Making A Murderer Thoughts, Discussion, Part Two
Part 1 proved surprisingly popular [you can find it below] so what the hell, here’s Part 2 … now even longer and more tangential.
 I’d also recommend this podcast on the case from Matt Jones and Steven Romines, who is one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Louisville. bit.ly/1OPcO8w
 Again, these are just some free flowing thoughts. I’ve only seen Making a Murderer once and no doubt missed or misunderstood parts. The feedback I got from Part 1 [mostly via Twitter @DanWetzel] was great and I added/fixed stuff as it came in.
 Since the first part I’ve done more online research. Too much actually. I am now vowing to get out of this rabbit hole and stop pouring through old Wisconsin court filings.
 The most interesting thing I found was a transcript of what was apparently Brendan’s second interview with police. Investigators Mark Wiegert and Tom Fassbender conducted it on Feb. 27, two days prior to the infamous “coerced” confession shown in the movie.
 Brendan is far more forthcoming. There is no video, so who knows how it looked, but he offered up lots of details and stories without suggestion. You can and should read it here: bit.ly/1RwNm6N
 Brendan said he knew nothing until 8 p.m. when Steven invited him over to the bonfire. This matches all of Brendan’s alibis.
 Brendan said he helped keep the bonfire going by collecting wood and garbage but in the process noticed body parts in the fire. Steven knew he saw it and told him a story about stabbing Teresa in the Toyota Rav 4, hauling her body back on a sled once it got dark and now incinerating her. Steven then threatened to stab Brendan if he ever talked.
 Now, there are obvious questions with the story, inconsistencies and many things to go back over. A lot. It’s not perfect. Most notably, why would Steve invite a witness to a corpse burning and there remains consider questions about whether you can get an open pit hot enough to cremate a body in one evening.
 Still … this story is way, way more probable and way, way better told than the implausible rape and throat-slashing scene in the bedroom that produced no blood (I go over that in Part 1). It also seems to me – some experts in police questioning may show me otherwise – that it was way, way better handled by Wiegert and Fassbender. They often just ask a question and Brendan answers it.
 I don’t know if Brendan told the truth but it at least could be the truth. This should have been the basis for the state’s case against Steven, and Brendan (accessory after the fact, etc.)
 So why the hell is Brendan carrying a life sentence for participating in a rape, imprisonment and murder in the trailer/garage that absolutely did not happen? Why did prosecutor Ken Kratz go that route?
 My guess is Brendan is just the human version of planted evidence; a tool to run up the odds of conviction against Steven who authorities thought did the murder, had it out for or both. Brendan’s life was meaningless.
 As outrageous as it was to put the kid away based on a confession that couldn’t be a confession because what he described couldn’t have happened, it’s even worse when you realize Kratz chose that coerced “confession” instead of a confession that actually could have happened and doesn’t appear coerced.
 No wonder Brendan kept telling wilder stories. No one wanted the truth.
 * I’m putting most of this on Kratz. I’m eager for him to explain this decision, not try to muddy the waters by complaining in the media about “additional evidence” that is often not relevant or compelling. That’s a red-meat PR tactic straight out that jury-polluting press conference textbook. It’s a dodge but the cable TV hosts who interview him either didn’t see the movie or are too dense to ask a relevant question.
* Prosecutors, or at least good ones, take immense pride in their vow that they, more than anyone else in a courtroom, are there to pursue justice. Most people think that’s the judge’s job, but it isn’t. Every single day they decline to prosecute cases because there isn’t enough evidence or the story doesn’t make sense.
 They are the check designed to balance out the police who because they are on the frontlines are understandably prone to intense confirmation bias and competitiveness. Even the most honest cop in the world needs a good district attorney. So, obviously, does the public. There wasn’t one here.
 * It’s human nature to try to figure out who killed Teresa Halbach. That’s actually unfortunate.
 While the presentation is sympathetic to Steven Avery’s case, the movie really isn’t about solving the mystery. It’s about a screwed up system. This is about the process not the destination.
 That gets lost when the focus is on trying to crack the case.
 As I wrote in Part 1, I don’t know who killed Teresa Halbach. It very well may have been Steven; there are lots and LOTS of things that make him a suspect. I can’t imagine how anyone could deny that. The people who are just blindly demanding he get let out of prison because they know he is innocent are being naïve.
 He absolutely could be the killer. Anyway, I’m more interested in “guilty or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” then “guilty or innocent.”
 While a who-done-it is entertaining, in this case it’s a folly of an exercise. How the hell would I know? Other than the people in the movie, I don’t know one resident of Manitowoc County. Many of the prime suspects are prime suspects merely because of the limited scope of our perspective.
