as a strong measure for determining what he did or didn’t do. So, I am just looking at the evidence, combined of course with motive. The motive is obvious. Regarding the evidence, I think there is extremely strong circumstantial evidence that he and Lenk planted probably all the crucial framing evidence. Two Manitowoc officers who were not even supposed to be on the property during the searches just happened to be on the property every single time that major inculpatory evidence was “discovered”.

            I even think that Sheriff Pagel was either part of the conspiracy to frame Steven Avery, or he was at least a ridiculously stupid pawn in that game. I think that he knew on the morning of Nov. 5, before Pam and Nicole Sturm drove over to the Avery lot, that Pam was going to discover the vehicle there. Once again, there is very strong evidence for believing that, owing to the conversation between Wiegert and Remiker on the morning of Nov. 5. Unless Wiegert was lying about the reason for his call to Remiker, it was “the boss” that had instructed Wiegert to call Remiker, so that Manitowoc would know what was going down.

            At the very least, this was highly unethical, because it turned Sheriff Pagel into a downright liar. He had previously informed the press that Manitowoc would only be involved if Calumet needed equipment. Well, given who showed up on Nov. 5 and on several other days where crucial evidence was found, and given who “discovered” a large portion of that evidence it is clear that Manitowoc wasn’t being called on Nov. 5 “to help out” (as Wiegert said to Remiker on the phone) by bringing equipment.

            But does that mean that Sheriff Pagel knew about the planting of evidence? I have no idea. I simply have no proof of that. I’m stating the obvious when I say that way too many people absolutely *needed* for Steven Avery to go away, and all of them (all the ones that I know of, from the documentary) worked for the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Department:
            – Kocourek
            – Kuche
            – Peterson
            – Lenk
            – Colborn
            – Judy Dvorak

            Then there were those who simply *wanted* Avery to go away:
            – Pagel
            – Kratz
            – Sandra Morris (and probably her husband)

            That’s a hell of a lot of enemies, especially given that so many of them worked for the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Department.

            If brighter minds than mine (e.g. Butel and Strang) believe deep down that the Sheriff didn’t investigate everyone that they should have investigated, then this is not only a crime against Steven Avery; it’s also a horrific injustice to Teresa Halbach and her family.

            If Steven Avery did not murder Teresa Halbach, and if the Sheriff didn’t follow all leads, it seems to me that it’s too late to right that wrong. A new scientific technique might yet come along to prove that Steven Avery was framed, but there is so little that can happen now or in the future that could actually demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt who it was that killed Teresa Halbach. Someone would have to come forward with something like an audio tape, where the perpetrator is laying out exactly how he killed her, and his “confession” would have to reveal evidence that has been kept secret and is only known to the “authorities”.

  27. Lots of interesting comments in this weird case…may have missed people noting it, but I was surprized an interested to learn that Prosecutor Kranz was eventually removed from office and temporarily disbarred from any law pratice for a series of acts of sexual misconduct, including a victim whose case he was investigating. All the prosecutors and police struck me as corruptly covering up for each other, so in a sense this result doesn’t surpize. Even more reason to doubt the Criminal justice system in this case.

  28. I just finished watching the 10 part series. At NO time did the thought even occur to me that the filmmakers were trying to cast the boyfriend, the brother, or the roommate as possible suspects. Certainly, they pointed out that the police never considered them as possible suspects but that’s an entirely different thing than making them look like suspects. So the point that the filmmakers make — and succeed in doing — is making us, the viewers, ask the question: when in 98% of the cases such as this it IS someone close to the victim who is responsible, why did the police only focus on Steve Avery?

    • Check out this thread if you want to see hating on the brother:.


      Then Google and take a look on Twitter.

      If the filmmakers didn’t do this intentionally, they are beyond naive.

      Also, your 98% figure is wrong:

      “Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide
      cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner. In 2007,
      24% of female homicide victims were killed by a spouse or ex-spouse; 21% were killed
      by a boyfriend or girlfriend; and 19% by another family member.”


      Investigations should follow the evidence not statistics.

      If the car and remains are at the salvage yard and the BF has not ties to the salvage yard, there is simply no evidence pointing to him.

  29. “…why there were multiple calls to her cell phone from Steven Avery’s phone, including calls using *67 to block his ID.”

    I’ve seen many people reference this online, but no source. Can you please point me towards trial/legal papers which document this fact? Thanks.

      • Thanks. I have to say, although these calls are framed in a way as to suggest Steven is guilty, to me they seem to be more indicative of his innocence. I can’t imagine a logical reason why any murderer would call his victim’s cell phone a couple of hours after the murder while using *67. If you’re making a call to establish an alibi, you *67 it? huh?

        Instead, it sounds like he was a sad, middle-aged guy that had a crush on a young, pretty photographer that came to take photos a few times per year – and was deluding himself that he could parlay their contact via Auto Trader into a date.

        • Where are you getting the idea the *67 calls were made after the murder? My understanding is they were before.

          As to why Steven or someone else with access to his phone would do this, it’s because most murderers aren’t masterminds and clearly the Averys fall into that non-mastermind category.

          • Sorry, the link you provided wasn’t very specific, but I found a much more detailed account here:


            Again, none of this info seems damning to me – the two *67 calls were made within seconds of one another (one was a hang-up), so we can reduce it to a single 5 second *67 call. That call was made after Halbach was a half hour late to her appt. at the Salvage lot; in other words, if some business service appt. I’m waiting on is a half hour late, I can imagine that I might call to check their time-until-arrival, while hiding my number to make sure my call isn’t ducked.

            The 13 second call at 4:35pm could have been a call to establish an alibi; OTOH, it could have been an innocent voicemail. Unfortunately, we’ll never know, since someone with access to her voicemail password deleted voicemails.

            “As to why Steven or someone else with access to his phone would do this, it’s because most murderers aren’t masterminds and clearly the Averys fall into that non-mastermind category.”

            Sorry, but this is a non-excuse excuse that people use all the time to explain the most outlandish stretches of logic. Steven’s not smart, that’s for sure, but there is nothing in what I’ve seen that suggests he’s a gibbering idiot.

            For example, Steven left the Salvage lot on Nov.4th to go stay at the family’s cabin 100 miles away (while Earl stayed behind to run the lot). Even though Steven was, at this point, not a suspect (the car hadn’t even been discovered), he has to be virtually braindead to not take the car key or the pile of bones or the cell phone parts or the camera parts and dispose of them somewhere along the way.

          • Of course the *67 calls aren’t a smoking gun but they require an explanation and we’ve never heard a satisfactory one. Yours doesn’t do it for me. *67 was a pay-per-call service and it was expensive for what it was. You didn’t just use it casually.

            And yes, I can see someone who’s not up on their phone tech thinking it would make their call untraceable.

            Again, if I haven’t made it clear, the prosecution hasn’t convinced me that Steven Avery is the murderer but I’m pretty convinced that someone connected to the family and/or the salvage yard was. The alternative scenario — of the police moving a body or cremains in a frame-up — is just far too fantastical. I believe the police planted evidence but not that they killed an innocent woman or moved her body from another location. Sorry.

          • “Of course the *67 calls aren’t a smoking gun but they require an explanation and we’ve never heard a satisfactory one. Yours doesn’t do it for me. *67 was a pay-per-call service and it was expensive for what it was. You didn’t just use it casually.

            And yes, I can see someone who’s not up on their phone tech thinking it would make their call untraceable.”

            What does untraceable have to do with anything? Please give me the nefarious reason(s) for making a *67 call to someone that is a half hour late for their appointment. Because I certainly can’t think of any. There was already a phone trail established that Steven called Auto Trader and set up the appointment – so what, he has to hide the fact that he’s wondering why she’s late?

          • There was no good reason for anyone at the salvage yard to be making *67 calls to Teresa Halbach. None. You can keep making excuses, but creepy guys shouldn’t be doing this to a young woman. Maybe you don’t see how stalkery it is because you’re not a woman, but I’m not going to budge on this one.

            Again, I know you see this as something people say to explain the inexplicable, but most criminals aren’t masterminds and you can go see this for yourself if you head down to your local courthouse. I guarantee you will be shaking your head within hours at the dumb things they do.

            Also, this wasn’t necessarily a premeditated murder. Maybe one or more of these guys had some Halloween prank planned and it got out of control.

            ETA: Under those circumstances, they wouldn’t have been worried about call records. Using *67 was just a way to ensure they got through to Teresa.

          • “ETA: Under those circumstances, they wouldn’t have been worried about call records. Using *67 was just a way to ensure they got through to Teresa.”

            Precisely. And why would anyone want to ensure they got through to a photographer after already waiting 30 minutes for them to arrive for an appointment? I don’t know what it’s like where you live, but where I live, in business dealings, many people/companies block phone numbers often; it’s very common.

            Honestly,at first I wondered why this *67 stuff wasn’t in the documentary. Now I see that it’s because there’s nothing there; it’s just another example of information being repeated with distortion.

            I read many recountings of this info online (as I have with many other snippets of information from this case), and all of them failed to mention the simple fact that the single *67 call was made when Halbach was a half hour late to a business appointment which she herself had set the time for.

          • Keep in mind here that Teresa Halbach had already told her boss she didn’t like visiting the salvage yard and was bothered by Steven Avery who answered the door in a towel.

            I can’t comment on your business dealings, but in mine the only organizations that routinely block their numbers are reporters and the police so no, I absolutely don’t accept your idea that using *67 was normal. At this point though, I feel we’ve gone over the territory enough and it’s time to agree to disagree.

          • “Keep in mind here that Teresa Halbach had already told her boss she didn’t like visiting the salvage yard and was bothered by Steven Avery who answered the door in a towel.”

            Sorry, but she never said any such thing to her boss. You’re repeating misinformation which you read/heard that isn’t true, and as such, you’re doing precisely what people in Manitowoc/Calumet County did (and continue to do).

            The “towel story” wasn’t to her boss – it was to a receptionist, and even though it wasn’t allowed into testimony, to hear the recount of it (secondhand) makes it sound like an embarrassing incident – with no mention whatsoever of being “bothered” or not liking visiting the salvage yard.

            “Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Patrick Willis would not allow Dawn Pliszka, an Auto Trader receptionist at the time, to testify about one of Halbach’s previous encounters with Avery.
            “She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel,’’ Pliszka said while the jury was outside of the courtroom. “I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’’
            Willis said he could not allow the testimony because the date wasn’t clear and few details were known about the alleged encounter.”

            It seems to me that you have as much of a bias created by your own invention of meaning surrounding details and misinformation as you insist the filmmakers have.

          • You’re right, it was the receptionist and not the boss. But that’s not really the main point, which is that the guy was a creep. And I don’t really care whether the incident was admitted into evidence or not, it speaks to Avery’s character. What’s more, I have never once defended any of the judge’s rulings so no hypocrisy here. My only bias is toward presenting the truth. And the truth is Steven Avery was a creepy guy as far as Teresa Halbach was concerned.

          • “And the truth is Steven Avery was a creepy guy as far as Teresa Halbach was concerned.”

            This is an invention created by the prosecution based on a specific interpretation of details in order to prop up their case, which was then promulgated in the media and bolstered by misinformation until it was passed down to you. It’s fine if you want to believe it, but it’s no different than if someone chooses to believe the ex-boyfriend is stalkery and sketchy because he listened to his ex’s voicemails and couldn’t remember whether it was morning, noon, or night the last time he saw her alive.

            Luckily, I’ve been in the embarrassing position of having to answer my door in a towel a couple of times during my life without killing anyone, so I don’t have to accept the D.A.’s version of events as the truth.

          • It’s not an invention. It’s an account of events by a woman who you can choose whether or not to believe. I happen to believe her because Steven Avery has a documented history of harassing and assaulting women and there’s no reason for her to lie. Whether or not he’s a murderer, a point about which I remain undecided, he’s not the loveable towel-wearing, cat burning goof you’re trying to make him out to be.

            And you’ve misunderstood if you’ve taken anything I’ve said to mean people aren’t free to interpret the facts as they will. They absolutely are free to have a different opinion from me on the significance of *67 calls and hacking into voicemail and wearing towels to answer the door. I might think their opinions are stupid or I might think their opinions are wrong but understandable, but they can interpret facts and events as they will.

            If they want to say ‘hey that guy’s answers about the voicemail were shady, he should be looked at’ that’s fine. And I get it. Why wouldn’t they think that? The filmmakers showed them a very shady guy.

            And guess what — if the filmmakers had solid ground to believe the ex-BF was guilty, I also would have zero problem with them portraying him as shifty. But they don’t and they know damned well he is innocent. And it’s that which makes their actions unconscionable, setting up an innocent man to look guilty.

          • “It’s not an invention. It’s an account of events by a woman who you can choose whether or not to believe.”

            What woman is that? I didn’t read any account of someone saying, “Steven Avery was a creepy guy as far as Teresa Halbach was concerned.” Or did Teresa say, “Steven Avery is a creepy guy”?

            “I happen to believe her because Steven Avery has a documented history of harassing and assaulting women and there’s no reason for her to lie.”

            By documented history of harassing and assaulting women, I know about:
            1985: forcing his cousin off the road and threatening her with a gun
            1988: threatening letters sent about his ex-wife after 3 years in prison
            Aside from those two instances involving family members from +17 years before the Halbach murder, I’m afraid you’ll have to fill in in on the rest of the documented history.

            “But they don’t and they know damned well he is innocent. And it’s that which makes their actions unconscionable, setting up an innocent man as guilty.”

            Sorry, I missed wherever the exculpatory evidence of the ex-boyfriend was shown/posted/revealed. What was it again?

          • The boyfriend doesn’t need to show exculpatory evidence. He’s not been accused or found guilty of anything. The fact that you think he needs to show exculpatory evidence is precisely the problem.

          • No, I don’t think he needs exculpatory evidence – he’s not on trial. And I try to maintain the presumption that *everyone* is innocent until they’ve had due process.and there has been inculpatory evidence presented that removes all reasonable doubt.

            But my point was only that I couldn’t say I know damned well he’s 100% innocent (or perhaps we’re arguing over semantics – we could use “not guilty” if you prefer) unless there was unequivocal, exculpatory evidence showing he couldn’t have committed the crime. And the same goes for all members of the Avery family or anyone else associated with the murdered woman.

          • Well, if you want to be a purist about this, it also extends to the police, who are innocent until proven guilty.

            But I don’t want to be a purist and that was never my point. I’m not complaining about the film’s portrayal of the police even though that hasn’t been tested in a court of law.

            For the very last time, my point is there’s no way the BF, roommate or brother were involved in murdering Teresa. The filmmakers know that although I suppose it’s possible they might suspect some kind of collusion in planting or uncovering evidence.

            That’s what the problem is — they made these guys look terrible enough that people now think they’re suspects. That is just not okay.

          • How do we know this though? I don’t believe the police killed Teresa, but the more I think on it, I’m not sure an Avery did either. We know her car was reported before she was “missing”, we know there is zero blood evidence on the Avery yard, and we know there is bone evidence far outside the Avery yard,which appears to be the initial burn site.

            Even with subpar intelligence, would any of the Averys be dumb enough to just leave her car in the yard? That is just asking for trouble. So it doesn’t look like she was killed on the yard.

            I feels like her remains and car were found elsewhere, and then used as a way out of a lawsuit will doing the community a “service” and harming the Avery family. At this point, I have no doubt if Steven wasn’t related to that family, he would be not guilty, but the local hatred for them is so intense that it swung the votes.
            I wonder what the odds of a jury’s first call of 7 not guilty, 2 guilty, 3 undecided going to 12 guilty? It can’t be high. 1 of those 2 must have convinced the rest to do it for the whole community.

          • We know her car was reported before she was “missing”

            No we don’t. We know a police officer made a weird, suspicious call that he has not been able to satisfactorily explain.

            we know there is zero blood evidence on the Avery yard

            No we don’t. The Avery property is huge. She could have been killed anywhere on it. How would you detect blood on a 40-acre site?

          • We can be anal about it or sensible.
            The call about the license plate came from somewhere, there needs to be a reason why it was made and there wasn’t. It goes a long way to telling us the car wasn’t on the Avery lot at that point.

            Yes, the property is huge, but there are only so many buildings, and I don’t think that if she was killed on it, it was in row 43 of the car lot. It would have been in the buildings, I’m sure each one was checked.

            We can’t play dumb when looking at some aspects of a case and use our gut on others. If the numbers don’t add up, we are likely on the wrong solution.

          • I see absolutely no reason at all why she would have to be killed in a building. None.

            Also, you seem to equate being anal with not making huge assumptions.

          • “Well, if you want to be a purist about this, it also extends to the police, who are innocent until proven guilty.”

            Of course; I don’t know if any police officers committed any crime. What I do know is that the Maintowoc County Sheriff’s Department, recognizing the massive conflict of interest, assured everyone at the beginning that they wouldn’t be involved in the investigation. Well, they either lied or somehow screwed-up because they were involved – to the extent that deposed officers in the lawsuit found evidence. Because of this Steven Avery did not have due process (irrespective of his guilt or innocence).

            “For the very last time, my point is there’s no way the BF, roommate or brother were involved in murdering Teresa.”

            Again, I really don’t mean to be haranguing you, but you keep making categorical statements. Unless you know something the rest of us don’t know, what you really mean is, “I don’t think/feel there’s any way the BF….were involved…”

            “The filmmakers know that…”

            And how do you know they know that?

          • The filmmakers have been working on this project for 10 years. If they had one shred of proof that the brother, BF and roommate were involved in killing Teresa, it would be in the movie.

            Also if one of them killed her, there is no scenario except the most fantastical Dr. Evil kind in which her cremains would end up in three places on the AVery yard.

            The lawyers, who were a crack team, did not suspect these guys.

            I’m actually bewildered as to why the filmmakers would do this.

            The only two reasons I can think of are:

            1) They might suspect they helped plant evidence
            2) They really think they should have been investigated and are just trying to make that point. I find this ridiculous since you go where the evidence takes you. And unless one of these guys has an as-of-yet unknown connection to the Avery yard, the evidence does not lead to them. Period. The end.

          • “The filmmakers have been working on this project for 10 years. If they had one shred of proof that the brother, BF and roommate were involved in killing Teresa, it would be in the movie.”

            Not only wasn’t it the filmmakers job to look for proof; it clearly wasn’t their intention. They weren’t actively looking for proof of anyone’s innocence or guilt. They were filming what transpired in the court room, in the local media, and with the family.

            “The lawyers, who were a crack team, did not suspect these guys.”

            You’re talking about their Liability list? That’s only a list of possible “suspects” they’re hoping they can provide enough circumstantial evidence for to the Court in order to get around Wisconsin’s stringent Third Party Liability law; it’s certainly not a definitive list of “who they suspect”. And even the circumstantial evidence that had for various other Avery family members as suspects failed to convince the Court.

            I’m not sure how you think a defense team that doesn’t start until 3 months after the murder has occurred, 3 months after the police have already gathered up evidence from and trampled upon every significant location, 3 months after any un-investigated, potential suspect has had to eliminate incriminating evidence or bolster an alibi, that has no power of law enforcement behind it (i.e. unable to compel someone to talk with the threat of arrest), is going to arrive at facts other people may or may not be hiding. It would have to be something either very poorly hidden, of public record, or sheer accident.

          • And BTW, the cremains were not in 3 places on the Avery’s lot. One of the sites was a gravel quarry located about a half mile from the Salvage lot – likely the actual spot where the body was burned (as opposed to a few yards away from where a whole bunch of people live).

          • I remember seeing the ex-boyfriend twice: in the search party and on the stand. (Where the camera, voicemails etc. were brought up in a publicized court case). Are you saying the filmmakers shouldn’t have shown any of that footage? Is that what you’re calling unjustly incriminating the ex? I’m not seeing what you’re seeing…?

          • Funny that you’re so upset about filmmakers pointing fingers at innocent men, but you could care less about the possibility of Avery’s innocence! Also, were you aware that prosecutors in 2005 tried to subpoena all video footage and documentation the filmmakers had collected, and would collect in the future, claiming that they were acting as an investigative arm for the defense? Talk about pointing fingers at innocent people…

          • you could care less about the possibility of Avery’s innocence!