 Although I understand and remain curious, jumping to rash certainties about guilt and innocence and then indiscriminately defending that position and missing the larger issues is how the entire thing started.
 * I do think Brendan Dassey deserves a new trial based on incompetent representation from his initial lawyer and because Judge Jerome Fox erred by not granting Dassey’s first request for new representation. In addition, Fox was wrong to admit into evidence Dassey’s multiple “confessions” because they were so patently ridiculous, inconsistent and, on occasion, coerced.
 There’s a more proper way to argue this, but I’m not a lawyer.
 Hopefully his case gets in front of a federal judge who enjoys a lifetime appointment and unlike the judges in Wisconsin are not subject to the whims of voters that turn them into black-robed politicians.
 * I think Steven Avery deserves a federal investigation into police misconduct in his case. If that confirms what most of us agree appears to be repeated acts of planted evidence, then he should be granted a new trial.
 He very well may have done it, but the system is the system and this country can’t exist on police determining guilt and then framing someone.
 As distasteful as it would be to allow a rapist/murder to go free, intellectually we know if cops are allowed to do this they will sometimes frame innocent people and over the years allow many more actual rapists/murders to remain free and continue to rape/murder.
 * If the federal investigation shows anyone planting evidence [cough, cough, Lenk and Colburn] they should be charged to the fullest extent of the law.
 * That’s as far as I’m going at this time. This was a movie – a long movie, but just a movie. I’m not afraid to say I don’t know. As one of my friends put it, “I’m 75 percent certain Steven is innocent and 75 percent certain Steven is guilty.” I lean more to the latter, but that sounds about right.
 I’m certainly not screaming to let someone out of prison because of a documentary. I’m also not going to employ that old tripe about “a jury of his peers decided so it’s over” either. That line is pandering to the masses that want to believe regular people are really smart and full of common sense.
 * For what it’s worth, Steven tried to offer up to the jury alternative suspects. Under Wisconsin law, however, he was prohibited because, according to a ruling, “the parties identified by Avery may have had the opportunity to commit the crime (but he) was unable to demonstrate (they) had a motive.”
 Of course, the state was able to convict Steven despite being unable to demonstrate he had a motive. That’s how it works though.
 * So who are Steven Avery’s top four alternative suspects (he pared the list down in an appeal filing … and yes, I need to stop wasting time reading appeal filings)? It’s worth specifically noting that Teresa’s ex-boyfriend, who is (unfairly in my opinion) hinted at in the movie, isn’t one of them.
 Steven’s four are: Scott Tadych, the boyfriend of his sister, and Brendan’s mother, Barb; his own brothers Earl Avery and Charles Avery and Brendan’s brother Bobby Dassey. All were at the salvage yard at the time.
 Other than Bobbie Dassey, each had at least one prior run in with the law for acts including physical assault, sexual assault, trespassing, violating restraining orders, threats and assorted other ugliness.
 This much is clear, when poor Teresa Halbach drove onto that salvage yard she was surrounded by a lot of people with a lot of history of a lot of violence. She never stood a chance.
 * If, as I suspect, the Manitowoc Sheriff Department planted evidence it should be noted they were absolutely horrible at doing it.
 These guys have no chill.
 How many times is Lieutenant James Lenk going to show up and magically discover critical evidence that a dozen other officers missed?
 I’ve seen Scooby Doo episodes with better misdirection.
 Consider the Toyota Rav 4 key, which was not found during five previous searches of Steven’s tiny bedroom. No one saw the key sitting under a pair of slippers. Really? These guys tear apart rooms, they rifle through every page of a book, turn pockets inside out, pull up rugs, rip down drywall, you name it.
 Yet the key isn’t found … until Lenk shows up.
 Of course he is under escort of a Calumet County deputy, who’s stated job is to make sure Lenk doesn’t plant evidence. Imagine that being your job. How suspicious is a cop when another cop has to watch him at all times? Only that deputy gets distracted with something else. Once no one is watching, Lenk, sure as can be, declares, “there’s a key over here.”
 I literally laughed at that part of the movie. How Ken Kratz didn’t hear this story and say, GTFOH, is mindboggling.
 * The police say the key was hanging or stuck or somehow hidden behind a small bookshelf and no one noticed until it was shook and apparently fell. If so, the police who searched the place the first five times should be fired because they are incompetent at finding clues.
 Furthermore, we are to believe that Steven, a criminal mastermind who according to the state managed to shoot a woman in his garage without leaving any blood behind, had Teresa’s key, realized it was a highly incriminating piece of evidence and decided the best idea would be to hide it behind a bookcase rather than dispose of it one million better ways?
 * Let’s look at this key. Maybe there is an explanation for this – if you know it, please pass it on – but the key chain has just one key on it, the one for the Toyota Rav 4. There is no house key. No office key. No key to another family member’s home or any other vehicle. No old key. Nothing. Just one key. How many keys are on your primary key chain?