            Not sure where you get this idea when I’ve stated multiple times that I’m pretty convinced the police planted evidence and I don’t see proof Steven Avery was the murderer. True, I see the Averys as lowlifes and not the homespun clan they’re made out to be in Making a Murderer,but that doesn’t mean I think they should be railroaded.

            And no, I didn’t know prosecutors had tried to subpoena their video footage. And if that happened, I think it’s outrageous.

            However, none of that makes the filmmakers’ treatment of the brother, ex-BF and roommate okay.

          • Well, that’s terrible but it doesn’t surprise me that the prosecution would do that given everything else they did. What was the result? Was the prosecution subpoena quashed?

          • Yes, it was quashed. It’s amazing he had the audacity to accuse them of working under false pretenses. For someone who who was constantly praising law enforcement for their investigative efforts and the “solid” evidence they produced, his reasons for the subpoena sure seem to tell a different story.He was actually worried that 2 girls from New York were going to find something that law enforcement hadn’t in their investigaton….

          • It’s interesting to note that the Brief refutes ex-prosecutor Ken Kratz’s statement from 3 days ago that “he wasn’t provided the opportunity to answer any allegations made.” ( pg.7 “…affidavit includes a letter…”)

          • Actually *67 calls never carried a charge. *69 calls yes, never*67. She did call him and leave him a message that she could come out between 2 and 3, and gave her number and asked that he call her back. He most likely missed her call, didn’t recognize the number, used *67 to call the number back to see if he recognized the voice and hung up when she answered. Listened to her message and then called her again. I’m guilty of doing the very same thing a lot. I think people minds run wild on the details that are easily and reasonably explained, and completely disregard the details that have no reasonable explanation.

          • Actually *67 calls never carried a charge. *69 calls yes, never*67.

            Well, I could be misremembering or it could have varied from company to company.

            And no sorry, I think you’re downplaying the *67. Steven Avery was a creepy guy and Teresa Halbach had already complained to her boss about his inappropriate behaviour. There was no reason for whoever called her to use *67. But, like I said, it’s not a smoking gun, just another indication she was killed by someone with access to his phone and the salvage yard.

        • I hope I’m on the right thread here; this one is very long.

          *67, like a commentator already stated, is not a pay-per-call service. Phone companies are required to offer the alternative to by anonymous. It doesn’t vary from company to company. The explanation for blocked number might very well be that he didn’t want his number to be made public – he must’ve been harassed by journalists and people with good/bad intentions after his exoneration and the on-going lawsuit at this time, so it depends how you want to interpret. Did they prosecution back it up by showing it was an anomaly? Besides, the more stalker-ish phone-activity that day, happened between aprox. 11.30-12.30, when a person who was not Steven Avery called her every 5, 10 minutes, and only two of these called seemed to have been answered (they lasted for 1 minute, when the rest were only seconds long).

          As for the towel-incident, we don’t know how Teresa felt about it, as you claim, Ann. She told the receptionist about it, she didn’t complain to her boss (according to the information we have). That’s the prosecution’s narrative, it doesn’t have to be the truth. And it was excluded from the trial because it’s hearsay and the receptionist couldn’t remember when it was. You’re choosing to believe it was threatening.

          I’m not trying to say that he’s a creep or not, but the information we have that would support that theory is not enough to say he is (in Teresa’s case, anyway; I think it’s very wrong to say Teresa felt one way or another). Your statements are just speculation built upon the interpretation of facts made by the prosecution.

          • Plus: Ken Kratz is the only one who’s saying Teresa complained about Steven Avery to her boss. Can’t find a single source that backs it up.

  30. Strange that your problem is with the filmmakers. Perhaps if the police had done a proper investigation, we wouldn’t be relying on untrained amateurs to figure out what really happened?

    • Believe it or not I can have a problem with both the police and the filmmakers. It’s not an either/or situation.

      Investigative journalists aren’t untrained amateurs, BTW, and one of the directors is also a lawyer.

      The hating on the brother, ex-BF and roommate was entirely predictable. When you cast a convicted person and his family as protagonists, the natural reaction of the audience/mob is going to be to point the finger at someone else, and who better than the innocent men the filmmakers have set up to look suspicious? So yes, I think the filmmakers need to answer for their part in the mess.

      ETA: If Avery isn’t guilty, the real killer was almost certainly someone on the lawyers’ list of alternative suspects. And, like I said, the filmmakers avoided them because it punched a big hole through the nice homespun Avery family narrative.

      • OK fair point – they don’t have to be mutually exclusive. And to be sure, they portrayed Ms Halbach’s brother and friends in such a negative light I was sure they’d end up factoring into the crime somehow by the last episode. And the fact that they didn’t but still got the “creepy music” treatment does detract from the fact that the only reason it got to this point was because of the botched (likely obstructed) investigation.

        Also if the other suspects were members of the same family and the investigation only focused on the individual suing for $36 million, doesn’t that actually strengthen the central narrative that this was all retaliation for Steven Avery’s legal action?

        • “Also if the other suspects were members of the same family and the investigation only focused on the individual suing for $36 million, doesn’t that actually strengthen the central narrative that this was all retaliation for Steven Avery’s legal action?”

          Yes. And not only that, but at least 3 other members of this family had much more violent histories with women than Steven ever had, all knew Halbach was going to be there that day, and all had full access to the property. And none of them had spent 18 years in prison as an innocent man and was on the cusp of becoming a multimillionaire. Of all the people on the Salvage lot (except Barb and some of her kids), Steven seems the least likely to have committed the crime.

        • Also if the other suspects were members of the same family and the investigation only focused on the individual suing for $36 million, doesn’t that actually strengthen the central narrative that this was all retaliation for Steven Avery’s legal action?

          I think “all retaliation” may be overstating the matter. Certainly the cops benefited from the murderer being Steven AVery as opposed to another member of his clan. Did they know or care or even suspect he might not have been the real murderer? I have no idea.

          Does it seem like they planted evidence? Yes.

          Did the police benefit more from accusing STeven than another Avery? Yes.

          Do I think they killed Teresa or moved her remains as part of a frame-up? No.

          Do I think Steven has a motive for premeditated murder? No. He was about to receive a huge cash settlement, but that doesn’t mean some Halloween prank might not have gone off the rails. That said, if that was what happened, the guy deserves an Academy award.

          • Not sure quite where to post a comment, so I’m tagging onto someone else’s.

            1. We COULD kill him
            Someone else recalled the Prosecuting Attorney stating “It would be easier to kill Steven Avery than to frame him.” Eeeks. Would not want to have this person prosecuting me, oh that’s right, he’s no longer a Prosecutor.

            Not sure any officer, sheriff, marshall, or court official should ever hint or intimate they “could” kill someone if they wanted to. Well … I guess he gets what’s coming to him.

            2. Brother
            The brother who represents the family is always smiling, smirking, or laughing. Not sure that qualifies him as a suspect. It is odd behaviour. If my sister were killed, my continued reaction would not be to smile for the cameras. It would have been helpful to hear where other family members, room-mates, and ex boyfriends were. We are never given that information, which might have alleviated our suspicions.

            3. Brandon
            What can anyone say except this kid is swayed and intimidated to the point he can’t even make up their mind! Yes, their mind. He hasn’t the intellectual capacity to digest what is being asked of him. Maybe I’ll say this and they’ll be happy, or that. Any educated person can’t simply answer “yes” or “no” because their questions are so convoluted it’s hard to tell whether they want a “yes” or “no” response.

            Example: “don’t you think we want you to tell us the truth even if its the truth or not the truth?” . If you want me to tell the truth, the answer is yes. If you want me to tell the truth even if it’s not the truth the answer is no. Yes?

            4. Planting evidence
            Several people mention it wouldn’t have taken an entire Police force to plant evidence. Agreed. If the person who did commit the crime (e.g. a lead Prosecutor, who just so happens to call on women regularly who aren’t interested in him) could use the system he knows to his advantage. I’m just say’in.

            5. Social mid-conduct
            There is extremely concerning scenes where the former Prosecution in the Steve Avery’s case socialises with the Defence in Brandon’s case. Video shows Prosecuting team members talking with the original Defence team. This convinces audience members there is no real defence for Brandon. It convinced me.

            6. Standardisation
            Police in many other countries are there to help and assist. Unlike the U.S. where they are called in to use force instead of their heads. It seems we allow Police to simply have a H.S. education. Let’s have higher education standards. We expect it in our military. By the time you reach E-6 in the Navy you must have a bachelors degree in order to make Chief. Eight out of seventeen European countries enable bachelors degrees. Let’s encourage higher education for the Po-Po.

  31. thank you for your thoughts, Ann

    let me just comment on your main point: “the producers of the documentary unethically made the victim’s brother, ex-boyfriend and roommate look suspicious.” (quoting just out of my memory here)

    well, I just finished watching MaM and disagree with you. basically I disagree with anyone who tries to find a murderer and is pointing fingers. this really doesn’t help the case.

    I was gob-smacked by the way no real plausible evidence caused two men get life sentences. and simply shocked by the way that such police work and prosecution would ever stand a chance in a modern, educated nation.

    hence, I think that we should mainly focus on what did terribly go wrong there (and that’s what the documentary is pointing out in a very good way) and not by making it all worse and have more amateurs looking for more suspects.

    again: I don’t share your feeling. I only now wondered how anyone – who believes SA’s case was unfair – can honestly point a finger at anyone else. for now, the juristical system in this particular case are to be blamed. and no one else. and that’s why the producers of the documentary stayed ethical in NOT trying to search for an alternate murderer and by this ruining even more families (seeing the power of social media). we shouldn’t feed such assumptions by any comments.

    who ever might have been the real murderer, and I am really not biased here, is yet to be identified. this could still be SA or his Nephew or anyone else. thing is: there doesn’t seem to be any valid proof. and that’s the story. nothing else.

  32. So Ann, you spent 10 hours watching this and this is what you found appalling? Really? This was the worst thing to come out of this documentary?

  33. I watched it. …all the bleach in the world wouldn’t have cleaned up ALL of the blood from a gunshot wound, nor a slit throat. He would have crushed the car. Did he have the world’s hottest bonfire?No. There would have been ALOT of bones still present. Just exactly how did that hole get put into the purple lid on the blood vial?… Mice? Oh, I forgot. ..professional crime scene investigators missed a long ass Toyota key attached to a light blue lanyard just laying on the floor. ..multiple times. .? Lenk found it. …oh wait, he wasn’t supposed to be there! According to reports, her DNA wasn’t even on her own key? Nice. I know where not to visit ever.

  34. Only briefly touched upon in the series are the recorded phone calls Steven received from Jodi (in jail at the time for a DUI). These phone calls poke huge holes in the prosecution’s timeline. These calls are not hurried or ignored, but on the contrary seem drawn out! They’re between two people who don’t want to get off the phone with one another. These spoke magnitudes to me. Anyone else?

  35. I just watched the documentary and absolutely did not feel that the film-makers were casting doubt upon the brother, ex, or room-mate. They showed very limited footage of these people. Mainly because thats all they could use. The family refused to have anything to do with the film, so only publicly available media clips could be used.

    Maybe the people that feel the film cast these people in a bad light didnt pick up on that bit of information?

    I finished the film feeling that the brother was a grieving brother, doing a job he never wanted to do (being family spokesperson in the trial of his sisters horrific death). I felt very sorry for what he is going through. THAT definitely came through in the film.
    The ex and the room-mate had what amounted to cameo roles in the film, and I have, really, no opinion on them. I think the film presented the facts of their minor involvement, and thats all. No bias.

    So, some people are going off the deep end because they misinterpreted the film, or missed the fact that the film-makers hands were tied with respect to presenting the familys side. Obviously there are other people (like myself, and other commenters) that saw no bias. Its hardly logical to blame the film-makers for a vocal minority that got the wrong end of the stick.

  36. “They are still ethically obliged to treat them fairly. In my opinion they failed to do this.”

    There seems to be a wide range of opinions about this, but it’s understandable why some could feel this way. But the question then becomes, do the filmmakers leave out the testimony and evidence that voicemails were listened to on the 2nd and deleted on the 3rd?

    Because unless you think Teresa was still alive on the 2nd, that information is inherently suspicious because no one admits to it (and it points away from Avery). And since the brother and ex-boyfriend (and roomie?) are the only ones known to have her voicemail password, they inevitably have suspicion cast on them – not because of anything the filmmakers did – but because of the facts surrounding the suspicious information.

    • It used to be quite common for people to access voicemail by pressing one button on their phone no password required. Teresa’s killer, who took her phone, could have accessed the voicemail this way or by demanding she give him the password, if she used one.

        • No, if you didn’t have the phone, you would need a password to access it remotely. I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember the nineties but often if you had the physical phone you didn’t need a PW. You just pressed one key.

          ETA Clarification: Accessing voicemail from the physical phone was often a different process than accessing it remotely.

          • But this wasn’t the ’90’s. I still use my cell phone from 2004 sometimes (because it’s much tinier than my iPhone) and it has no such button. Plus no one – Cingular reps, Kratz, etc. mentioned this detail – so I think it’s a stretch.

          • You may be interested in this article. It makes the whole voicemail thing look a lot less suspicious and more like a big red herring:

            Zimmerman, a voice mail support tech, cleared up confusion about a Nov. 2, 2005, call to Halbach’s voice mail.

            During testimony on Feb. 27, managers from two cell service providers created confusion over when Halbach last took a call on her cell phone and when her voice mail last was accessed.

            Zimmerman testified Wednesday that a record of activity at 8:05 a.m. on Nov. 2, 2005, was someone leaving Teresa Halbach a message, not someone accessing her voice mail account.

            Zimmerman testified that there were 18 messages in Halbach’s voice mail when the account records were pulled. Ten of the messages had been opened, but not saved.

            More at http://archive.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0101/703080688/Prosecution-closes-its-case

          • It does seem to clear up the Nov,2nd accessing – although I thought Kratz had managed to convince the judge to keep that testimony out of the trial anyway (so not needing any rebuttal).

            Of course, the testimony doesn’t clear up the later voicemail deletion(s).

          • True – although they might also indicate Ryan had a fight with Teresa on the phone and wanted to delete the evidence 🙂 Now I don’t really believe that, but if you want to claim that unsaved Cingular voicemails expire in just a couple of days, you’ll have to produce some documentation.

            But one thing I was surprised not to see during the trial from the defense side (although maybe it was cut for some reason):

            I’ve spent time in India, and there they do outside cremations. They smell *extremely* strongly – with a distinctive and unpleasant odor. I can’t believe anyone would actually burn body parts in a pit located a few dozen yards from where Barb and the kids lived (unless the whole family was in on it). If that’s the case, then it seems likely the body was burned at the gravel quarry (which would explain the blood stain from Teresa’s hair in the SUV), but then it seems fairly conclusive to me that the killer *can’t* be Steven – unless you can come up with a reason why anyone would burn a body a half mile away and then transfer most of the evidence back to a pit behind his house.

          • At the end of the day, the only point I’m trying to make is that had the police established everyone’s alibi, including the brother’s, people wouldn’t have as much suspicion about him. It’s shitty that he, or anybody else, has to try and defend the possibility that he was involved10 years later. If the police would have just eliminated him as a suspect, as they typically would have in any other investigation, you wouldn’t have had to write about this at all.

          • If the police would have just eliminated him as a suspect, as they typically would have in any other investigation, you wouldn’t have had to write about this at all.

            You are operating under a misconception about how investigations work.

            Even though statistically a woman is more likely to be killed by an intimate partner or a family member than a stranger, if she is killed at a salvage yard to which no one she knows has any ties, you don’t investigate the ex-BF and brother. Investigations are supposed to go where the evidence leads them and there was nothing leading to the brother or the ex BF.

            Would it have been better if the voicemail thing was cleared up and fully explained. Yes. But it’s almost certainly a giant red herring. It doesn’t constitute grounds to investigate anyone.

            Avoiding tunnel vision doesn’t mean you investigate everyone or you must look at multiple suspects. It means you remain open to questioning your initial assumptions and you consider all the evidence.

          • I get what you’re saying, but you are glossing over a few things.

            First: no evidence was ever found to support the contention that she was killed at the salvage yard. In fact, the best piece of evidence contradicts that idea: the bloody stain from Teresa’s hair which indicates her body was carried in the SUV. So if her body was carried *away* from the salvage yard in the SUV, why would anyone bring the SUV back? And you still have the problem that the police could never prove where she was killed on the lot.

            Secondly: “Investigations are supposed to go where the evidence leads them and there was nothing leading to the brother or the ex BF.”
            But here’s the problem: we know from the phone calls that the police were steering the investigation towards the Averys before there was one shred of credible evidence pointing to them. Just because you happen to be the last known person visited by someone that was killed does not mean the cops don’t bother interrogating anyone else or looking for evidence elsewhere.

          • BTW, my current theory that I believe fits all of the facts (post-murder – I don’t try to guess the killer) is as follows (and I realize, of course, this is pure speculation):

            Some person kills Teresa and moves her body to the gravel quarry and burns it. They leave the cremains and the car there.

            On Nov.3rd, Colborn finds the car and calls in the plates, then starts looking around the quarry and discovers the cremains. He calls Lenk (and maybe another person?) on his private cell, and they all have a confab at the quarry. Now the Avery lot is less than a half mile away, so it could be that they *truly* believe Steven is guilty of the crime – or it could be that they just think it’s got to be one of the Avery’s, so we might as well solve that little $36M problem at the same time. So they hatch a plan. Lenk gets the blood (if he doesn’t already have it) and they decorate the car inside.

            That night (or perhaps the following night of the 4th, because that day the entire extended Avery family, except for Earl, goes to the cabin 100 miles away) they move the car to the lot. Then they borrow one of the burn barrels, and transfer most of the cremains to Steven’s pit (leaving some remnants in the barrel, the second location on the Avery lot).

            The following morning word comes down (someone hints to someone else to call someone else) from the “boss” to the detectives to tell the citizen search party to search the salvage lot. The ignition key is planted a few days later just to make sure there is something in Steven’s trailer to tie him to the crime. And the same thing for the bullet found 3 months later (to tie in Steven’s garage).

  37. Don’t underestimate the viewers…. I’m convinced that $36,000,000 was a very high incentive for MC law enforcement to murder Teresa Halbach and pin it on Steve Avery. Of course that’s a horrific thought for not only the family of Teresa Halbach, but the community as a whole, to believe that their own law enforcement agency would be capable of something so sinister and evil and much easier for to accept that someone like Steve Avery committed the crime – law enforcement knew and counted on this. Law enforcement knew that Teresa took photos for Auto Trader and knew she would be the ideal candidate to use [murder] to frame Steve Avery and make the potential $36.000,000 payout disappear – for good. How anyone could ever sleep soundly in MC is beyond me. Your law enforcement agency/officers are not there to “serve and protect” – they are there solely to serve and protect themselves, even if it means the taking of an innocent civilian. Evil walks among you and it wears a badge and titles of power (i.e., D.A., etc)…

    • 36 million reasons. An absolutely terrifying concept for sure and the timing of the event is just… well, you know. Sadly, this makes far more sense than any other theory.

      Cops are killing people every single day in this country with much less motive or reason than this. Sometimes they seem to do it just because they want to and feel certain that they will continue to get away with it. How long will we continue to let them?

  38. There are so many problems with the whole case and the timeline. I can’t believe they’re suggesting Steven cleaned up all the blood but didn’t crush the vehicle when he had a crusher. Who in their right mind, who owned a crusher, would cover the vehicle with branches as this would surely make it more visible because it was the “odd man out” in the scrap yard. The school bus drivers testimony puts the testimony of Bobby Dassey and therefore Tadych, in serious doubt. The jail phone calls from Jodi and the timeline, if you believe the school bus drivers testimony, would make it very difficult for Steven to commit the crime, I would think. I’m not sure about Brendan, it wouldn’t surprise me if he was co-erced by Bobby and Tadych into blaming Steven and claiming to have witnessed the murder. Maybe he did witness it but it wasn’t Steven who committed the murder. I think there’s more going on with Brendan than we know. He is obviously an easy target when it comes to manipulation, this much is obvious by the confession recordings but I also believe he’s a boy with a troubled mind and I question whether we’ve ever heard the actual truth about what he knows. The Avery family clearly has many issues and it seems obvious there are more suspects than Steven. Surely enough for reasonable doubt.

    • Where the hell is the blood spatter and evidence of her throat being slashed? Where is the knife? They tested 6 knives and no DNA from Teresa was on them.
      SO many contradictions and inconsistencies. How was there not reasonable doubt here?

    • Can anyone imagine Brendan reading Kiss The Girls? That made me highly suspicious-especially the way he stated maybe it was the book he read, when pressed.

      Alson, Mark is right about the smell of bodies being burned. I grew up about a quarter of mile from a crematorium and even with all the precautions they had to take, you could still smell they were “cooking someone”. as we used to say.

  39. You know what detail bothers me, the fact about the EDTA test run by the FBI. They got 3 swabs of blood samples taken from the car. Who took these samples? Maybe it was Lensk who seemed to have all the answers. How do we know they were not Theresas blood samples takens that would show no EDTA presence from the tubes? And they mentioned that there were 6 samples and only 3 were tested. I find this strange.

      • edta test is flawed, look it up. Only one result can be proven, false negative rate above 80%. Never allowed in court for many years, until this case

  40. Seems like the cops wanted to allow someone else to find that car on the property. It was up close to the houses, and some “searcher” found it in ten minutes. Wouldn’t there be fingerprints on the hood of the car that was leaning on the Rav4? Wouldn’t there be DNA on the wood that was on top of it?

    It seems like an embarassment that the local cops wouldn’t find the car on the property, and just too cute by half that some searcher found it.

  41. And Ann it’s awfully presumptuous of you, just because you feel the filmmakers were able to lead you to your conclusions, that the rest of us were so easily fooled. Some of us actually do have higher intelligence than the average Avery.

    • Not really, I didn’t quantify how many people fell for the film’s schtick about the brother and the ex-BF. But all you have to do is Google and check out Twitter and Twitter, to see there’s lots and lots of idiots out there.

  42. You’re right it’s a travesty all around. However I and many others tend to believe the greatest travesty is in regards to Avery and Dassey, not the fact that we could somehow be led to believe by the filmmakers that Hallbach and friends are the guilty parties.

  43. I think this write up misses overall points of the documentary. Forget Steven Avery and his family. They could be anyone and the message would be the same. it shed light on a corrupt justice system and just how easy it is for cops to plant evidence and frame somebody. Manitowac simply got lucky that Steven even had money to appoint the brilliant and dedicated lawyers he got. Otherwise no one would be the wiser about the police corruption that went on and goes on. He deserves justice for the way he was framed by the police. Who killed Theresa will likely never be known regardless.

  44. BTW, if you think the filmmakers were biased towards innocent people, you better hold your breath (or nose) for what is about to happen in the coming few weeks: every single person in Wisconsin that has the slightest bit of gossip, innuendo, etc. about every single person from the documentary (except perhaps the Halbach and Avery parents) is going to come out of the woodwork.

    I already read a post on Reddit from a co-worker of Ryan’s (they both work at a certain hospital in Milwaukee) that was talking smack about him.

    And the tidal wave is about to begin….

    • Yes and then the filmmakers will wring their hands Sarah Koenig style. But this is the very predictable result of their work. I actually don’t fault Koenig for throwing shade at innocent people — because she didn’t do it– but the directors of Making a Murderer have a lot to answer for IMO.

      • I appreciate your steadfastness, Ann, but just because you believe that if there’s no smoke there’s no fire, it does not make people innocent. It sure would be a simpler world if it did, but it doesn’t.

        And as I tried to explain, the gossip/speculation storm that will rage around in the coming days has nothing to do with anything the filmmakers could/couldn’t do – (unless they provided rock-solid alibis for the various characters or never made the film to begin with).

        There will people coming out of the woodwork that will claim to have known that FBI guy and noticed he seemed to have a “big ego”, so he is *clearly* the perpetrator, having killed Halbach in a cunning plan to get the test he developed some major news coverage, in order to move up into the higher echelons at Quantico.

        EVERYONE that doesn’t have a rock solid alibi or isn’t a parent of someone murdered or unjustly imprisoned is likely to have some looney spreading gossip about them – Ryan, roomie, all of the Averys, the DNA lady, anybody that appears on screen “suspiciously”; few will be spared.

      • I don’t think the filmmakers were throwing shade at innocent people at all. Yes, the brother/family spokesperson seemed to buy into the “police are our friends” fantasy, but he was grieving and probably wanted nothing more than justice for his sister. It would be difficult to entertain the possibility of other suspects when your family is devastated and your heart is broken. The Halbach family’s tunnel vision was probably grief induced. They wanted to believe the police had their man, and were willing to turn a blind eye to the INCREDIBLY SHADY investigative tactics used by Manitowac officers.

  45. Hello,

    I’m still appalled by the investigative process, the creepy Ken Kratz prosecutor gives me chills & makes me sick to my stomach with his smirky smugness and corrupt behavior, the coerced confession of Brendan and much more was a mess. Much like the law enforcement destruction of critical evidence, single focus, yet-to-be-solved JonBonet Ramsey case.

    However, despite all of the horrific investigation processes and legal mishandling of the case, that does not mean Steven Avery is innocent.

    Why do I think this? Well….

    – Nine convictions of Avery, prior to his imprisonment for the crime he did not commit, were not allowed into trial.
    – At age 18, Avery pleaded guilty to burglarizing a bar and was sentenced to 10 months in prison.
    – At age 20 Avery pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after pouring gas and oil on Avery’s cat and throwing it into a fire, watching it burn alive
    – Avery was sentenced to prison again for that crime
    – In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting his cousin, threatening her with a firearm (he was on probabation at the time)
    – Avery was sentenced to 6 years for the assault of his cousin, for which he was guilty
    – Avery was also sentenced to 12 years (not 18 years) for the rape of a Manitowoc woman, Penny Beerntsen, for which he was later exonerated.
    – Avery purchased handcuffs and shackles just prior to the murder of Teresa Halbach.
    – Steven Avery called Auto Trader on Monday October 31, 2005 specifically requesting Teresa Halbach to come over and photograph a car
    – Steven’s two brothers, Earl and Chuck Avery were both charged and convicted of sexual assault and battery; what kind of family and parents raise three such violent kids
    – The other two most likely suspects would be one of Steven’s brothers. However, the parents were portrayed as innocent victims of corruption, might have pulled right out of the multi-year film project with NetFlix leaving the directors empty handed.
    – Despite his brother’s past significant run-ins with the law, both brothers believe Steven is guilty and have stated they hope he rots in hell
    – On Oct. 31 2005, Brendan’s mom asked him why he had white spots all over his jeans to which he replied his uncle had asked him to come over and clean his garage floor with bleach and he got it on his pants.

    I don’t think Brendan was present for the actual murder, I think that information was a false coerced confession by an overzealous, under-trained, and possibly illegal – I don’t know laws on this issue – actions by law enforcement.

    It seems very likely some evidence was planted. But I don’t believe the police or law enforcement could have known Teresa would be at Avery’s, stopped her car, killed her, burned her body and brought her to the Avery property. If they wanted revenge, there were other ways it could be done. It doesn’t mean Avery is innocent. Police corruption, yes!

    I can’t find a verified source on this, but I’ve read that his girlfriend, Jodi had either pushed him away or been told she couldn’t see him because she was on probation in the days prior to the murder because and/or Avery was also on probation due to his possession of weapons (a violation of his probation). He could have become increasingly enraged over the weekend, calling for Teresa to come over first thing on Monday morning, October 31, 2005. Pure conjecture as I said, I don’t have verified facts. But if anyone can verify them – there is another possible motive for Avery.

    I think Steven Avery wanted revenge. I think he’s a sociopath. Who pours gas over a family pet and watches it burn in a bonfire? Who abducts a woman? Who assaults their cousin? Steven Avery did all over these things and more prior to his false conviction of rape.

    Halloween was on a Monday, following the weekend when daylight savings time commenced; which may very well explain the hour difference time of day recounted by various witnesses. Few had smart phones in 2005, which auto-change the time.

    However, the bus driver did have the time correct, but clocks in homes and cars of witnesses may not have been turned forward an hour. Hence, instead of the real time of 3:45pm on October 31, 2005, many clocks may have shown 2:45pm. I’m surprised this never was taken under consideration.

    Only Steven Avery knew Teresa was coming to his home. He had called and requested that she be sent over to his home the morning of the murder.

    • Two more things regarding Steven Avery’s past prior to wrongful rape conviction:

      1. In 1984, Steven Avery was convicted of an attempted abduction of a Mishicot woman.

      2. Teresa had shared that in the past when she went to his property to photograph cars, Steven Avery had answered the door with nothing but a towel around his waist.

      • Seriously? You post a long list of factsips (factsip = fact+gossip) which was full of errors, and then decide to return and post two more? Please, in the name of all that is holy, do some fact-checking before spreading misinformation.

        “1. In 1984, Steven Avery was convicted of an attempted abduction of a Mishicot woman.”

        This is his COUSIN; i.e. the exact same conviction as you already mentioned in your previous list. Why do you think he got such a ridiculously long sentence (6 years) for what was essentially a family dispute that escalated? Because she was married to a cop and got them to throw the book at him and charge him with attempted abduction. Granted, he was clearly trying to scare and intimidate her, but why on Earth would he abduct his own cousin? She lived virtually next door.

        “2. Teresa had shared that in the past when she went to his property to photograph cars, Steven Avery had answered the door with nothing but a towel around his waist.”

        Teresa told a receptionist at her work that one time Steven Avery answered his door in a towel. Period.


        But given the amount of people that seem severely concerned about this issue and it’s telltale suggestion of future raping/murdering behavior, I guess the best thing we could learn from this whole thing is to send out armies of undercover cops ASAP to ring doorbells and immediately arrest anyone that answers wearing a towel. In this way, we could be sure to preempt many violent crimes before they occur.

      • The attempted abduction was a charge in the incident with his cousin. She was spreading rumors about him and driving by his house antagonizing him and he ran her off the road and pulled out an unloaded gun and told her to stop spreading rumors. That is not another separate crime nobody is aware of. And Steven Avery is not the only man to have Everest answered the door in a towel.

    • Nice try. Daylight Savings – time doesn’t change until 12:00 a.m. which is technically November 1st. So the time difference on the 31st cannot be explained as someone not changing their clocks yet. Also, everyone knew the girl from Auto Trader was coming to take pictures, he told multiple members of the family. Auto Trader employees knew as well.

    • Wow, your message is almost a textbook example of the lynch mentality that got Steven and Dassey convicted without due process. Let’s make a few corrections, shall we?

      “– Nine convictions of Avery, prior to his imprisonment for the crime he did not commit, were not allowed into trial.”

      Convictions are what happen “at trial” – they don’t magically happen without a trial. If you mean arrests, then the arrests were either dropped or thrown out. Without knowing the details, that could just as well be evidence of police harassment. In other words, without facts you are just spreading innuendo.

      “– At age 18, Avery pleaded guilty to burglarizing a bar and was sentenced to 10 months in prison.”

      Yes. we know this.

      “– At age 20 Avery pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after pouring gas and oil on Avery’s cat and throwing it into a fire, watching it burn alive”

      Yes, we know this too. So let’s just say, “Yadda, yadda, yadda… repeat Steven’s offences from +30 years ago…”

      “– Avery was also sentenced to 12 years (not 18 years) for the rape of a Manitowoc woman, Penny Beerntsen, for which he was later exonerated.”

      Now this is the point in your post where you should list all of the violent acts Steven Avery committed after the age of 26; i.e. in the 17 years leading up to Halbach’s murder.

      Hmm.. nothing there.

      “– Avery purchased handcuffs and shackles just prior to the murder of Teresa Halbach.”

      Luckily for him (and perhaps you), it’s not illegal to purchase sex toys in Wisconsin yet – although judging by the current direction of jurisprudence there, it soon will be. And if by “just prior” you mean almost 4 weeks before, then I guess women have their period just prior to their period.

      “– Steven Avery called Auto Trader on Monday October 31, 2005 specifically requesting Teresa Halbach to come over and photograph a car”

      Yes, Steven had dealt with her professionally a half dozen times already that year – so it seems super suspicious that he would request the same person from Auto Trader to work with again. Didn’t he realize it would be much better to ask for a stranger he’d never had dealings with, just in case they happened to get murdered? And in case you’ve never bothered to read any actual facts about the case (which is beginning to seem likely), he was calling for his sister, Barbara Janda, who was selling her Dodge Caravan that Halbach photographed.

      “– Steven’s two brothers, Earl and Chuck Avery were both charged and convicted of sexual assault and battery; what kind of family and parents raise three such violent kids”

      You do realize that this is not evidence of anything against Steven Avery, don’t you?

      “– The other two most likely suspects would be one of Steven’s brothers. However, the parents were portrayed as innocent victims of corruption, might have pulled right out of the multi-year film project with NetFlix leaving the directors empty handed.”

      I can’t even parse the meaning of this sentence.

      “– Despite his brother’s past significant run-ins with the law, both brothers believe Steven is guilty and have stated they hope he rots in hell”

      I wonder why? Given the neck-stretching climate in Manitowoc Country, I’m guessing that strong support of Steven’s innocence makes you super-popular there. And P.S. (please, do some reading) both brothers weren’t very happy with losing 1/4 of the inheritance of the Salvage lot with Steven’s exoneration.

      “– On Oct. 31 2005, Brendan’s mom asked him why he had white spots all over his jeans to which he replied his uncle had asked him to come over and clean his garage floor with bleach and he got it on his pants.”

      And yet police officers combing Steven’s garage for days, weeks, months never found a speck of bleach residue. Hmm… that might make me question Brendan’s “story”.

      “I think Steven Avery wanted revenge.”

      Revenge on whom? Those bastards that were just about to write him a check for $36 million. Yes, I can just imagine him now, “Those bastards; I’m gonna get them… I’m going to really make them *not* pay.”

      “I think he’s a sociopath.”

      And I think, when you hear a bell, an angel gets their wings. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean it’s true.

      “Who abducts a woman?”

      I don’t know, who? Not Steven Avery. Or are you in such a frenzy that you haven’t noticed you’re making stuff up?

      “-Who assaults their cousin?”

      I’m guessing someone in a years-long feud with their cousin.

      “-Steven Avery did all over these things and more prior to his false conviction of rape.”

      Well, not the abduction crap you made up, but yes he did the other stuff in his 20’s, then he spent 18 years in prison as an innocent man and turned 40.

      “-Only Steven Avery knew Teresa was coming to his home.”

      This couldn’t be further from the truth if truth was at the North Pole and your statement was at the South. Read the transcripts – virtually *EVERYONE* connected to the Salvage lot knew Halbach was coming – as well as the people at Auto Trader magazine, and anyone else she happened to mention it to before 3:00pm that day. If you were planning on murdering someone that was planning to visit you, you couldn’t have thought up a less concealed, more obvious-to-tons-of-people way to do it.

  46. Steve should have taken the mistrial when the juror had to excuse himself AND he made the classic mistake of not taking the stand. When you are facing life in prison, with noting but time on your hands? What’s another year or two waiting on a new trial? Or taking the stand at least you won’t spend the rest of your life wondering if you did the right thing and if you expended all options.

    I would not have hesitated to call a mistrial when the juror had to excuse himself. Not only would that likely resulted in a lower bail, but he may not have been retried the same way. I understand that he has a low IQ, that must is certain just listening to the level of his vocabulary. But he also had some pretty shrewd things to say about his case, which made a lot of sense. With that much on the line, I don’t understand why he

    • I disagree. I think his defense team put up a good defense, and if the trial had taken place anywhere without a biased jury, he would have been acquitted. If he took the mistrial, he would have to go through the entire expense of another trial (and his funds were almost gone), and with such a high profile case, there is no way his bail would have been reduced – plus the prosecution would have been better prepared to fend off those same arguments of reasonable doubt a second time.

  47. I must have missed the part in the series where Mike Halbach was accused of murder. Where was it again?

    I also missed the part in this story where he got a sympathetic quote or where he did miss an opportunity to make Avery look bad.

  48. 20 year attorney and former state attorney who just finished binge watching the show prior to reading anything about it. Just saw Jason Whitlock tweet a link to this page.

    I completely disagree with you on this.

    Nutshell, her brother (zero emotions during trial or press conferences is off but he could have been medicated so possible) and ex looked bad during their testimony even if just clips. I actually don’t think the directors highlighted it enough. If you watched it and felt that way thats because you thought they were legitimate suspects. That’s on you not the directors. I did not feel that way. The defense would have smoked that out and I knew that while watching.

    No one has an alibi in this case as presented because we have no reliable timeline unless you believe Brandon. OK.

    While watching, I thought Steven was guilty. But after the trial I thought he was framed and/or protecting someone else.

    It’s quite possible that Steven was protecting his nephews and was well aware that since he didn’t do it and since there was zero evidence that he did, it he would be ok staying silent about who actually did it.

    Regardless, it certainly didn’t go down as the prosecution said it did in either trial.

    “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit”

    I could comment on each piece of evidence here but it’s so obvious so I’ll refrain.(blood, no other keys on chain, no one heard 11 gun shots, down destruction of car on a salvage lot, dumb dirty people cleaning better than The Wolf, backyard fire achieving cremation place results)

    Bottom line, “The Glove” didn’t come close to fitting here.

    • Well said. Guilty until proven innocent.

      I am not a lawyer and do not understand the legal process as well as I thought I did prior to watching this.

      My question in regards to the closing statement given by the DA.

      He keeps pressing on subjects that seem to have been obviously dis-proven by the defense.

      I understand that this this a film meant to portray the innocence of Mr. Arvery and not all of the closing statements were shown; but I can’t help but feel like the DA was super cocky and just tried shoving the initial “common sense” or “last person to see her” scenario down the jury’s throats.

      Is there anyway a judge can intervene during a closing statement?

      • Closing is where the attorneys get to tie all of the evidence together and make their argument be persuasive and explain the law to the jury. But you can’t argue/contend things that are not in evidence.

        The prosecution wants to keep it as simple as possible for the jury especially in a case with minimal to no hard evidence. Steven called her, she was seen there and we found her car on property etc etc. Keep it simple stupid…. Defense needs to stress reasonable doubt. Has to be BEYOND a reasonable doubt to convict.

        Speaking of stupid, I think some people are over estimating the intelligence and skills of the police department. This is a small town. We’re not talking big city detectives with tons of murder investigations during a year. These guys were simpletons too. They knew she went to the house and they focused in on him. They had blinders on and they bungled the search because they were awful at their job.

  49. You are giving the film makers too much credit. Their testimony on the stand made them look guilt. A lot is to be said about the way people conduct themselves during questioning.

  50. Wait what? The victim’s brother was certainly made to look like a fool, you are correct. But you state multiple times that the directors imply that he could have murdered her. I never noticed those implications can someone please give an example unlike the author of this? The defense lawyers did imply that it could have been the ex-boyfriend or the roommate but never the brother… unless I just missed that part. But yes, the brother was painted as a perfect idiot. Honestly I’d dislike that man if I was only shown his video clips without any other context about this case. Just the few minutes of screen time that he got with nothing else would do it for me. He’s really just not a likable guy. I know he’s grieving and whatnot but his mannerisms, awkward sense of humor, and general conviction to his words (especially that “God’s path” bit towards the end) just made me cringe. WHO MADE THAT DOOFUS THE FAMILY SPOKESPERSON?!

  51. I think the brother was brainwashed by the police and DA. He was so desperate to believe that his family was getting justice, that he did not actually listen to the evidence in an objective manner. He approached every testimony or piece of evidence as a conspiracy of lies on the part of the Avery family rather than see the police corruption in light of their real motives and the aggressive tactics against Brendan Dassey which led to an untrue and therefore wrong direction in the case. Even though the series is slanted to the defense team, I can clearly see that justice was not done in this case. Unless you can tell me that there was evidence presented that was not in the documentary that clearly connected Avery to the case, I an unswayed and see the judge, jurors, and Mike Halbach in a very bad light at this point. I feel that both Avery and Dassey should be released on their own recognizance immediately due to the questionable evidence and be granted a new trial.