 Is there an explanation for this? Teresa lives with a male roommate. You might argue that in rural Wisconsin they don’t need to lock their doors. OK, perhaps. But is it so safe that you never, ever lock the doors, say even if won’t be home all day or weekend? And what if your roommate unexpectedly locks the doors? You never, ever carry a house key … just in case?
 * The key that is found has Steven’s DNA on it, but not Teresa’s. So she somehow used this car key but never got any DNA on it. OK, then.
 * How about another Lieutenant Lenk coincidence, the bullet?
 I think it said in the movie the police searched the garage five times in November but never noticed any bullets. They did discover 11 shell casings, so they were looking for such things on the floor, but no bullets.
 Then, four months later, spurred on by Brendan’s story of mayhem, they decide to search the garage again. Lenk shows up of course and, hey, a spent bullet is found under some piece of equipment. Wow, that’s just amazing. What a lucky break in the case for the police.
 The bullet is of course tested and while the woman at the lab didn’t find any traces of blood on it, Teresa’s DNA was discovered.
 By this narrative this is one of the bullets that killed Teresa. How else could it have her DNA on it?
 So for that fired bullet to honestly wind up in that spot, it must have hit Teresa and then caromed around the garage floor. Yet no blood came out of Teresa’s body after being shot. No splatter, no high-velocity [and impossible to see] fragments, no pools of blood, nothing lighting up via Luminal indicating a clean up. There is nothing in that garage.
 This bullet apparently managed to hit Teresa and help kill Teresa yet caused no bleeding at all.
 Either that, or someone put some of her DNA on it and placed it there because neither she nor anyone else was ever shot in the garage.
 For that “someone” to not be a police officer you’d have to believe Steven (or a different murderer) shot Teresa with the bullet and then went and found it, put on surgical gloves so he wouldn’t get any of his DNA on it, picked the bullet up, carried it into the garage, dropped it to the floor.
 * As for the whole defense argument about the woman at the crime lab “contaminating” the DNA test, I get it but I really didn’t care. I thought the crime lab woman made an honest mistake and made the right call to ignore protocol. I think the online backlash on her is unfair.
 The bullet was planted. After that, nothing matters.
 * I find complaints that the film didn’t provide “additional evidence” from the prosecution to be a mixed bag. It would’ve been great to get all the evidence but the movie was long enough.
 Some defense arguments weren’t included too. Want one? According to a post-conviction filing, a police cadaver dog “hit” on a golf cart that Earl Avery and his friend Robert Fabian were using to hunt rabbits on the property up until 5:20 p.m. on the day Teresa was presumed killed. Why wasn’t that mentioned?
 The producers had to make a decision somewhere. There is always more evidence.
 * As for the specific examples Kratz is complaining about: some are interesting and some aren’t.
 The handling of Avery’s legal troubles could have been better presented. Even though it was mostly allegations, mentioning that he was at least accused of sexual assault, threats and even molestation would have done much to curb the sympathy for Steven.
 * The producers should have included that Steven had called Teresa before, had specifically requested her to take a picture of the van for AutoTrader, had allegedly come to the door once wearing just a towel and she had complained to her boss about him.
 The fact he called her three times the day she went missing is particularly noteworthy because twice he apparently used the *67 feature to hide his identity. Strange. It isn’t proof he’s guilty, but it’s certainly germane and interesting. In the movie their meeting felt random.
 * Much of the other stuff rings hollow to me. For instance, he owned some cuffs that could have been used to restrain Teresa?
 Besides the fact the absolute last thing I want to spend time thinking/vomiting about is whatever Steven and his DUI girlfriend Jodi were doing with sex toys in that little trailer … so what?
 Brendan’s story of Teresa bound to the bed was nonsense. Besides, her DNA was never found on the cuffs, so she wasn’t ever in them.
* The remnants of a cell phone, Palm Pilot and camera, all the same models as Teresa’s were found in a burn barrel on the property. I think we all know she died in the area and after so much suspected evidence planting, I can’t take any of that seriously.
 * What about when Steve was 19 and was imprisoned for animal cruelty? That was mentioned in the movie. Steven doused a cat in gasoline and threw him through a bonfire. That is totally f’d up behavior, but it has no bearing on this case.
 Does anyone out there other than Steven’s sad, delusional mother think he was a well-adjusted individual? He is no angel.
 He no doubt he had huge mental, emotional and behavioral issues even before he went to prison for nearly two decades, a place that would bring out the worst in anyone.
 In the bizarre, ignorant, uneducated world of that junkyard, surrounded by other at least semi-depraved relatives, the cat story fits. It’s ugly. It isn’t evidence that he is guilty of murder.