    The Cingular wireless records would be an interesting start for searching for alternate suspects. The tantalizing issue of a possible troublesome caller to Halbach’s phone and possible deleted messages makes me wonder if this would bear significant fruit for the case. We never really heard whether or not the attorneys investigated this further. I would like to know what they found and if they met resistance in obtaining information.

    I would also like to see Scott Tadych investigated more. He never seemed to want to be seen in a court room or around law enforcement and he also had an obvious hatred of Steven and he just came across as a suspicious person with access to the property with an excuse if caught.

  52. Funny my gf said Cratz was a perv the first time he spoke. Did they actually have jurors that understand the English language? It sure appears that law enforcement and judges are corrupt as they get. Brendan’s first lawyer should be behind bars or disbarred at the very least. Its so sad for the Halbach family because they didn’t get justice they just got the States sacrificial lambs. They lost a daughter and the killer is still out there and probably wearing a badge.

  53. Guilty or not they should be freed based on the extreme rights violations, conflict of interest with the police department and pending lawsuit and tampering with evidance and should have been thrown out. In the history of Murder investigations have they ever been so lucky as to find perfectly placed evidence and nothing more ? There is one major piece of evidence that I feel should exonerate ANY Avery from this crime and any questions as to who was behind this. Whomever committed this murder had access to that blood vial PERIOD. Thats why Stevens blood is found and not someone else. A lonely key is also very suspicious because who has just one key ? How do you explain Averys DNA and not the owners ? How do you explain no finger prints but blood on the SUV ? They set him up twice but this time made sure the charges would stick.

    • freed based on rights? Do you not read the papers. Cops murder unarmed people on a regular basis and are not even charged let alone tried and convicted. The American police are just like Hitlers brown shirts nowadays. A law unto themselves with a license to kill with impunity

  54. Sometimes we can’t see for looking.

    I’m quite surprised that no one seems to have noticed that Brandon Bassey is childlike, simple, easily influenced and was clearly stitched up by his first lawyer (Len Kachinsky) who seems to have been working with the prosecution. He was definitely the perfect person to intimidate and solidify a conviction. He was guilty of not being confident enough to express himself.

    Why did no one check to see if he was still a virgin to clear him of the rape?

    What happened to a polygraph?

    How can hardcore police interview and terrorise a 14 & 16 year old, is this legal without parents or an appropriate adult?

    I’m still confused how Steven Avery was exonerated for his first crime by DNA and still treated as if he was guilty?

    So many questions for which we will never know the answers, all I know is that we are all vulnerable. Don’t let something like this happen to you or your loved ones before you realise whats happening. Do you really feel safe in this day and age???

    • Polygraph results are not admissible in court. They can be used as probable cause for an arrest, but not as evidence in court. Similar to how a breathalyzer test is used for drunk driving. An officer can use the result as probable cause to arrest someone, but only the blood test results can be used in court. There are too many errors with these tests because a lot of things can be taken into account for certain test results. Also, it is not illegal to question a child without a parent present. Any officer or attorney will tell you that it’s not right, but it is legal. Children do not have the same rights as an adult. It’s not right, but unfortunately it is legal.

        • I’m sorry, I was actually referring to a PBT result, not a breathalyzer. Most agencies don’t even use breathalyzer tests anymore because of reliability issues. The preliminary breath test result ( the one given on the side of the road) is inadmissible in court.

    • Brendan Dassey was completely lost and was sinking. The police knew that and took advantage.
      Oh and how on earth can you check to see if he was still a virgin?
      Pretty much impossible I’d say.

      • Oh and how on earth can you check to see if he was still a virgin?

        It’s not like you can even confirm this with a woman or girl in every case let alone a boy or man.

  55. Anyone deaf dumb & blind can see clearly that Steven Avery & his nephew are 100% INNOCENT. THE COPS ..100% CORRUPT. Fool proof TRUTH eventually floats to the surface. God will VINDICATE in due time Steven & Brendan and God will bring down & destroy CORRUPT COPS.

  56. I have watched three episodes and I can’t watch it anymore because it literally seems like everyone is lying.

  57. One thing I haven’t seen discussed is the incredible effort that the cops put into getting Brandon to admit that she was shot in the head. If all the bones left were just a few scraps, how did anyone know she was shot in the head?

  58. Excellent site, AnnB. Nice design and thoughtful, arch, but respectful responses to some less than respectful posts. Thank you. I hope people continue to post here as it’s the best source I’ve seen for discussion of this disturbing and complexed case.

  59. This article was obviously written to defend the police for their obvious attempt to have Teresa Halbach murdered to save the 36 MILLION dollars police have murdered people for far less many times in 2015 alone.

  60. Good commentary. I do think it would have been important to scour Theresa’s phone history to see who might have been calling with menacing calles for weeks. And also the cell phone company should have been able to tell what tower(s) the phone was nearest when any calls were made or received or voice mails were checked–or the phone even rang, as the signal would have gone to the phone, if it was on. But this was not clear in the documentary.

    Yes, I would think since the bones and vehicle were found on the Avery property, other relatives would be prime suspects if Steven were innocent. I was struck by the inconsistent (with the facts) statements by Brendan Dassey’s brother and step-father. They said they saw Theresa taking photos and walking toward Steven’s trailer just before they went hunting around 2:30 or 2:45, and they corroborate each other. But the school bus driver–who is very reliable–says she saw Theresa taking the photos a full hour later about 3:40! She knew her route and there is no way she was off by more than 5 minutes one before or after. And that’s when Brendan would have been getting off the bus. It smells fishy that Steven’s other nephew and brother-in-law would have corroborating statements that are at odds with other facts and a more sensible timeline.

    Steven’s brother-in-law said the bonfire only had 3-foot flames the first time he gave a statement, but changes it to 10- to 12-foot flames on the stand. And after the sentencing, he says Steven got what was coming to him. Plus, there was some suggestion that Steven’s brother-in-law tried to sell his step-son’s rifle a few weeks after the murder. It all smells fishy.

    If it was a set-up by Avery relatives, I would speculate that the body was burned in the Dassey burn barrel down in the quarry (where some bones were apparently found), then the murderer(s) took the barrel up and dumped the remains in Steven’s bon fire pit behind his house, and then returned the Dassey burn barrel to behind the Dassey trailer–but with some bone fragments still in it. This might also explain how and why Theresa’s bloody hair left its mark in the back of her vehicle–as there would have been no reason for her dead body to have been in the back of her own vehicle if she was killed in Steven’s trailer or garage and then burned in his fire pit out back– no, Theresa was killed somewhere else and then driven somewhere to dispose of the body. That’s the only thing that makes sense to me for her bloody hair to have left stains in the back of her vehicle. And how else might human bone fragments be found in those three specific location on the Avery property? It does not make sense that the cops could have planted the bones, because if they had, how or why would they have planted them in three places? Then again, it seemed that DNA could not be extracted from all the bones, so the testers could not confirm the bones from these three places were certainly Theresa’s or even human.

    Still, it all begs some serious questions, and the State’s case is not supported by some of this physical evidence. I fact, reasonable conclusions rather contradict the State’s versions of events.

  61. But if one of the Avery relatives was the murderer, this does not explain how the police could have planted the key and a bullet–unless they had the bullet and key somehow. The fact that the key was planted by police is very obvious to me–it was scrubbed clean of Theresa’s DNA and had ONLY Steven’s DNA on it, and was not found until the um-teenth time the cops searched Steven’s trailer. Only conclusion we can reach: the cops had the key.

    And if the cops had the key, they had opportunity to have moved the vehicle before it was found on November 5th. The fact that Officer Colburn called dispatch and had them run Theresa’s plates two days earlier on November 3rd is pretty damn damning–there was no reason for him to call dispatch and say what he did unless he was looking at the vehicle and reading the plates. So, did he find the vehicle elsewhere and he or another officer planted it on the lot? If so, the cops easily had opportunity to plant the blood and possibly find the remnants of a bloody bullet from the backseat at that time, and of course they’d have the key. It is also possible that it wasn’t until after the volunteer searchers located the vehicle–when Detective Lenk certainly had several hours of opportunity to plant blood in the vehicle and take the key and any other evidence he might think was useful. It doesn’t explain why there were no fingerprints in the vehicle though–unless the killer or one of the officers wiped them–that would be more likely if an officer had moved the vehicle to that location, or the real killer wanted the vehicle found there to implicate Steven.

    But there’s another explanation why Colburn called dispatch and had them run Theresa’s plates on November 3rd: Maybe Officer Colburn was secretly on the Avery property without a warrant and found the vehicle, but didn’t feel like he could declare it because he had no warrant. This also would have given the officers a couple more days to tamper with evidence so they could make sure they caught Steven “red handed”.

    But if one point needs to be underscored it is that there is a great deal of confusion and unanswered questions when you look at the State’s versions of events. Facts that point to another possible killer are just ignored, and the obvious fact that police tempered with and planted evidence probably make it nearly impossible to discover the truth in mess. Did Steven kill that girl? Maybe? But from the physical evidence and the reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from it, he is just one of several possible suspects, and there is certainly reasonable doubt. And one or perhaps a few police officers are largely to blame for muddying the waters with their planted evidence so that the truth will probably never be known.

  62. No one begins a criminal career with inherent knowledge of how to burn either a human or animal until its remains are incinerated beyond recognition. One would have to acquire experience using accelerants and how to increase the temp to ensure total consumption. An ideal place to learn might be a vast junk yard where stray animals are abundant. Steven Avery or anyone with access to that much land and junk would have had opportunity to operate without detection for YEARS in such an environ.
    In fact, episode one when he is discussing his guilt in cat burning he says something like: ” Yeaaahhhh…..and that cat was a FAMILY pet”. He makes the distinction that since it was a pet, he had to pay a criminal price. So in his mind, if an animal is not a pet = there in no one to answer to, thus no consequence.

  63. To me some things were genuinely strange about the brother’s behavior. He mentioned the possibility of a grieving process that only lasts a few days. He stated that he didn’t know what to hope for: finding her alive or finding her remains near a car (which is what happened). He seemed very eager to jump on the blame-Avery bandwagon; and on that front, there was something inherently weird about the way in which referenced the fact that her cell phone and credit card activities ceased immediately after her visit to the compound. Then there was the rapidity and vehemence with which the ex-BF denied to the tv news reporter that they had ever been on the compound. And the whole time there was something strange about the affective reactions on both their parts, specifically the seeming lack of emotion.

    This doesn’t mean they were involved in her death. They could have been in shock, or just inherently prone to awkward forms of self-expression. Or maybe it was a combination of both. But I don’t think it was unethical for the filmmakers to include that footage, or that its jarring qualities can be dismissed as the effect of manipulative narrative framing. I would find it weird in any medium or context.

    • To me some things were genuinely strange about the brother’s behavior. He mentioned the possibility of a grieving process that only lasts a few days.

      What I find strange is that the filmmakers included this as his first quote, when it was clearly designed to make him look bad.

      He is a young man thrust who in the spotlight for his family at a time of huge stress and he’s not a skillful communicator. He says something dumb and they jump on it to make him look suspicious. Why would you do that to someone innocent? Best case scenario you allow him to explain later on, but the filmmakers never do. They just keep piling it on.

      • You just said he’s not a skillful communicator. How is that the filmmaker’s fault? And how are they “piling it on”? A lot of people behaved oddly in this documentary, is that the filmmaker’s fault too?

        • How is that the filmmaker’s fault? And how are they “piling it on”?

          Selective editing. It’s very easy to make someone look shifty on camera. Any TV journalist will tell you that. And to do it over and over to a young guy who’s lost his sister in a brutal murder, that’s piling on.

          • How has this become about a film company? It’s about an innocent man who was proven deliberately wrongly convicted of rape and then to save 36 million dollars the same people deliberately succeeded in wrongfully convicting him of murder where all the evidence was controlled only by those who were in on the conspiracy to save their office embarrassment and 36 million dollars. People have been murdered for far less than that.

  64. I think the brother came across as dislikable but i certainly never fel the filmakers were castingdoubt over him.

    Ok so we know Avery wasn’t an alter boy but honestly we are to believe as per the da’s version that Avery scrubbed the garage and every item in it of teresa’s blood after shooting her. Thats bizzare. The place didnt look like it was recently cleaned. So he cleans every surface and the concrete floor yet left his drops of blood in her car (which he could have crushed) Im not buying it.

    Too many other people had access to the yard. The point is no one else,from what we know, were followed up.

  65. I really believe Steven Avery committed this murder but the police also planted evidence to ensure a conviction. The real victim here is Teresa NOT Avery.
    And by the way…..murdering an animal which he did – he burned a cat alive – is a classic sign of sociopathic/psychopathic behavior. He probably burned Teresa too. Is the Manitowoc county police/prosecution shady? Absolutely. But I believe Avery is a murderer.

    • “And by the way…..murdering an animal which he did – he burned a cat alive – is a classic sign of sociopathic/psychopathic behavior.”

      I really don’t understand why people just repeat sensational remarks that they’ve heard/read that have no basis in reality (except perhaps on TV cops show).

      Unfortunately, hundreds of young male teens and adults harm small animals every year, which is a classic sign of exactly *nothing* – unless it’s repeated behavior.

      “In a 2004 study … Tallichet and Hensley found a link between *repeated* animal cruelty and violence against humans. They examined prisoners in maximum or medium security prisons.”

      (Tallichet, S. E.; Hensley, C. (1 September 2004). “Exploring the Link between Recurrent Acts of Childhood and Adolescent Animal Cruelty and Subsequent Violent Crime”. Criminal Justice Review 29 (2): 304–316. doi:10.1177/073401680402900203.)

      Feel free to cite actual evidence to the contrary,

  66. Did Barb Janda’s red van ever sell? How much was she asking for it?

    Did anyone ever go out to where the older Dassey and the brother-in-law Scott went hunting that day? Might have been some evidence there.

    Who started the bonfire that evening? Seems to me the guy who lit the match would be my first suspect. No one ever asks that question.

    If the cremains were found UNDER the burned steel belted tires, then it would have been hard for someone to kill her, move her out to the quarry, burn her there, shovel her back into a barrel, move the barrel contents back to the fire pit, then start another fire behind Avery’s house and cover her up with steel belted tires. This is the premise the filmakers have that points to maybe the cops doing it. Wouldn’t Steve Avery wonder why someone started a bonfire in his back yard?

    There was only ONE bonfire behind the house and it was on the 31st. Again, Avery and his family members are the only ones at that fire. There were not multiple fires behind the house between the 31st and Nov. 4th or 5th. In fact no additional fires are ever mentioned. At any location.

    Most likely, she was dismembered and various parts were burned in all 3 locations. Everyone is assuming the body was intact. Was it?

    It was probably the same guy who killed O.J.’s wife.

    • “There were not multiple fires behind the house between the 31st and Nov. 4th or 5th. In fact no additional fires are ever mentioned. At any location.”

      Where are you getting this information? Source(s)?

      • Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey, Barb, and other family members went to the family cabin 100 miles away on the 4th. So they certainly wouldn’t know, and couldn’t testify to, the existence of any bonfires happening on the property on the 4th; i.e. the non-existence of fires could only be testified to by other possible suspects for the crime.

        • Earl was still there. He also had been violent toward women. He had the time to get everything together while everyone was gone.

  67. I don’t think that at any time the documentary-makers make Mike Halbach look guilty, rather they just make him look blinded to the evidence because he so desperately wants some answers and to blame someone for his sister’s death that he’d rather just have it be over with and has it dead-set that it’s Steven Avery, rather than wanting to admit that maybe the guy who did it is still out there.

    I don’t blame him – if I was in his shoes, I’d likely believe what I wanted to believe just so I have some answers instead of more questions and no closure.

  68. What still raises questions in my mind is Teresa’s boss saying that Teresa had been getting harassing phone calls for a few weeks prior to her murder, who was it? Someone must have been stalking her or at least harassing her by phone.

  69. To me some things were genuinely strange about the behavior of the victim’s brother Mike. He mentioned the possibility of a grieving process that only lasts a few days. He stated that he didn’t know what to hope for: finding her alive or finding her remains near a car (which is what happened). He seemed very eager to jump on the blame-Avery bandwagon. And on that front, there was something inherently weird about the forensically factual manner in which he relayed the fact that her cell phone and credit card activities ceased immediately after her visit to the compound. Then there was the rapidity and vehemence with which the ex-BF denied to the tv news reporter that they had ever been on the compound. And the whole time there was something strange about the affective reactions on both their parts, specifically the seeming lack of emotion.

    This doesn’t mean they were involved in the murder. They could have been in shock, or just inherently prone to awkward forms of self-expression. Or maybe it was a combination of both. But I don’t believe that it was unethical for the filmmakers to include that footage, or that its jarring qualities can be dismissed as the effect of manipulative narrative framing. I would find it odd in any medium or context.

    • He mentioned the possibility of a grieving process that only lasts a few days.

      Give the guy a break. He was 20-something. His sister was brutally murdered. He took on the responsibility of talking to the press for his whole family. He’s not a particularly deep thinker or gifted communicator. That pretty much explains everything “strange” he says and does.

      I can’t imagine why on earth the filmmaker introduced him with that clip about the grieving process taking days. It was obviously a slip-up on his part so why deliberately make him look bad — that is the question.

      • It might have been a slip up, or it might have been a Freudian slip. There is nothing “obvious” about it one way or the other, and you are dismissing the oddness and ambiguity of the remark with a belligerent self-assurance that defies credulity, especially when one takes the rest of his strange statements into consideration.

        In a response to a comment near the top of this thread, you replied that you were “pretty sure” that the police had investigated the brother and ex-BF and cleared them as suspects. This also strains credulity. You’re “pretty sure” (based on no evidence) the that police force which might have been involved in fabricating evidence and framing an innocent man (for the second time) carried out an adequate investigation into other potential suspects? What is the basis of this assurance?

        Go ahead and reply if you want but I share the sentiments of other commentators re: the sloppy journalism and logic of this post, and won’t be reading further.

  70. My open question…
    1.) Who actually believes Brendan Dassey read a book?

    I wonder if this would have been as sensational at a time when there was not so much suspicion of the cops? I do think it’s odd that the ex-bf “guessed” Halbach’s vmail pwd. That’s odd. The cops’ call about the rav4 license plate and the blood evidence being tampered with were supicous. Finding the Rav4 that quickly was suspicious, given that huge lot. No other DNA evidence putting Halbach in the trailer or garage is MIGHTY suspicious. Trying them for rape when there was no way to physically prove it happened is suspicious.

    But at the end of it…if they DID kill her…would they have if Steven Avery hadn’t been wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years among other rapists and murderers?

  71. Forget Steven for a minute, although I believe there is not a propensity of objective evidence towards. The bald/white-headed white pompous judges/lawyers should be flogged publicly!
    Also anyone who does not see that with regard to the “””judicial proceedings””” of a boy with an IQ OF 69…absolutely ludicrous…backwards Midwest, country west virginia, inbred Appalachian mentality!!! Yall shud be ashamed and I will prey nightly for the unfortunate humans who do not feel the same!!

  72. I just finished the series, and I also found the brother and ex-boyfriend unsettling. However, I believe it is simply because they declined to participate with the filmmakers, not because the filmmakers were out to make them suspicious. The brother was probably under pressure to appear professional in front of news cameras and the like, which is the most we saw of him. I think the ex-boyfriend, as well as the other Averys, should have been investigated before Steven Avery’s guilt was assumed. There was clearly negligence by police, but it seems as though they found the perfect opportunity to make the 36 millions dollar problem disappear.

    • The entire police system is suspect. You can make a lot of people disappear with 36 million dollars and plant evidence if you want to fake their death as well.