 * The crazy, violence-promising letters he wrote from prison mean little to me. And, again, no matter what some websites claim to, these were presented in the movie.
 I have never been in prison (whew). However, I do know too many people who have been or still are in, and (mostly) because of work I have visited them and stayed in correspondence with them.
 In my very limited experience – hopefully someone else has a better perspective or understanding – I’ve found that life inside is so desperate and depressing that outrageous outbursts are par for the course.
 Two of the most prevailing issues for extended stay inmates are a sense of being powerless and of being forgotten/ignored by those on the outside whom they still believe are equals. Rejection is incredibly painful. Again, I would imagine this would be even more pronounced if you were locked up, as Steven was, for not just a crime he didn’t commit but also the crime of rape, which makes him a target from other, incredibly violent offenders. That’s about as close to hell on earth as you can get.
 Fantasizing about asserting power – via cartoonish violence – on an ex-wife who divorced you, took your children and no longer believes in you actually seems “normal” to me given the circumstances. Terrible and terrifying? Yes. But he’s full of rage after the only positive thing is in his life has been taken from him.
 * There was also testimony from an inmate that claimed Steven said when he planned on building a “rape and torture chamber” for women. It sounds ominous and is good for cable news blather but inmates are known to say anything and even the judge wouldn’t allow it at trial.
 * Here’s the most disturbing random piece of information presented in the entire movie: that Steven doesn’t “own any underwear.”
 I could have done without that tidbit.
 * DUI Jodi, of all the fringe characters, is quite a treat.
 The movie suggests the Manitowoc Sheriffs broke the couple up [heartless bastards] but I suspect it had more to do with Steven using all the civil suit money on criminal defense attorneys. Well, that and his looming life imprisonment. Jodi wasn’t a complete idiot.
 I’d imagine very few women look dreamily at Steven Avery [although he later managed to land another girlfriend despite being in prison].
 Yet I still kept wondering why he was with her? He didn’t have better options? Start with this, it’s unlikely that Mantiwoc, Wisc. is teeming with a bunch of George Clooney-types who are just hanging around into their 40s looking for Mrs. Right. The pickings for women are probably slim. Even Brendan said he had a girlfriend for a little while.
 Steven also had some things going for him. He was famous because of his wrongful conviction. His story elicited sympathy; the guy deserved a hug. He had his own home – albeit a rundown trailer with a view overlooking a salvage yard with about 3,600-junked cars on it. The handcuff order suggests an, ah, adventurous streak. He and his dad were going to start a fish business. He loved his mother. He was capable of growing really big beards.
 Oh, and he was going to become very, very wealthy, like multimillionaire wealthy.
 With all the dollars coming, you’d think he could’ve done better than Jodi, who appeared to bring nothing to the table, particularly when she served a 7-month jail term for DUI. (You know many DUI’s you need before you get 7-months?) Yet even then he’s taking her call multiple times a day, talking sweet to her and vowing to marry her (with a romantic proposal) when she gets out.
 Maybe all we really need to know about the real Steven Avery is that Jodi was the best girlfriend he could land.
 * Steven’s coming payday has no bearing on his ability or his motivation to rape or murder someone. None. The acts of rape and murder are so far from the norm of human nature that there is no connection to financial comfort.
 In this case, it would be about controlling Teresa and asserting power. Money doesn’t change that. To suggest it does, as some Avery family supporters in the movie theorize and others who have watched echoed, is to believe that the possibility of money makes everything and everyone happy. It doesn’t.
 * The Manitowoc Sheriff Department continuing to actively work this case even after it agreed that they shouldn’t be involved other than setting up a road perimeter and offering tools out of convenience can’t be discussed enough.
 If these cops – especially Colburn and Lenk – weren’t up to something, common sense says they would’ve stayed as far away as possible rather than further risk their careers, livelihoods and reputations.
 * The look on Colburn’s face when they played the tape back of him calling into the office and reading off the license plate – and knowing it was a 99 Toyota Rav 4 – was incredible television.
 * The reveal of the blood sample with the hole in the top was ever more incredible.
 * I don’t care about Ken Kratz and his creepy sex life – it’s actually more than creepy because it shows an abuse of power his position affords. It provided a bit of levity, but it has no bearing on this case. He could have been the straightest arrow in the world and he still acted terribly here.
 * As for actual comedy, a tip of the hat to the female deputy who was videotaping a search of Steven’s trailer and came upon a letter from, I think, the Innocence Project inviting him to some banquet.
 In a complete deadpan voice she says, “Yeah, I don’t think he’ll be making that.”
 Now that is the kind of snarky cop that I know and appreciate.
 * I am now going to cancel Netflix so I never write this much about a television show again.