  73. The majority of what we see in the documentary is a systemic breakdown of the criminal justice system. We hear the breakdown every time we are subjected to a video of sheriff deputies coercing dreamed-up horror stories out of Brendan Avery. We hear the breakdown again, almost every time each one of three extremely biased judges renders a decision that is favorable to the D.A.

    But you choose to focus on a lack of ethics on the part of the filmmakers … for making Mike Halbach “look bad”. Anyone with half a brain and half a heart does indeed empathize with the Halbach family for what happened to Teresa. But you want to accuse the filmmakers of making Mike Halbach look like a major suspect, because without him, they didn’t have enough “narrative tension” to make a powerful documentary??!!! Give me a break!!!!

    I certainly hope that you will agree that little or no “coercion” or “manipulation” was needed to shed light on a remarkably corrupt system of criminal justice. And whatever manipulative techniques the filmmakers used to embarrass or (as you seem to think) “victimize” Mike Halbach, that manipulation absolutely pales in comparison to what the criminal justice system did in order to get a second (quite possibly) wrongful conviction against Steven Avery. I don’t know who killed Teresa Halbach. Given that, I cannot say that Steven Avery is innocent. What I can say, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that Steven Avery never got a fair trial. He never truly got his day in court.

    It does indeed appear that they used their power, as storytellers, to make Mike Halbach look bad. But I don’t think any intelligent person watching the documentary walked away from it with the conclusion that Halbach was a major suspect. What was clear to ME (and apparently not to you) was that they wanted to show that one member of the victim’s family was more than willing to blindly trust the criminal justice system as long as “they fried whatever guy they found who murdered my sister.”

    If you want to empathize with Halbach for being made to look foolish at times, fine, go ahead. All I can say is that if someone were to murder a member of my family, I would still want to make sure that the law enforcement officials got the right guy. Halbach clearly didn’t care. He listened to the same testimony that we were all afforded the opportunity to listen to … and apparently no “reasonable doubt” ever entered his mind.

    I would hope that you would entertain the possibility that Halbach’s stubborn determination to nail Steven Avery might not only have been due to losing his sister, as absolutely tragic as that would be for just about anyone, including Halbach.

    I would hope that you would agree ANY human-being who watches the documentary, or any human-being who sat through that trial — as Halbach was afforded the opportunity to do — if such a person walks away thinking that justice was served in ANY reasonable way, THAT is the human-being simply isn’t deserving of much empathy. Maybe pity. But not empathy.

    The filmmakers did nothing to “coerce” me or “manipulate” me into being less sympathetic toward Mike Halbach than I would normally be toward a family member of a murder victim. Whatever empathy I now fail to extend to Mike Halbach was eroded purely by Mike Halbach’s own efforts. Halbach wanted to make sure that Steven Avery went back to prison for life, and Halbach clearly didn’t listen to the testimony that led to EXTREMELY reasonable doubt in this trial … testimony that would lead any half-way intelligent person to strongly suspect that evidence was planted very neatly all over the place.

    I agree with your criticism of manipulation by the filmmakers. But for you to write a blog about the “importance” of that manipulation on bolstering the strength of the film, all I can say is that I couldn’t disagree with you more.

    The filmmakers indeed went out of their way to make Halbach look “stupid”, and the didn’t need to have his opening quote be something about a grieving process that “might last days” … but that is a remarkably minor point in this entire documentary. From what you have written and from what you have not written, I can’t help but think that you never considered the following hypothesis: Maybe — when they started out making this documentary — maybe they gave Halbach the complete benefit of the doubt. And then, as the trial progressed, and as Halbach came out of the courtroom time after time after time — and attempted to play “quarterback for the prosecution” every single time! — maybe only THEN did they decide to make him look stupid.

    Your talk about Mike Halbach’s “being made to look like a suspect” as being necessary to hold the “narrative tension” simply holds no water whatsoever. Did they go overboard in making him look bad? Yes, to some degree. Was it a “witch hunt” on par with the attempt to pin this on Steven Avery. Absolutely not. Did it enhance the documentary’s “narrative tension” to make Halbach look bad? No … not at all. Halbach did 90% of that work all on his own. All they had to do was turn the camera on him when he spoke to the press. They could have left ALL of Halbach on the cutting room floor, and this documentary would have been every bit as compelling.

    You also bring up the “cat incident”. It was not “glossed over”; Avery talked about it, and expressed that it was his “stupidity” that led to it. It certainly was cruel, and for that I don’t like the guy. He admitted that, as a teenager or young man, he broke into a bar and robbed it of a few thousand dollars, and I don’t particularly like him for that. He admitted that he chased down a cousin who was no less of a low-life than himself, and he pointed an unloaded shotgun at her. VERY stupid thing to do! He admitted that he did all those things, and he paid the legal price for all those things. And no, it doesn’t exactly endear him to me. I don’t particularly like the guy.

    But what, that you know of, has Steven Avery done in order for Judge Willis to paint a picture of him as one of the most evil men who ever walked the planet? I don’t find it impossible to accept that you might be more suspicious of Steven Avery committing murder, given that he was cruel to an animal. But I sure hope that, even then, there is a wide gap between someone’s willingness to be cruel to an animal and to murder a human-being. But it almost seems as if, when expressing your opinions on the unfair way in which Avery has been treated by the legal system, that he simply doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt when being accused of murder; that he should not be considered just as innocent as any other human-being, unless there is compelling evidence to find him guilty. If so, I would have to disagree with you.

    But I would drop most of the sympathy that I have for this rather pathetic man (my opinion) who has been railroaded not once, but twice, if you or anyone else would please produce his entire rap sheet, and if I could find some grounds to feel that he is quite capable of committing murder! And I am more than willing to be convinced that Steven Avery should spend the rest of his life in prison … if you or anyone else can convince me that Steven Avery got a fair trial in each of the major crimes for which he has now served a good portion of his life. As far as I am concerned, Avery is innocent until proven guilty in a FAIR TRIAL.

    And if one day, even I can be convinced that Avery killed Teresa Halbach, I will then say two things, and I will stand equally strongly behind both points:
    1. The trial that he receives had better be fair and just, not based on a witch hunt mentality.
    2. A criminal investigation should be opened at the Federal level (well above the Wisconsin Department of Justice), to ferret out individuals who were serving in the Manitowoc criminal justice system when Steven Avery was railroaded — at least for the first 18 years that he spent in jail.

    This documentary is the best evidence that I have for reaching my conclusions: Even if Steven Avery isn’t someone that I would want to be around (that’s the way I feel right now), Steven Avery has TWICE been made the victim of an extremely corrupt and heinous system of criminal justice.

    And the filmmakers did a remarkably balanced job of trying to point that out. I lose no sleep over the fact that Mike Halbach — who now sleeps better, knowing that Steven Avery is in prison for life — was victimized to a very small degree by the filmmakers. And like I said before, by “very small”, I mean VERY small when compared to the degree that Steven Avery has been victimized by the State of Wisconsin’s entire justice system.

    • A lot of whataboutism or fallacy of relative privation going on in your comment when you insist that the filmmakers making Halbach look bad is trivial and not worth getting riled up about.

      Anyone with half a brain and half a heart does indeed empathize with the Halbach family for what happened to Teresa.

      If you do a bit of googling or check out Twitter and Reddit, you’ll see there are lots of people missing half their brains and hearts.

      All I can say is that if someone were to murder a member of my family, I would still want to make sure that the law enforcement officials got the right guy. Halbach clearly didn’t care.

      Let me suggest that you have no idea what you’d do if your sister were brutally murdered. And it’s rather odd that you your statement that “Halbach clearly didn’t care” follows your claim that anyone with half a brain or heart empathizes with the Halbachs. Your empathy — and, yes, I do mean empathy not pity — has gone MIA in this statement. You’ve forgotten the selective editing and appear blind to the fact that Halbach didn’t have the knowledge of the police investigation and prosecution misconduct you have 10 years later.

      And the filmmakers did a remarkably balanced job of trying to point that out. I lose no sleep over the fact that Mike Halbach — who now sleeps better, knowing that Steven Avery is in prison for life — was victimized to a very small degree by the filmmakers.

      See, here’s the problem — because of what the filmmakers did to Mike Halbach and the ex, they lost a lot of credibility with me. I have trust issues with them and much of what they said in the film. I’m way more skeptical of their claims than I would have been had they been ethical in their treatment of the victim’s family and friends and not turned the Averys into a lovable homespun clan which they aren’t, but that’s a blog post for another day.

      • We are suppose to take the word of a corrupt police force who knew who the real rapist was but jailed an innocent man instead over that of the filmmakers…. I don’t think so

        I am sure these cops who made their bed would simply remake it with the same corruption to save 36 million

        • We are suppose to take the word of a corrupt police force who knew who the real rapist was but jailed an innocent man instead over that of the filmmakers

          Who said anything about taking the word of the police force?

          • Is it not the police who interview so called witnesses with less than honest intent and methods and who collect the suspect evidence and supposedly protect the chain of evidence?

      • Your reply certainly merits more praise than my original “screed”. I apologize, especially for not employing an economy of words. You are much better at that than I am. I re-read your original post, and I found it more nuanced and complex than I had originally thought. In order to avoid wasting your time or anyone else’s time, I will read your original post again before submitting another reply. Although the most important thing, for me, is whether or not Steven Avery (and Brendan, for that matter) received anything close to a fair trial, you have also raised the question (for me, anyway) as to whether or not they convinced me of this by employing mostly ethical techniques or mostly sleight of hand.
        So, I really need to give careful thought to this.

        One of your most revealing points in the original post was a reference to the defense’s original list of suspects. You said that you discovered this when researching the proceedings of one of the appeals? Could you share any links, or any other means by which I could read through those proceedings?

        And, along those same lines, do you (or does anyone else) happen to know if the entire video of original 2006 (?) trial is available, or at least a transcript of the original trial? This would go a long way in helping to dispel whatever biases might have been introduced by the filmmakers. I have tried to search for it via Google, but no luck. Thanks.

  74. I’m a lawyer (though not a criminal defense lawyer). I can assure you that Steven’s defense lawyers (who struck me as quite good and quite diligent, and who undoubtedly knew their performance would be judged by millions of people, including many other lawyers) would not have ignored Teresa’s co-worker’s report that she’d been receiving unwelcome phone calls. Presumably they checked into that and found nothing useful (and perhaps even found something damaging — such as that the calls had come from Steven, though that is just speculation on my part). I also found it significant that one of the lawyers, during the final episode, pointed out (correctly, in my view) that their only remaining route to a reversal was “newly discovered evidence,” and that the most compelling form of that would be a discovery that Steven’s blood found in Teresa’s car contained EDTA (a preservative not found in the human body), which would have greatly strengthened the allegation that Steven’s blood had been planted. What I found significant about that, however, was that nothing came of it. Presumably that meant that they did NOT find EDTA in that blood, despite having recognized the importance of finding it and, one must presume from the lawyer’s suggestion, access to the blood sufficient to test it for EDTA.

    Though several commenters insist there was “no evidence” of Steven’s guilt, I saw quite a bit of evidence — overwhelming evidence, in fact. The victim’s charred remains were found on Steven’s property. Her car, with the license plates removed, was found on his property, partially covered by branches. Her car key was found in his bedroom, with his DNA on it. At least one bullet was found in his garage. True, any or all of that could have been planted, but that “evidence planter” would have had to be one very stupid and courageous human being. I have no trouble at all believing Steven was guilty.

    I’d have found Brendan not guilty, however, even if I’d concluded he was involved. He was just too stupid to hold responsible. Either he wasn’t involved or he was so utterly stupid that he was manipulated by Steven and deserved a second chance at life.

    • I’m a lawyer (though not a criminal defense lawyer). I can assure you that Steven’s defense lawyers (who struck me as quite good and quite diligent, and who undoubtedly knew their performance would be judged by millions of people, including many other lawyers) would not have ignored Teresa’s co-worker’s report that she’d been receiving unwelcome phone calls.

      I’m with you on this one. Of course they knew who made those phone calls. Kratz told the judge he knew. It would have been in the disclosure or the defence team could have easily subpoenaed those phone records and tracked the caller down. The identity was likely left out to accommodate the directors’ story-telling needs.

      Re the key, how do you explain no one’s DNA but STeven’s on it if it wasn’t planted?

      • So you’re saying the defense presented evidence about the ex-BF retrieving voice messages and the full voice mail testimony even though they knew it lead nowhere and could be refuted by the prosecution? I doubt it. It seemed clear to me that the defense cast suspicion on the ex-BF and the filmmakers just reported it.

        • Well, we haven’t seen the transcripts so we don’t know how it all went down, or where that line of questioning did or didn’t go. The defence could have subpoenaed her phone bills in a heartbeat and found out who the stalker guy was. To present it as if it is some big mystery — as lots of people think it is — is simply misleading.

          • But it is a mystery, for us at least, and so you can’t say our speculation is “misleading.” It is clear that the defense raised an issue that the filmmakers included in their movie. We don’t know any more. What is misleading is to make assumptions and then accuse the filmmakers based on those assumptions.

      • “Re the key, how do you explain no one’s DNA but STeven’s on it if it wasn’t planted?”

        I would have expected Teresa’s DNA on the key, but I’ve learned from watching Forensic Files and other “crime forensics” shows, and reading about many other real-life crimes, that DNA isn’t all that easy to detect. For example, fingerprints very rarely yield DNA. And so, while I don’t know the explanation here and thus can’t rule out “planting,” I find it much less suspicious than others do.

    • Your a lawyer? The cops here have no credibility and any evidence they planted hardly warrants any consideration nor the testimony they coerced people into giving

      • “The cops here have no credibility and any evidence they planted hardly warrants any consideration …”

        This is a classic example of assuming one’s conclusion. Who can possibly disagree that planted evidence warrants no consideration? The question, of course, is whether it was planted. I seriously doubt that, and wasn’t moved at all by the naked allegations that that had occurred. The only real effort to substantiate that claim was the effort to find EDTA in Avery’s blood found in Teresa’s car. Had they found EDTA, I’d have placed very considerable weight on the “planting” allegations. But they didn’t.

        • What you are really saying is you will accept any tin snippet of lack of evidence to let a corrupt police force off the hook, and ignore all the evidence and witnesses that prove Avery was elsewhere at the time of the alleged crime.

          • Witnesses testified that Avery was elsewhere at the time of the crime?

            News to me, even after having watched the documentary twice. Nobody ever testified, or even told the police, that Avery was elsewhere at the time of the crime. Avery himself admits he was home and that he talked to Haibach. What in the world are you talking about?

          • “What you are really saying is you will … ignore all the evidence and witnesses that prove Avery was elsewhere at the time of the alleged crime.”

            Huh? There wasn’t a single witness, nor any evidence, that said SA was “elsewhere at the time of the alleged crime.” I don’t think it’s possible to respond any further. Frankly, your comment makes me wonder whether you’ve even watched the show.

    • “I also found it significant that one of the lawyers, during the final episode, pointed out (correctly, in my view) that their only remaining route to a reversal was “newly discovered evidence,” and that the most compelling form of that would be a discovery that Steven’s blood found in Teresa’s car contained EDTA (a preservative not found in the human body), which would have greatly strengthened the allegation that Steven’s blood had been planted. What I found significant about that, however, was that nothing came of it. Presumably that meant that they did NOT find EDTA in that blood, despite having recognized the importance of finding it and, one must presume from the lawyer’s suggestion, access to the blood sufficient to test it for EDTA.”

      The lawyers came back a year later, if memory serves me, to talk about the case. They were not his lawyers at that time, and they didn’t have access to blood or other evidence to test.

      ” True, any or all of that could have been planted, but that “evidence planter” would have had to be one very stupid and courageous human being.”

      Lenk was there each time that the evidence was found in the garage and house, and it was found in areas which had been searched prior by other officers. Lenk was even there the day that the vehicle was found, when it wasn’t being closely supervised for hours.

      • Commenting on DNA contamination of the Bullet Fragment.
        1st the Bullet is Mysteriously Found 4 months after the initial Investigations.
        Miss Sherry Accidentally contaminates the control with her DNA… ( great CSI ) work..
        She is suppose to exclude the results… When a contamination is found.
        Speculation. The Introduction of Miss Sherry DNA in the sample was done when she Touched the other Samples of The Dead Woman and a transfer of DNA was mixed and later determined both Miss Sherry and the Desired Results that she was instructed to follow. Put Teresas’s DNA in the house or the Garage….

      • Apparently AnnB believes lawyers should and do continue working on cases for years, without being paid, and apparently also develop new tests for EDTA in their spare time.

          • Sorry, I mistakenly attributed a quote in one of the earlier posts to you. But you do seem to place a pretty high burden on filmmakers, as opposed to defense attorneys, to investigate crimes.

          • The problem is that, having been found guilty, the onus is on Avery either to prove his innocence or find a basis for a legal appeal.

            I’m not placing that burden on the filmmakers. I’m just saying that is indeed sometimes what “muckraking” journalists do. I’m also assuming — yes assuming for the sake of discussion — that, given that they have worked on this for 10 years, somewhere along the way they found out who was calling Theresa that she didn’t want to talk to, why Avery used *67, and some of the details of voicemail deletion on the specific system Teresa used.

            I don’t know how much of the exonerating evidence in Thin Blue Line came from Errol Morris, if any at all. I’ve made a note to myself to look into it.

          • ” I’m also assuming — yes assuming for the sake of discussion — that, given that they have worked on this for 10 years, somewhere along the way they found out who was calling Theresa that she didn’t want to talk to, why Avery used *67, and some of the details of voicemail deletion on the specific system Teresa used”

            Maybe, maybe not. I think one has to take into account the fact that the brother and ex-BF did not cooperate with the filmmakers, they obviously have no ability to compel anyone to furnish information, and even the defense would be guarded in what they would reveal or discuss, in light of pending motions and appeals.

            I feel pretty certain both the defense and the prosecution would have known matters like who was making the calls to Teresa, but my understanding of the constraints imposed by the judge is that although they could vaguely point to prosecution failure to pursue leads, the defense could not cast suspicion on anyone by name….except Brandon. This was a huge burden at trial and explains the failure to provide some answers we would like.

        • Being a lawyer myself, I can confirm that it’s nice getting paid for one’s work. As for developing new tests for EDTA in one’s spare time, though, I can assure you that (1) most lawyers, by their nature, hate to lose; and (2) it probably would have been child’s play for any competent chemist to come up with a reliable test for EDTA; and (3) the fact that Avery’s lawyers did not hire an expert to do just that — or did not report his findings if they did hire such a person — leads me inexorably to only one conclusion: There was no EDTA in Steven Avery’s blood found in Teresa Halbach’s car.

          • I am a lawyer as well, and agree that I much prefer winning to losing. But if it were as easy as you suggest to prove/disprove the presence of EDTA, I don’t think the defense would have made the argument at all unless they knew the tests would support them.

            I have no independent knowledge about how difficult it is to do EDTA tests, but Avery’s defense counsel contradicted what you’re saying. They indicated there is no reliable test, and disputed the accuracy of the test developed by the FBI for this trial. Sure, maybe just bluster…but there’s no reason to just assume that’s the case. The FBI test results were not available until the middle of the trial

          • They were already a week into the trial when the prosecution sandbagged them with this information about the FBI’s ability to miraculously come up with a new test! There is no one they could have asked to conduct their own independent test because, to this day, one doesn’t exist! They asked for the opportunity to find a way to do an independent test, but the judge denied their request because it would have postponed the trial for too long.

  75. To put some spin on Steven’s framing:

    Without the murder of Steven’s lawyer’s second-cousin, Steven’s lawyer would not have quit his first case and would have been his defender for his second case. He was a great tried-and-true lawyer who had uncovered a presumed den of thieves throughout the law enforcement community. He had uncovered questionable tactics and methods from local to federal police.

    In my mind, and having watched the testimonies of many of those police members, it gives me great pause when I consider some of the incredulous contrivances they swear to under oath. They act like they are trying to cover things up…and have the positions of power to do so.

  76. This may answer some of your questions re. why not much is shown from the State’s perspective (or the Halbachs’ perspective) :

    To the layperson, it appears that most of the physical evidence — Halbach’s mysteriously appearing car key, Avery’s blood in her car, the lack of Halbach’s blood in Avery’s garage — that led to Avery’s murder conviction is questionable. Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who prosecuted this case, said in an interview following the documentary’s release that the filmmakers ignored almost 90% of the physical evidence that he used to convict Avery of the homicide.

    “I would say that Ken Kratz is entitled to his opinion, but he’s not entitled to his own facts,” Ricciardi said in response to Kratz’s interview. Another point of contention is that Kratz said he was never asked to participate in the documentary, though he repeatedly appeared in archival and courtroom footage. Ricciardi refuted that allegation — and said they have proof. In gathering court documents, the filmmakers had to file dozens of motions, which became part of the trial’s permanent record, and in one of those is “our letter to Ken Kratz from September 2006 inviting him to participate,” Ricciardi said. “We wanted to speak to lawyers, we wanted to speak to judges, we wanted to speak to law enforcement, we invited the Halbachs to sit down with us, we had coffee with Mike [Halbach, Teresa’s brother], and ultimately, people could decide for themselves whether they wanted to participate. But how would you feel if you invited someone to participate, they declined, and later said, ‘I’m not in it?’”

  77. Steven’s DNA was found on Teresa’s key, but Teresa’s DNA was not. Many cite this as evidence of “planting.”

    Not really.

    Having watched many “real crime” documentaries (including all of the Forensic Files) and read several “real crime” stories, I understand DNA isn’t all that easy to find. Fingerprints, for example, almost never yield DNA. Blood and saliva do, and hair often does, but not mere fingerprints.

    If they tested your car key for DNA, they’d probably not find yours — unless you’d spit on your key or rubbed your blood onto it. Same with my car key, or just about anyone else’s car key.

    In short, maybe the police planted evidence and maybe they didn’t (frankly, I seriously doubt they did). Either way, the absence of Teresa’s DNA on her car key doesn’t advance the “planting” argument.

  78. Many commenters seem to believe, sincerely, that Steven was innocent and that the authorities really botched the investigation. I can only speak for myself (a lawyer), but I suspect most other lawyers looked at this much the way I did:

    These lawyers are defending a guy who’s almost certainly guilty, against whom a veritable mountain of incriminating evidence exists. In that light, can they create “reasonable doubt?”

    In my view, they did (barely), though I still have virtually no doubt that Steven was guilty. They did an admirable job, from a lawyer’s point of view, but I find no fault with the authorities. This struck me as a “by the book” case.

    By the way, on the brother, the ex-boyfriend and the roommate: I never felt the brother looked stupid. He didn’t come across as an Einstein but I never expected that. I learned long ago not to judge the behavior of someone grieving for a dead loved one, and so I don’t fault him for saying, early on, that “grieving might take days, weeks, years…” As for the ex-boyfriend and roommate, I never considered them to be suspects. If one of them had been making the reported harassing phone calls to Teresa, the defense lawyers would have looked into it and reported favorable findings. They didn’t. That’s quite telling.

    • Well, I guess I’m an example of one of the lawyers who doesn’t completely agree with you. Sure, the defense was out to show reasonable doubt, and in my view they did. What else could they do, short of proving that somebody else committed the crime? I think they believed Steven is not guilty, for what it’s worth.

      But as far as the case being investigated and prosecuted “by the book.. . . I sure hope not. How often is all the key evidence found by cops with admitted conflicts of interest? Do you know of other cases with such compelling evidence of tampering? Cops have to show chain of custody for things like Avery’s blood sample. . .which means they are essentially accountable unless they prove otherwise for the broken seals and pinpricked vial. Have you ever heard of two people being convicted beyond a reasonable doubt for a single murder by the same prosecution, based on two completely different stories of how it happened and who did what?

      I think it also bears reiterating that, contrary to AnnB’s position, the filmmakers are not to blame for any cloud of suspicion cast on the ex-BF. The defense clearly intended to raise such questions, through their questioning of him and the cell phone company rep. And I don’t believe they would have raised those questions if there were ready and unfavorable answers. The defense lawyers were not stupid, and would not bring up issues knowing they could be blown away by the prosecution in rebuttal. There obviously were no definitive answers.

      • I think it also bears reiterating that, contrary to AnnB’s position, the filmmakers are not to blame for any cloud of suspicion cast on the ex-BF. The defense clearly intended to raise such questions, through their questioning of him and the cell phone company rep. And I don’t believe they would have raised those questions if there were ready and unfavorable answers. The defense lawyers were not stupid, and would not bring up issues knowing they could be blown away by the prosecution in rebuttal. There obviously were no definitive answers.

        The only way we can know for sure what happened is to see the transcripts. I agree the defence lawyers weren’t stupid, but it would have been stupid not to subpoena her phone records so they had to have known who those calls were from. I think if we saw their entire line of questioning, their strategy would make more sense.

        • Yeah, I assume they did subpoena the records and assembled all the facts available, which is why I infer that when they still asked the questions they did, there still were unanswered issues. In any event, no reason to believe the filmmakers manufactured a controversy, right?

          I also have some problems with attaching great significance to who is NOT on the list of possible alternative perpetrators filed by the defense.

          As I understand the bizarre rules (not being a criminal lawyer), the judge would exclude anyone for whom you cannot make a plausible “probable cause” kind of case. It’s easy to see why you would feel reasonably safe including on the list anyone who resided on the same property where the body was found. Hence all the Averys. But. . . including someone for whom you have no such clear evidence (e.g., the ex-BF) would be asking to have the name summarily stricken and would virtually guaranty a successful objection to ANY evidence you attempted to present regarding that person. Like I said, I don’t think the defense lawyers were fools or disingenuous.

          • In any event, no reason to believe the filmmakers manufactured a controversy, right?

            Just to clarify, I don’t even mention the phone bill in my article. It’s something that came up in the comments. I feel (perhaps wrongly) that I have a little more freedom to speculate in a comments discussion. To be clear though, I would not characterize that discussion as accusing the filmmakers of manufacturing phone bill controversy. I just feel that if we read the transcripts and saw the lawyers’ strategy, the takeaway would be different than it is now, which is,”OMG, who phoned her? Who, who? How can we not know??!!”

            As I understand the bizarre rules (not being a criminal lawyer), the judge would exclude anyone for whom you cannot make a plausible “probable cause” kind of case. It’s easy to see why you would feel reasonably safe including on the list anyone who resided on the same property where the body was found.

            Yeah, I don’t get the legal arguments and why they applied here and don’t apply in other cases I’d consider similar. I also don’t have the time at the moment to look it all up and try to figure it out, see if I agree, etc.

            Please understand, I have never suggested the defence lawyers weren’t doing a good job. I do, however, have my suspicions that the film misrepresented some of the defence strategy.

          • This has nothing to do with the film company. Avery was wrongfully convicted of rape which led to the police having to save themselves from embarrassment and 36 million dollars long before the film company even got involved.

          • AnnB,

            I checked out the source materials to learn the background facts regarding the List of Alternative Suspects, and believe it is a peculiarity of Wisconsin law whose significance is not a great as you suggest

            About 8 months before the trial, the State filed a motion to exclude evidence about alternative suspects and the Court issued ruling stating it would apply the rule from a 1984 Wisconsin case (that has often not been followed by later cases) which says such evidence cannot be offered with a specific showing of motive, opportunity and connection to the victim. Needless to say, the defense vehemently (but unsuccessfully) opposed the bizarre rule.

            As part of his ruling, the judge ordered that the defense must submit a list of possible alternative suspects and relevant facts before trial, to which he would apply the three-part test to determine whether any of the evidence could be offered.

            So, the defense knew before it ever compiled its “list’ that there was no point in including anyone for whom they did not have enough evidence to meet the test. Members of the Avery family resided on the premises where the body was found, and so that fact alone would show some connection to the crime and opportunity. Ultimately, however, the judge ruled that the test was not satisfied as to anyone on the list except for Brendan, and prevented the defense from offering any alternative suspect other than Brendan.

            So, the List was not a defense invention intended to map out its case — it was a mandatory and constrained attempt to comply with a narrow rule imposed by this court. The defense noted, in opposing any application of the rule to this case, that it arose in a very different case where the defendant had attempted to offer evidence about anyone in the world who simply might have a motive to kill the particular victim. Consistent with the idiocy of his other rulings, the judge in Avery’s case applied the rule anyway.

          • Again, I haven’t read up on this. However, if what you say is correct, it seems strange to me that Wisconsin would require this extra test of admissibility above and beyond what’s already in place. But the law is an ass, I guess…

            That said, my point was the brother, ex-BF and roommate weren’t in the defence’s sights because there wasn’t a scintilla of evidence pointing their way. Yet, despite this, the film turned them into suspects, people that “should” have been investigated. And it pretty much ignored the members of the Avery clan who had motive, means and opportunity.

            I did not mean to suggest the list was a road map for their case and don’t believe I did. It was what it was and is what it is.

          • I just re-listened to “The Last Person to See Teresa Alive” with regard to the phone evidence, which might be viewed as a key example of a situation in which Teresa’s brother is perhaps made to look bad, and I don’t think the filmmakers cast any suspicion on him that isn’t inherent in the questions and answers.

            The defense’s stated objective was to show that somebody erased voicemail messages from Teresa’s phone during a crucial time period around November 2. The brother admits accessing the voicemail and listening to messages at some point, but denies erasing anything.

            In the same context, the defense questioned Teresa’s co-worker regarding the harassing calls, and also attempted to show that someone who had Teresa’s password accessed her voicemail on November 2. The state successfully opposes the defense attempt to show that messages were retrieved on November 2, when the state says Teresa was no longer alive, and the judge agrees, stating “was having trouble seeing the apparent relevance.”

            I don’t think the defense was accusing the brother or anyone in particular, but was attempting to show that voicemail messages were erased by someone “who knew her” and had access to her password. The judge asked the prosecution if the state knew who accessed her voicemail, and Kratz dodged the question but appeared to suggest it did not and had not attempted to find out.

            All of this seems to have been accurately conveyed by the filmmakers, and it was clearly important evidence.

    • I for one do not supect the brother, the roommate or the ex-boy friend as being, invovled, with teresas death. that would be pure speculation, we should be basing everything, on facts “you know” the opposite of what the police and doge do kratz used. But any junior g-man would start with the family, friends, fellow workers, or any aquaintences, to develope leads, remember no one knew, or was suposed to know she was dead ( actually one still cannot be postive), so they were” supposed” to be looking for a missing person, and/or car. yet I have seen no evidence, that they were questioned to develope leads in a missing person case, and if one couples that with, the “greiving slip” by the brother, and the fact that they brought only cadaver dogs right after the rav, 4 was found, and the lady that found the rav .was given a camera by the roommate The only camera given to any of the searchers, and some how found the rav, in 15 minutes. I get the feeling they knew were the car was and that they were looking for a body, and not teresa alive which they should have been. IMO

  79. “Halbach … listened to the same testimony that we [did] … and apparently no “reasonable doubt” ever entered his mind.”

    Well, so did I, and I never had any serious doubt either. Whether my absence of doubt is “reasonable” — who knows? Reasonable or not, I’m confident Steven Avery killed Teresa Haibach. I certainly can’t fault Mike Haibach, or anyone else, for reaching the same conclusion. Few murder cases involve this much incriminating evidence. It wasn’t a slam dunk and Steven’s lawyers did a good job, but lawyers can only do so much when the evidence is so plentiful and strong.

  80. I feel as though many people missed the point entirely on certain aspects of this. I don’t believe the point was to insinuate the Defence was considering the brother or the roommate a viable suspect, but merely to show that the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department didn’t investigate anyone else closely enough. Therefore if they didn’t do there job to the fullest extent of their ability, how could anyone say that Steven Avery was guilty. I honestly have no clue to Steven Avery’s innocence or guilt. All I can say for sure is that for me, the State did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The entire point was to show the fundamental flaws in our Justice System. We clearly have gotten away from the “innocent until proven guilty” state of mind that everyone should have. The point of not offering up an alternative suspect was so you would be left with that feeling of speculation. Odds are we will never know what happened due to a search of evidence to support a theory and not a collection of evidence that results in a theory.

    • You don’t look for other suspects when you already have the one you need to save yourself 36 million dollars and try to get back the confidence of those who now know you are corrupt

  81. I think I had a very different interpretation than others did of the reason for including the brother. I didn’t see anything that led me to believe the brother was responsible or that the filmmakers wanted the audience to believe he was somehow responsible. Instead, what we see most often from him are his personal prejudices about the Averys and his assumption of their guilt regardless of the reasonable doubt the defense had just provided that day. Wasn’t that the entire point of the film…about how a town and its police force had made its mind up before all the information was available. The brother was a very vocal face of exactly what the filmmakers were suggesting is wrong with our current state. And you can disagree with when they put what where, but it’s not as if they were putting words in his mouth.

    • The brother was a very vocal face of exactly what the filmmakers were suggesting is wrong with our current state.

      You kind of made my point for me right here.

      It’s not ok to make the young man of a brutally murdered young woman — who is taking on the role of spokesman for his family — into the face of what is wrong with the legal system. It’s just not.

      Also, keep in mind you have, 10 years later, a lot of information and perspective the brother never had.

    • They needed the brother to implicate Avery and assure their second wrongful conviction that saved them 36 million dollars and get even with steve for proving they were a corrupt police department

  82. I think this is corrupt and a sad state of affairs. Anyone, who sat in this court room or took part in the investiagation and remained quiet about all the crooked BS have rocks for brains. If the ex BF/brother were indeed looked at and nothing was found…well same was for Steven…….evidence was found months later and each piece was discovered under supisious circumstances…this is all wrong on every level. I only hope this documentary sparks enough attention so all parties involved have the change at a triall free of fabricated facts. Best of luck to everyone.

  83. Why no DNA of Teresa on the key?

    Those who followed the Amanda Knox case closely will have learned that DNA isn’t all that easy to find. For example, though fingerprints of all four girls who lived in Amanda’s house were found, no DNA — none — of either of her Italian roommates was found anywhere in the house. Each of them had lived there longer than Amanda or Meredith.

    If they performed DNA tests on your car key, or my car key, chances are very high that they’d find none of our DNA on it. If we had spit on the key, or rubbed our blood on the key, then our DNA would probably be found. But not otherwise.

    I’m not saying that Teresa’s key, with Steven Avery’s DNA on it, is enough to convict him — only that the absence of Teresa’s DNA on that key isn’t suspicious.

    By the way, a coincidence is worth noting here. The very same woman who did the DNA testing that led to Avery’s release for the 1985 assault performed the DNA testing in 2005 that detected his DNA on Teresa’s key and in several places in her car.

  84. People are so easily manipulated. The film-makers were clearly manipulating the story and the “facts” to present their point of view– that Steven and Brendan were railroaded. Think about it and about how you analyze facts. Point of fact- people tend to accept evidence that is presented early on more so than evidence presented later in time. This is because the earlier “facts” can become cemented in the observers’ minds, thus not leaving “room” in the mind for the later evidence. Film-makers are well aware of that. These particular documentarians were clearly so. Case in point- the story about Brendan’s confession. The story, you might recall, indicated that the police had questioned Brendan early on but nothing came of it. Then they questioned Brendan’s female cousin and again got nowhere. Later, they questioned Brendan again and struck gold. The early story does not tell us WHY they decided to question Brendan. They just did. This immediately makes the questioning itself seem suspicious. How would the cops know what specifically to question Brendan about? It’s totally unclear. Then, of course, the film-makers used selective portions of Brendan’s confession to make it appear that the poor kid didn’t have a clue about what was going on and was being completely manipulated. It wasn’t until the segment dealing with Brendan’s trial, which I believe was in the 9th episode out of 10, that we find out that the cops questioned Brendan the second time because the female cousin had told the cops that, after the murder, Brendan had been crying, lost a lot of weight, and was acting extremely depressed. That she then asked him what was going on and he told her that he’d seen body parts in the fire pit. Upon more questioning from her, he admitted seeing Theresa being held captive in the house. This information is HUGE! It explains why the cops focused on Brendan, and why they asked the questions the way they did. But by the time it was presented, the minds of many viewers were made up– that the cops were acting in bad faith in the interrogation. The film-makers diluted the importance of this even further by showing that the cousin, at trial, claimed she made up what Brendan had said. So the viewer would be even more inclined to be critical of the cops. I mean, come on! Are we all sheeple? I really hate media manipulation, just as I condemn unfair questioning by cops (I once threw out a confession of a child rapist because I thought the questioning was unfair). While I have serious doubts about Brendan’s guilt, I wish that the story from Netflix had been more balanced.

    • Are you replying to the original article written by AnnB?
      Or have you, for example, just finished reading the entire blog, and replying to some of the “fantastical” comments that you have seen?

      I do have some comments about what you wrote, but I just want to have some kind of context to work from.

      Also, you said that you once threw out the confession of a child rapist. Does that mean that you are a D.A. who declined to pursue a criminal case against a previously convicted child rapist who had now been arrested again on new charges? Was he being charged again with a new case of raping a child?

      Or are you a judge in a criminal court who ruled during a trial that the confession of a defendant (who was already a convicted child rapist) was inadmissible as evidence?


    • “People are so easily manipulated. The film-makers were clearly manipulating the story and the “facts” to present their point of view– that Steven and Brendan were railroaded.”

      The filmmakers didn’t (and couldn’t) manipulate the following facts:

      1) Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department officials made suspect and/or incriminatory statements to the Attorney Generals’ investigators about Steven Avery’s false rape conviction.

      2) Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department officials made video tape depositions backpedaling or denying suspect and/or incriminatory statements made to the Attorney Generals’ investigators.

      3) Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department officials held a press conference announcing they wouldn’t be involved in the Halbach murder investigation.

      4) Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department officials were intimately involved in the Halbach murder investigation, to the extent of being party to the discovery of key pieces of evidence.

      These are facts, and as such, present a conflict of interest that taints the results of the outcome of Steven Avery’S (and Brendan Dassey’s) trials.

      Regardless of the guilt/innocence of either man, there is no way around these facts.

      • Thanks Mark. I don’t know if my comment has been posted yet but that’s the point I was trying to make. There were facts presented that show that protocol was clearly disregarded and not followed. When a law enforcement agency tells the public that they won’t be involved in the investigation, then they need to follow protocol and should have allowed Calumet County to take over the investigation. That was the biggest issue right there, in my opinion!

  85. I did not read much about Branden and his initial lawyers … and how they used all of his stories .. .a guy who is more worried about Wrestlemania than that he might be going to jail … There is definitely a lot of bad things going on … Most of the documentary is court room videos and videos with Brandon which are raw and you can make your own judgement…. I feel sorry for Brandon … Wish he was just a bit smarter!

  86. I believe the famous Chicago interview technique investigators used to illicit a confession from Brendan Daffey was John Reid’s method. Reid’s firm is THE trainer for our country’s police force, so we should all be INCREDIBLY concerned about this, regardless of our beliefs on the innocence or guilt of anyone in these two cases. I know we only saw portions of Daffey’s trial, and I’m not sure if this was brought up in a portion we DIDN’T see, but the Reid technique to illicit confessions is controversial to say the very least. In fact, one of the first confessions was Lincoln NE’s Darrel Parker, who admitted (through a false confession via Reid’s techniques) to killing his wife in 1955. Wesley Peery actually killed her. NPR has an incredible article from 2013 describing how and why even people of average or greater intelligence might confess, so imagine being Daffey and processing that pressure. You can also google to find more information about false confessions from using the Reid method, which has been discredited by a lot of credible folks. Here’s Terry Gross’s story on the Parker case, and general info about the Reid method too. http://www.npr.org/2013/12/05/248968150/beyond-good-cop-bad-cop-a-look-at-real-life-interrogations

    • Thanks for that link.
      Here is another link about false confessions, which describes the Reid Technique:

      Of the ten cases mentioned at this link http://listverse.com/2013/05/22/10-controversial-convictions-based-on-false-confessions/ I have seen documentaries about #10, #9, and #2.
      10. The Central Park Five
      9. The Norfolk Four
      2. The West Memphis Three
      There are three documentaries, all starting with “Paradise Lost” about the West Memphis 3. For those with Amazon Prime, you can watch them for free at Amazon.

      I think I read in a Reddit article (about the Avery case) where some guy (or woman) states that he/she still thinks that the West Memphis 3 “did it”. As absurd and idiotic as I think that opinion is, this is the kind of thing that happens when the “real” perpetrator isn’t found. I quoted the word “real” because, sadly, what a great majority of people will most likely always fail to understand is that once a wrong is corrected once, and once the newspapers tell us that “they found the *real* killer this time”, we once again breathe a sigh of relief and say, “Oh! Good! *This* time they finally got it right! This time, they got the *real* guy!” And, in fact, “we” don’t know whether the authorities got the *right* guy the second time. “We” simply trust, once again, what we read in the papers or see on the news. And if they mention the words “new DNA evidence was involved”, then, by God, we are *sure* that they must have gotten it right this time!

      By the way, AnnB, your original article about the “filmmaker manipulation techniques” (if I may paraphrase what you wrote) in Making A Murderer also applies to the first documentary of that Paradise Lost series. As good a job as the filmmakers did in order to cast immense doubt on the guilt of the three accused, they simultaneously cast a huge, dark shadow on a different man. I fell for it the first time I watched the first documentary. But after thinking about it, I realized what the filmmakers had done and I told myself, “OK, this guy is quite a loony tune. But the evidence that was produced in trial that would lead to convicting him is all circumstantial also.”

      Even in the Making A Murderer video, Gundrum — originally, one of Avery’s biggest “champions” — does a complete 180 on Avery, calling him a “monster”. Why? Because he simply can’t consider the possibility that they had railroaded Avery all over again.

      Same thing with Penny Beernsten. After Avery was sentenced to life in prison, she was interviewed here, by an organization called Radio Lab:

      And it is sadly clear from this interview that her thoughts about the new conviction were not, “I’m wondering if he was railroaded all over again.” On the contrary, her thoughts were, “Did spending 18 years in prison turn Steve into this killer?”

      Although I have a lot of sympathy (a lot!) for Penny Beernsten, it doesn’t change the fact that her ability to think at all critically about the new conviction simply wasn’t there. But — and I think this is much more vile — even here interviewers were “just shocked”, absolutely shocked, that after being exonerated once, Steven Avery would go and “actually kill somebody”! They’re just shocked! Apparently, everybody is so “shocked” that they simply can’t turn off the electrocution switch in their mind and ask the following question: What is the likelihood that *anybody*, who has just wrongly spent 18 years in prison for rape and attempted murder, would go out, two years later, and actually commit a murder himself? Given the officers who were involved in discovering the evidence in the murder of Teresa Halbach, isn’t there some reasonable doubt that those officers acted in good faith?

      For anyone who thinks that that very question should cause alarms to go off in your head, let me tell you what the likelihood (the probability) was in 2007 that someone freed from prison after being exonerated due to DNA evidence, would be convicted of committing a serious crime (rape, murder, etc.): Tom Kertscher, one of the main Manitowoc reporters on (at least) the 2007 Avery trial (he also appears in Making A Murderer), wrote the following at the end of this article back in 2007:
      “According to the [The Innocence Project], 197 people have been freed from prison through DNA testing after having been wrongly convicted of a crime. Before Avery, the only one to later be convicted of a serious crime was Kerry Kotler of New York.
      Kotler was freed from prison in 1992, after serving 11 years for a rape that DNA tests eventually showed he did not commit. Less than three years later — and three weeks after being awarded $1.5 million for his wrongful conviction — Kotler was convicted of another rape and sent back to prison.”

      I researched Kotler, and the claim is that when he was convicted of the latest crime, it was DNA evidence that was used to convict him. That is all I know about his later conviction. I don’t now anything about the officers involved, the detectives involved, whether it occurred in the same town, etc. So, until I can research it, I can’t comment on it any further.

      Nevertheless, in 2007, 2 people out of 197 … *that* was how many people had been convicted again of a serious crime a second time! That is almost exactly 1%!

      Regardless of what you know — or what you want to believe — about probability and statistics, that means that (in 2007, at least) there is a 1% chance that a man who was exonerated via DNA evidence would be convicted of committing yet another heinous crime like rape or murder. And yes, of course, I do *not* know what percentage of these people “attempted” such a crime again, were “charged” with such a crime again, etc. etc.

      As of 2015, there have been 336 DNA exonerations. And, so far, I have not been able to find out how many of these 336 people have been convicted a second time for a truly serious crime.

      Buy my point is that if the percentage is something like 1%, alarm bells should be ringing in your ears, asking the obvious question: With such a low likelihood of conviction of these exonerees, did anything “weird” happen in the Avery trial?

      Michael Griesbach was in the first episode of Making A Murderer. He wrote a book that covers both of Avery’s convictions. Although I think he ought to be ashamed of himself, he was in fact working for the Prosecution at the time of the 2007 trial. And (therefore) he defends the 2007 conviction, he claims that he is almost certain that Avery killed Teresa Halbach, and his main claim rests on one crucial argument: There was no frame-up because he knows Jim Lenk and Andy Colborn and they have a spotless reputation with the Sheriff’s Department.

      Oh … oh … oh … and he also believes Brandon’s confession! I almost forgot to mention that little tidbit. He also believes Brandon’s confession.

      Therefore, much to my dismay, he is even worse than people like Gundrum. He actually had an opportunity to work from within the bowels of the system, to right a ship that was leaning way over, and he chose to believe that Brandon’s confession was true.

      Therefore … “No Reasonable Doubt”. Wow.

  87. I cannot tell you anything without more information EXCEPT that , his guilt or innocence was never proven [Steve], but there were at least 30 shadows of a doubt introduced in court. What a shame that the system of law in place did not set Steve free, based on this and ALL of the errors made by the justice system.

    • Really? Set him free?

      How about a retrial as opposed to setting free a guy who might have viciously murdered a young woman?

      • I think all civilized nations agree that *all* murder is vicious. Even if committed dispassionately by the killer, it’s vicious on the family and friends of the victim, as well as society as a whole. But not all civilized nations agree on the penalty for murder.

        Even if you accept that Avery committed the crime, there is an argument that could be made for his release. Although he doesn’t get a “free pass” for having spent ~15 wrongful years in Wisconsin prisons, if he did commit the crime, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that whatever motivated him to do it, at least part of it has to do with the toll on the psyche of being incarcerated for almost half of your entire life for something you didn’t do (i.e. making a murderer). Add that to the facts that he’s already spent more than 10 years in prison for the Halbach crime, and that it will be virtually impossible to re-try this case fairly within Wisconsin, and I think there is at least a case that could be made for release.

        • All murders are vicious but some are more vicious than others.

          I agree that a case can definitely be made to set him free, but I get the feeling that the OP was asking to set him free based on emotions as opposed to a defensible argument.

          I really have a problem with this whole lovable Steve and the Avery clan storyline being propagated.

          • “All murders are vicious but some are more vicious than others.”

            True. I just think if Steven *did* commit the crime, it’s much more likely he did it in the way Brendan described in the earliest versions of his story (i.e. he got spontaneously mad at Halbach – rebuffing advances? – and killed her in the heat of the moment) than in the prosecution’s final version of events (i.e. premeditated and set-up in advance).

            “I really have a problem with this whole lovable Steve and the Avery clan storyline being propagated.”

            I agree, although I also have a problem with the inverse Avery clan-is-evil-incarnate storyline too.

        • Raises some interesting legal questions. People are of course supposed to be acquitted — set free — if there is reasonable doubt. On the other hand, I think the usual remedy for things like planted evidence and prosecutorial misconduct is a new trial. In the Avery case, I think many of us have the view there is reasonable doubt because of the suggestion of planted evidence. . . . so does that mean he should have a new trial or should have been acquitted? I guess the answer is simply that the jury gets the last word — if a jury decides there is reasonable doubt based on possible planted evidence, they acquit. if the jury convicts and a court decides there was planted evidence after a conviction, you have a new trial.

          • I agree. I’m just dubious, given pre and post-trial (and now post-film) publicity, that Avery/Dassey could ever get a fair trial in Wisconsin. I could imagine some Wisconsinites might even feel that a new conviction following retrial would be vindication for their State and it’s previous behavior in the matter.

          • Mark, I will bet any amount of money that if Avery were even given the offer to be released from prison, he would only accept it if he did not have to admit that he were guilty of the murder. There is also an offer that is sometimes made called the “Alford Plea”, but I doubt if he would even accept that:. Personally, that plea makes me sick to my stomach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

            A very, very interesting documentary about a guy who was offered to be set free if he admitted to the charges for which he was given a life sentence is “An Unreal Dream: The Michael Morton Story”
            I won’t say more about it, because I don’t want to spoil it for anyone.

            I only want to see Steven Avery get a new trial, before an unbiased jury, and not a jury which can (apparently) start deliberations with 7 Not-guilty votes that all get eroded over the span of — how long? — three days?

            I wish that the defense team could have interviewed the jury.
            Now, maybe they did. But if they did, I wish that the filmmakers could have made *that* stuff available! I kind of doubt that the defense team got to interview them, though.

  88. I don’t agree that the documentary pointed fingers at Theresa’s brother. I do think he became a part of the “falsely convict Avery” machine, as edited together by the filmmakers, but not that he should be suspect number one in the murder of his sister. i think the documentary does a fine job of simply pointing out the inconsistencies in the police’s offense, and the audacity in the frame-up cover-up.

  89. As EAB mentioned, there’s something in the US legal system that’s called proving a suspect guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, there was LOTS of doubt regarding this case.

    The prosecutor and the state of WI did NOT prove that Avery was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the biggest issue with this case. Also, I’m curious if you have helped investigate U.S. cases or just Canadian cases because there are huge differences between how our U.S. legal system works vs. Canada’s legal system. There’s plenty to read about this case and with a little digging, I’ve already found a lot of documents and factual information. You seem to make a lot of assumptions which makes me question how much you’ve researched and looked into this case.

    You don’t have to be a lawyer to see how shoddy the State prosecutor, Kratz, presented and set up the case. You also don’t have to watch the documentary either to find that the trail leads off into many vague directions that don’t make logical or rational sense from an evidentiary standpoint. I don’t know if this was mentioned in the comments but there is a WI state law that did now allow the defense team to add third party suspects so they couldn’t call the ex boyfriend or brother up as suspects either way so they were screwed based on that law.

    However, I do agree that Chuck, the brother, wasn’t even mentioned in the documentary and he has an extremely violent criminal background which raises huge red flags to me. He not only sexually assaulted women but he had a history of stalking and harassing women, including a restraining order that his now ex-wife got against him. He’s one messed up dude with a violent criminal past. The Averys definitely had skeletons in their closets and the police knew that. The police aren’t stupid and they knew this law would be on their side once they nailed Avery and Dassey.

    I found this from another article about the case that explains the law and precedent for the law:

    ” As a result, the Denny court cited to the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Alexander v. United States, concluding that

    In that case, the United States Supreme Court fashioned the “legitimate tendency” test. In other words, there must be a “legitimate tendency” that the third person could have committed the crime….We believe that to show “legitimate tendency,” a defendant should not be required to establish the guilt of third persons with that degree of certainty requisite to sustain a conviction in order for this type of evidence to be admitted. On the other hand, evidence that simply affords a possible ground of suspicion against another person should not be admissible. Otherwise, a defendant could conceivably produce evidence tending to show that hundreds of other persons had some motive or animus against the deceased—degenerating the proceedings into a trial of collateral issues. The “legitimate tendency” test asks whether the proferred evidence is so remote in time, place or circumstances that a direct connection cannot be made between the third person and the crime.”

    I have family members and friends who are U.S. law enforcement officers. If you want to talk about unethical, then talk about the unethical procedures with this case including the fact that Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Dept. was clearly told they could NOT investigate this case yet they jumped right in and weren’t stopped. Also, why would the two officers that had the biggest beef with Avery be “allowed” by their superiors to work this case? That’s a fact. That’s what the filmmakers were trying to show. There are far more questions than answers in this case and standard procedures and investigative protocol were clearly not followed and disregarded. The point of this film is to show how hugely flawed the US criminal justice system is and shine light on the corruption — bottom line.

    The fact that the investigation team did not question Teresa’s ex-boyfriend, Ryan, nor her roommate is just bad protocol and poor investigating. Also, why wouldn’t they ask for their alibis? While the WI law had the defense team’s hands tied and they couldn’t call up additional third party suspects, the defense was clearly showing that the police didn’t follow protocol when they put Ryan Hillegas on the stand. Ryan even states that they didn’t ask him for an alibi.

    In any missing persons/murder investigation, police are going to look at everyone, including those who are close to her. Even if they didn’t have anything to do with their loved one’s murder, they can share important information that might help the investigation–about the victim’s habits, routines, what they were doing the day/night of the murder, what they did 24 hours before and after the murder, etc. So I think it was very important that the Manitowoc County investigation team should have questioned family members and close friends no matter what! That’s just protocol.

    The problem with this case is actually finding hard concrete evidence that leads to the person who killed Teresa and who had the motive. Another interesting fact to note is that Teresa met with an entertainment company that day (one of her three appointments that day) that is owned by one of the Sheriff’s deputy officers (Colburn).

    If you’re going to point fingers at the lack of ethics at these filmmakers, you might want to dig around and do more factual research first. Of course, a documentary is going to have an angle. There is always going to be a bias but I don’t think the filmmakers did anything unethical. It’s called creative license but they didn’t do anything unethical. The trial videos they showed stand alone and Kratz had his chance to say his peace. Also, Mike Hahlbach and the Hahlbach family also declined to be interviewed. So it’s not like the filmmakers were purposely trying to skew to one side. I understand that it would be painful to talk about Teresa’s murder, but the family had the opportunity to speak and share their side of the story.

    Kratz also had his chance to give his side of the story, but he refused. I also call BS on his claims that the filmmakers left out crucial evidence that favors the prosecution. Also, why does he care? Avery is in prison and he won the case and both Dassey and Avery have been denied their appeals. He’s just pissed off because he got caught in the sexting scandal and feels like the filmmakers painted him in a bad light because of his scandal. Everything they presented in the film about Kratz is the same public information you can find online about his sexting scandal. He ruined his own career, not these filmmakers. If anyone is to blame, he only has to look in the unethical mirror. He’s the one who has the ethics problems not these filmmakers.

  90. Well, I just watched this documentary for the second time, and I still come away thinking the prosecution proved Avery guilty. In fact, the first time I thought the defense probably had established “reasonable doubt,” but this time I didn’t think any doubt was reasonable.

    I’m strongly in favor of individual rights, and am not some right-wing zealot (I’m an Ivy-League educated resident of San Francisco who voted for Obama in 2008 — and not in 2012 only because he’d made no serious effort to honor his campaign pledge to close Guantanamo). But at some point every decent person has to acknowledge that society has a right — and responsible officials have a duty — to protect against evildoers like Steven Avery. I’d be perfectly content to leave him and his family alone — if only they’d leave the rest of us alone. But he invited Teresa Haibach onto his property, and then raped and killed her. I’ve followed closely many high-profile murder cases. Some are close calls. This wasn’t one of them.

    • As a society, we impose certain safeguards and rules on our institutions in order to avoid the *appearance* of an abuse of power (e.g. politicians can’t accept gifts from companies bidding for business with the government body they represent). These are not things we allow up until the moment someone proves power was abused; they are things we don’t allow from the start because it taints the *result* of a process.

      This is one of those situations that should not be allowed. Regardless of the guilt or innocence of Avery and Dassey, the conflict of interest and abuse of power portrayed tainted the outcome of the investigation of Teresa Halbach’s murder and of Avery and Dassey trials. I don’t know if evidence was planted or manipulated, but the fact that it appears as if there was both motive. means, and opportunity to do so throws everything that the Manitowoc and Calumet County authorities presented into question.

      “It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

      But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

      ― John Adams

    • All you have done in your replies is to paint broad strokes:
      – You seriously doubt that the cops planted any evidence.
      – DNA is hard to find, so they might not find Teresa’s on the key, and yet they found Steven’s … so …. OK … so, Steven’s DNA is radioactive and glows in the dark?
      – The existence of the misfits that you seem to want to paint with one stroke as “the entire Avery clan” speaks volumes to you about the guilt of the “evildoer” (your word) Steven Avery
      – Branden is an idiot, so you’d “let him go”. You haven’t even talked about his participation or lack thereof.

      You don’t really sound very much like a lawyer. I’m not going to doubt that you are a lawyer. I’m just saying that you certainly haven’t made any attempt to lay out a coherent story that explains all the pieces of the case.

      What is clear is that you presumably do not question the character of *any* of the law enforcement officials who found the most damning pieces of evidence in remarkably convenient locations, even though those particular officials were simply *not* supposed to be on the premises. They surely were *not* the “equipment” that Sheriff Pagel referred to when he promised the press (and therefore the public) that Manitowoc County Sheriff’s officials had stepped away from the investigation.

      And the fact that these very same officials were under investigation for previous charges of malfeasance that kept Steven Avery locked up for another 8 years, apparently holds no water for you either.
      And — again — your lack of any coherent story to explain all of this leaves one to wonder what you thought about Branden’s fanastical story that involved throat slashing in a bedroom where no blood was found. And if you now say that that story wasn’t used during the trial, you still ought to at least use your own “lawyer’s mind” and decide whether it had any impact on the jurors.

      Or, hell, maybe you *do* want to speak to the *truth* of Branden’s story about Steven stabbing her, and Brandon slashing her throat, etc. etc.?

      I mean, you simply are not contributing any sound theory. Your sound bites might be inflammatory, but nothing that you’re saying is terribly “sound”. It’s almost as if you’re from Missouri, and you just drop a few words here and there, as if to say, “Show me.” You have seen the documentary twice, and you’re convinced that Steven Avery is an evil murderer, but in a sense, those are the shallow waters in which you choose to remain.
      It is very difficult to rule out the possibility that you are simply attempting to incite the people who are reacting to the “facts” that they witnessed in the documentary.
      You haven’t even offered any opinion on whether the 2003-4-5 depositions carry any weight in your beliefs about the character of the officers involved.

      To put it another way: One person went on a bit of a rant last night, asking everyone if they were “sheeple” or something like that, and claimed that we were all being magically manipulated by the filmmaker. OK … OK … but at least he then gave one example (not a very strong one) that demonstrated that the filmmakers don’t reveal to us the content of the story of Branden’s female cousin, until long after he feels that the filmmakers should have revealed that content. He then uses this fact to explain that we all were looking at the detectives through very dark lenses, and that those dark lenses were actually a device used by the filmmakers to color our opinion of those detectives. Although I disagree with his opinion on why I think the detectives’ interrogations were coercive, at least he attempted to supply some kind of a coherent, sound explanation.

      But you simply have not done so.

  91. Steve wrote:

    “Ok, yet the prosecution in the Avery trial said she was killed in the garage. In the Dassey trial it was in the trailer.”

    Incorrect. I just watched it for the second time. The prosecution did NOT say in the Dassey trial that she was killed in the trailer. The theories were consistent in both trials.

    Personally, I’d have held Dassey “not guilty,” though only because he is so damn stupid and suggestible that I don’t think he’d be a danger to society and ought to get a second chance at life. Steven Avery, however, can rot in hell as far as I’m concerned. I don’t think this was a close case.

    • Not sure what you mean by the theories being consistent. My recollection is the only “evidence” connecting Dassey to the murder was his confession, in which he says he cut her throat in the trailer, etc. In the Avery case, the prosecutor was adamant that she was killed in the garage, and emphasized it did not matter there was no blood in the trailer because they were not contending anything happened there.

      • That is my understanding also. And Kratz blurted out that entire gruesome story, for all the public to hear, with the implicit promise to all that story was at the heart of the case; i.e. with Kratz’s own conviction that the story was true and that they were going to go forward with the prosecution of the two murderers: Steven Avery and Branden Dassey.
        And yet, we get to the trial of Steven Avery, and there is no mention of any stabbing, any slashing of throats, any blood in a bedroom. In short, he tried Steven Avery in the court of public opinion, using the mere “promise of the evidence” at the time of the press conference.
        Not being a lawyer, I don’t know if that is sufficient grounds for not only dismissing the ensuing trial, but for also dismissing Kratz as an honest, trustworthy prosecutor.
        Apparently, Judge Willis, in his wisdom, had no problem with Kratz’s announcement to the world of the two vicious killers who, together, had raped and stabbed and slashed a woman’s body in Steven Avery’s bedroom.

  92. I am currently a PI, as well as a retired homicide investigator/evidence technician:

    Interesting thoughts:
    The Rav 4 had no plates on it when Strum (the victims cousin) “with gods divine intervention” found it in the lot…she had to give dispatch the last 4 numbers of the VIN to verify it was the victims vehicle… Yet the plates are in hand at the trial…where were the plates located? Near the quarry I would bet….probably where they were found by Sheriffs Ofc. Colburn ( previously a prison corrections officer who received the call regarding Avery being wrongly incarcerated ). Colburn called in the plate, which he had more than likely found…along with bone fragments of the victim in the quarry. The police begin their plan to frame Avery at this point…

    It is a physical impossibility to totally “clean up” a bloody crime scene after someones throat is slashed… Bleach or not, there will still be traces of blood spatter from arterial bleeding in the room. Luminol would show attempts to clean up as futile at the crime scene…there is no physical way the victim was murdered in the trailer. The room was hardly pristine to begin with from the videos shot during the searches. The recovered bone fragments were obviously transported in the barrel found near the fire pit. Most likely from the site where the victim was burned…in the quarry. The victim was transported there in her own vehicle and then the vehicle was parked in the storage yard to be found easily.

    The blood vial with the needle puncture in the cap… As an evidence technician for 15 years, is anyone else seeing a problem with the chain of custody of the standard blood sample belonging to Avery? The seals were broken, the cap was punctured…is there no record of who had access to the sample over the years? Protocols are in place to ensure anyone with access to evidence is documented. Or they should be, as a matter of standard practice by any police agency. Did I misconstrue them saying the samples were housed in the clerks office??? Really??

    As far as motive for the police to want to frame Avery…ok, pretty obvious. Sheriff Peterson ( formally the arresting Ofc of Avery in his overturned conviction) faces civil liability that the insurance companies will not pay out if it is proven there was intent in his actions ( ie: knowledge of another suspect in the assault case). The same applies to Lenk… Who planted the key and “found ” it in plain view after hiw many searches??? i would love to know which of the Judges signed the open ended search warrants for the Avery property!!! Petersons later statement about “why would we frame him, it would be easier to kill him” is sickening…did this really come from a county Sheriffs mouth, this guy runs the department!!!

    The testimony in deposition of the sketch artist Chief Deputy Kuske
    Is comical…he obviously used Averys mugshot to render his drawing and he is just an outright liar, and not a very smart one….who frames his work and hangs it on his wall in his office other than a total narcissistic blowhard, who feels he is untouchable, and has advanced in his career as well …regardless

    I could go on and on, but just a little food for thought…

    Sad to say. This is Wisconsin police work at its best….the boys club where one and all cover and take care of “their own”. Disgraceful…once upon a time they all took an oath of office to uphold the constitution and serve and protect their communities…I guess they have forgotten those oaths in pursuit of career advancement, notariety and greed.

    • You make a very persuasive argument — one of the most plausible-sounding alternative scenarios I’ve heard.

      I am especially intrigued by your comment regarding the fact the car was found without the plate, yet the plate was present at trial. I do think the film should have included the explanation, whatever it was.

    • I agree. Regarding your question about how the plates showed up at trial when they weren’t found on the abandoned Rav4: I asked myself the same question.
      I discovered somewhere — and I’m sorry that I don’t have the source — that the plates were “discovered crumpled up” in a junk car on the lot.
      I am 99% sure that I read this in a court transcript or somewhere similar — i.e. I am 99% sure that this part of the evidence reported in trial. I sure wish I had made a good note of it, however.

      And, of course, the fact that the plates were “discovered” in another car on the lot does not dissuade me in the least from casting “quite reasonable doubt” on the credibility and integrity of various members of the investigative team — several of whom (we were promised by Sheriff Pagel) would be physically excluded from the investigation on the property — the very same people who had been deposed only days before — the very same people who “discovered” the majority of the damning evidence.

  93. “the Avery clan had a long history of violence against women. It’s not unthinkable that one of them might have tried to lure and sexually assault an attractive young photographer.”

    Pretty stupid reasoning, Ann.
    Poisoning the well and non-sequitur? You’re no philosopher nor attorney, Ann.

    • “It’s not unthinkable that one of them might have tried to lure and sexually assault an attractive young photographer.”

      It is worth pointing out the following:

      There is no evidence that Halbach was sexually assaulted, aside from Brendan Dassey’s confession(s). If you read the transcripts of Dassey’s interrogations, you’ll notice that it’s Fassbender and Weigert that first bring up (then continually cycle back around to) the idea of sexual assault:

      The first day, first session (done at Brendan’s school – without first talking to his mother for permission) – about a half an hour into the interview (page 461):
      Fassbender: “Did he try to have sex with her or anything and she said no?
      Brendan: (No)
      Again, in the second session of the first day (page 495):
      Weigert: Do you know what sexual assault means?
      Brendan: Yeah
      Weigert: Did he say anything about sexual assault with, with her or having sex with her?
      Brendan: No
      Weigert: Did he say anything about wanting to?
      Brendan: No
      This goes on and on throughout the various interviews until Brendan finally starts repeating back to them that Steven Avery sexually assaulted Halbach.

      Also, there is no evidence that Halbach was “lured” to the salvage lot, unless you believe that Barb was in on the crime, since it was her vehicle that was being photographed for sale.

      Steven *did* ask specifically for her, but they had done business together 5 times (I believe) in the previous year, so it’s not unheard of to ask for someone you already know to be sent out to do the same job again.

      And despite repeated news accounts that Halbach was “wary” or “uncomfortable” or “scared” or any other adjective-with-negative-connotations towards Avery, the fact is that those words and the misinformation of Halbach telling her employer about the Avery towel-incident were completely fabricated by and perpetuated in the news media by Ken Kratz, and no one else.

  94. Either I missed it in the comments or I’m off base here but why has nobody requested a polygraph? I know it is not admissible as evidence but it would certainly cast suspicion somewhere other than Avery if he was successful, and Brendan is not intelligent to outsmart the polygraph.

  95. Can someone please tell me why the details of Teresa’s murder would be credible when there was no body, only bones found? The prosecution “account” of her being tied to a bed, raped, stabbed, throat slashed and shot in the head, dismembered and burned seems to check off every horrible method of assault and murder one can imagine. To suggest the source is Brendon’s confession, then I have difficulty believing the police and prosecution tale of events.

    It is my opinion Brendon’s interrogation and subsequent “confession” came about as a result of controversial interrogation techniques commonly used by enforcement to illicit confessions – truth or otherwise and is despicable when used against children. Therefore, for me, the details of Teresa’s death were a fabrication, scripted by police and untrue.

    It was evident to me during Brendon’s interrogation, after repeated attempts at telling the truth stating that nothing happened, that he wasn’t there, Brendon was continually prompted by interrogators who provided hints to the answers to the fill-in-the-blank questions that lead Brendon to recite the scripted scenario using some of his words. This “confession” would serve as the source of the murder details and conveniently lend credence to the the case against Steven Avery? It was evident to me Brendon merely complied so he could be done with the interrogation and go home; a conclusion any youth unaware of the seriousness of the situation would arrive at.

    Unfortunately, Teresa is dead and her death has been exploited by those in whose best interest it would serve which,in my opinion, is the Sheriff and police department of Manitowok whose reputations and conduct were questioned after Steve Avery’s release from prison for a rape he did not commit. Under scrutiny, the threat of prison for police misconduct proved to be more than “they” could handle and the law suit, more than the county could afford. This second arrest of Steve Avery was a win-win for Manitowok county.

    I viewed the final episode of the documentary last night and was shocked and disappointed with the outcome; it kept me awake thinking how this can be allowed to happen and thought, there by the grace of God go I. I can’t imagine where Steve and Brendon find strength to withstand this injustice. Not many of us could endure. I hope that those who know, come forward with the truth as to the real circumstances surrounding the murder of Teresa Halbach.

  96. Whoah! I never, from watching the documentary, thought that it came across that any member of the Halback family was or should be a suspect. What I mentioned to my wife was that I thought that it looked like the Holbachs really wanted it to be Steven Avery because they wanted closure and that the thought of her murderer still being out there was unthinkable to them (him). Hence, human’s propensity for a scapegoat… the desire to blame someone and rationalize to yourself… brainwash yourself that the scapegoat deserves what they are getting… get closure and move on in life. The documentarians didn’t do anything wrong by showing that someone had access to her phone and password messages immediately… and I mean IMMEDIATELY after she was murdered… AND remember, the defense was NOT ALLOWED to implicate anyone else in the murder… only allowed to indicate that there was reasonable doubt that Steven did it… that he was NOT the last person to see her. So… who had access to her phone and password immediately after she was murdered and who deleted phone messages… AND WHY? Actually, the documentarians did a bad job… and perhaps even the defense did a bad job of letting the “phone password and message deletion” issue not sink into the jury, and to the documentary viewers`. If the documentarians wanted to vilify the boyfriend, or the brother, they could have done a better job… I do think the documentarians covered… briefly and even poorly, that Steven was likely not to have been the last person to see her alive because of her phone message deletions after she was murdered. They could have hammered that home a little better, so could have the defense. Maybe they did but we just didn’t see it. Reasonable doubt that he was the last person to see her? Definitely. To play devil’s advocate against myself though, Steven could have tortured her to get her phone message password and could have strategically deleted phone messages… uh, but then he would leave her car in plane view covered with twigs in his junk yard where he has access to a crusher and incinerator?!!! No… doesn’t add up. Why be this meticulous about phone messages and then leave a car with your blood in it… especially after you were exonerated from a rape based on DNA evidence?!!! He would KNOW that his DNA would be in the vehicle… he wouldn’t understand DNA the way a scientist would, but he would understand it at least on a base level at this point. The documentarians did a good job documenting this objectively and intelligently. Nobody was vilified but the cops. The brother introduces he scapegoat mentality of mankind, and the boyfriend reasonable doubt about who saw her last and who required an alibi. That’s my two cents. I could be way off. Feel free to disagree.

  97. Ann – I get your point on the filmmakers dragging the brother and ex letting us make conclusions to possibly them being implicated in the murder BUT how will we ever know based on the cops tampering with evidence. I am not really sure who killed her and find it very ironic that on the day she went there she goes missing, is killed and charred somewhere else, and then ends up in Steven Avery’s backyard. Someone killed her and cops found her and framed him just so happens they decide to murder her on the day she was at Avery’s, she committed suicide and the cops found her first and framed avery, or Avery or someone in his family who are not very intelligent took her off the property killed her and then brought her back to dispose of evidence and or family frame avery, or avery despite many conflicting evidence (key suddenly appearing, blood in the back of her car given she was transported, when she was shot – which totally contradicts steven killing her bc he was home all day after she left for the bonfire and that 5:30 phone call from his gf) and if a family member killed her why would they put her in the back of her car? If another avery family member – wouldn’t steven heard the gunshot since he was home?

  98. Manitowoc county had 36,000,000 reasons to get rid of Steven Avery,also I find it very odd that Ms Halbach turns up missing a little over a week after the depositions especially when Manitowoc countys insurance company said they were uncoverable

  99. I am absolutely appalled at the willingness of so many people to grasp at the most bizarre of conspiracy theories. This documentary is the work OF PEOPLE IN THE BUSINESS OF CREATING FANTASY. Don’t you get it? Look at their resumes! Now they become warriors for justice? Bull. This guy Avery was obsessed with Halbach. He specifically requested that she be the one to take the picture for the Auto Trader Ad. But the real key is Dassey’s conversation with his mother. If you believe that conversation is accurate, then Steven Avery killed Halbach. Your other option? To believe that the conversation OVER THE PHONE was faked or coerced. Which one? Avery, who, if you examine some of his prior behavior, is a psychopath waiting to happen (burned any animals to death lately? Do you think the cat was the only thing he’s every tortured to death?) he repeated his M.O. with Halbach, burning her as well. I realize this guy was not on trial for killing that poor innocent animal. But after 20 plus years in Federal Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community, I have had my fair share of examining interviews/interrogations/confessions and the like. When you find a legitimate case of Law Enforcement and Prosecutorial misconduct, I will support you 100%. It does happen. But this case was NOTHING until these filmmakers, looking to make a name for themselves, SELECTIVELY chose what evidence was relevant for the audience to consider. Not surprisingly, some of the most damaging evidence against Avery is left out. And their excuse? They chose what they thought was important, and there just wasn’t even time to include every little detail. Like the fact that he had called her three times on that same day, twice using *67, so the call wouldn’t register? And her palm pilot and other possessions were found in Avery’s garbage…ANOTHER police plant? Why didn’t they just SHOOT this guy and claim self-defense?
    Steve Avery is where he belongs. I’m not so sure about Dassey, would appears to be one of the numerous victims of assault on the part of Avery over the years. What a nasty, disgusting, sociopathic creep.

  100. I think a lot of people have lost sight of the fact that a guilty verdict is suppose to be given when the evidence has proven without doubt the party is guilty.
    We may never know what happened obviously, but in this case the evidence was a joke!
    You can not honestly tell me this women was abused and tortured and killed and left no DNA evidence herself. (Impossible) in the way they describe the events and how they supposedly happened. Also a BIG thing that stuck in my mind was the cop calling ahead of time before the vehicle was found and making an I.D. Of this vehicle. (Before they had located it on Avery property) listening to the call sounded to me like he was looking at the vehicle.
    Wether Avery is guilty??
    But being convicted under these circumstances was a grave injustice and an embarrassment to our legal system. Evidence was clearly planted!! And the detectives/police involved were a joke.

  101. Do we all agree that the biggest injustice of all is the fact that this women’s killer is still out there. And this man life is being sucked away what little he has left.
    Avery or not, I doubt it was Steven given the evidence. Looked like a plant job to me. But the cops didn’t help matters by pointing the finger at him from the very beginning.
    If it was another Avery several of them had time and the opportunity to remove evidence to his location they are all neighbors after all.

    I think the cops may even know who it was, but before they figuring it out they were in too deep. They saw an opportunity to get rid of Steven and his law suit. And save what was left of their reputation by painting him to be a killer.

    I mean pick your case he is either the most clumsy/dumbest murder in history to clean all DNA evidence but his own. And parking the car near his home where they would obviously find it. I mean seriously they had hundreds of cars. He could have crushed it or at the very least hid it better. The little bit of camouflage made me instantly think kid. I believe Brendan’s older brother did it, didn’t he even skip work that day. The rest was all cops trying to make it an open shut case to save their butts. They were not about to look incompetent again.

  102. As a lawyer myself, I’m astonished at the lack of understanding of the justice system reflected in some remarks here:

    “Assuming the guilt of any defendant is an unconstitutional assumption by the prosecution.”

    The presumption of innocence indeed is important, but that’s for the judge and the jury — NOT for the prosecution. The prosecution starts every trial (or at least is supposed to) believing the defendant is guilty — just as the defense starts every trial with precisely the opposite belief. For better or worse, the system pits two strongly biased parties against one another, and lets impartial decision makers (jury and judge) decide which one is right. It’s the decision-makers, not the adversaries, that are expected to start with a presumption of innocence.

    In short, I’m not saying you have to agree with the way we do things. But at least UNDERSTAND it.

  103. “Looked like a plant job to me.”

    Maybe it’s just the old adage: “You can’t kid a kidder” — or, in this case, other lawyers. I thought Avery’s lawyers were excellent, and I actually thought they’d win, but please! While it’s almost never possible to know for sure whether a defendant was guilty, this was not really a close case. The notion that someone would do what was required to frame Avery successfully is laughable — not just implausible: laughable.

    I watched the documentary twice. After the first watching, I thought Avery was guilty but that the prosecution hadn’t proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. After the second watching, I thought they had. (As for Brendan, I’d have found him not guilty, but only because he was a kid, and dumb as a box of rocks, and so he ought to get another crack at a decent life.) Get serious: who in his right mind would take the risks required to pull this off? The prosecution had twice as much evidence as it needed.

    Avery’s lawyers did a great job, in my view, but they had too little to work with (aka a client whose guilt was so evident that they just couldn’t argue around it). As Buting rightly surmised during the final episode, while sitting around the conference room table hashing out the case with other defense lawyers, establishing that Steven’s blood found in Teresa’s car had EDTA in it (meaning it had come from the “purple tube” rather than from Steven itself) would have resulted in a reversal. No question about that. But notice that the documentary said nothing about the defense establishing that. Do you suppose that’s because Buting et al. just lost interest in the case, despite having become a focal point of national attention? If you believe that, you may need some further reading about the human ego. Buying et al. didn’t come up with that evidence, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. I can’t think of a single attorney I’ve ever met who wouldn’t have found a way to establish that that blood had EDTA in it — IF that blood had EDTA in it. That being so, I can see only one possible explanation for their failure to establish that: The blood did NOT have EDTA in it, which means it came from Steve Avery at the time of the murder — just as the prosecution argued.

    I don’t deny that the criminal justice system gets it wrong some times. But this was not one of those times.

    • “The notion that someone would do what was required to frame Avery successfully is laughable — not just implausible: laughable.”

      The notion that someone would do what was required to frame Avery successfully for rape in 1985 was laughable.

      The notion that someone would do what was required to ignore and bury exculpatory evidence that would have freed Avery in 1995 was implausible.

      The notion that someone would do what was required to yet again manipulate/ignore evidence against Steven Avery is not only plausible, it fits a pattern.

      What we don’t have is a pattern of Steven Avery committing murder, committing sexual assault, committing crimes on his property, or even simply of committing crimes and attempting to cover them up.

      And this “twice as much as needed” beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence you mention?

      1) Blatantly obvious smears of blood inside a vehicle which lacked any other DNA or fingerprints from the accused. A vehicle that sat for 4 1/2 days while Avery apparently never bothered to think of simply walking back to it with a flashlight, looking around, and either wiping up the conspicuous blood smears – or just dousing the whole interior with a gallon of bleach or something equivalent.

      2) A key found in plain sight after 2 or 3 days of constant searching of Avery’s trailer, devoid of the victim’s DNA but luckily having a smidgen of Avery’s. And once again, Avery seems to have just spaced-out on the fact that he committed a murder, and doesn’t bother simply taking the key with him and getting rid of it on the drive to the cabin.

      3) Human cremains found ~3 days after constant police searching, deposited in a fire pit ~20 ft. from Avery’s back door, as well as other pieces of burned matter in the Janda burn barrel. Again, as with all of the other ridiculously “it was me” pieces of incriminating evidence, Avery apparently had a brain-fart about having just murdered and burned someone, and doesn’t think to cart away the remains, cell phone, camera parts, etc. for disposal 100 miles away when he leaves for the cabin.

      4) A bullet found 4 months after the property had previously been exhaustively searched, which could only be ‘claimed’ to contain Halbach’s DNA by making an exception to their own protocol (which would have classified the test as “inconclusive”) of a test that rendered the sample un-testable by any third party.

      5) Avery’s DNA found on the hood-latch of the car 5 months after the murder took place, 5 months after the police impounded the car, and 5 months after the police knew the killer opened the hood and disconnected the battery.

      Please feel free to mention any other beyond-a-reasonable-doubt pieces of evidence I’ve left out, because I have reasonable doubt about all of these.

      And it seems to me we’re left to draw one of two conclusions about certain members of the Manitowoc and Calumet County Sheriff’s Departments:

      1) They manipulated/planted evidence.
      2) They are the most incompetent, Keystone cop-like, law enforcement officials ever to the have the bad luck of being captured on film.

  104. All these theory’s are fun to discuss but I feel better knowing that scumbag is locked up…. Get’em one way or another.