By Nick Dial
The recent documentary released on Netflix entitled “Making a Murderer” has ignited a firestorm in the country. Within a month of its release, there has been a massive outcry of protests petitioning for a re-trial with petitions of over 300,000 signatures calling for re-opening the case.
In order to thoroughly comprehend the points made in this article, you really do need to watch the documentary or familiarize yourself with the case.
Many have come out claiming the Steve Avery to be “guilty,” but then follow it up with such reasoning as, “If he really was cruel to animals, then he deserves to be there.” Often people will emotionally tie in some other infraction as reasoning to why someone deserves to be where they are. The problem is however, this is the kind of reasoning that often leads to questionable convictions in the first place when matters of claimed corruption is brought to the table.
Granted, the man may not be a saint, and no one makes such a claim. However, our justice system by design is meant to convict only those who meet the strict criteria of “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. What does this mean? It means the evidence in criminal cases should be so overwhelming and solid, there is no way a “reasonable person” could find any doubt. After all, sending someone away to prison and stripping them of liberty and at times life is a serious and life altering event. It should be stressed that such cases should always be treated with the up most respect and handling of ethics. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world, and as human beings, will never completely remove the fact we are not infallible creatures, even more stressing the fact that in criminal trial cases, we must error on the side of caution.
When it comes to the Steve Avery case, whether you think he is guilty or not is not main concern on this issue. In fact, there is only one question that should be asked regarding the Steve Avery case. Did the prosecution prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Steve Avery committed this crime? If not, then everything becomes a moot point regarding this case.
This should be the ONLY focus of the whole matter. Guilty, not guilty, framed, not framed, it all means nothing if the basic criteria of “beyond a a reasonable doubt” cannot be met with a reasonable level of certainty.
When it comes to this issue, I won’t sit here and claim either way Steve Avery to be innocent or guilty, that’s not my place. What I will say, however, is that there are glaring issues on the side of the prosecution that I cannot help but question. Anyone reading this with a law enforcement background, and has worked around such cases, scenes, handled evidence, etc. will be able to understand the various issues that have stuck out to me as well as others, which continue to plague this conviction.
Many try to claim that to suggest this man was “framed” by the authorities is ludicrous, they say that is would me too many were in cahoots together, but does it? The problem with this argument is that this man WAS in fact convicted falsely on shaky grounds and evidence later showed that those who put him there knew better.
Steve Avery was falsely imprisoned for 18 years for a rape he did not commit. It was later found that the authorities had credible evidence and knowledge of whom the real rapist was, but never followed through. It was found there was strong evidence that a personal dislike for Avery lead some in the Sheriff’s Office to ignore evidence of the real perpetrator, after being told by another country they had a confession. Instead, they put this man in prison and DNA finally proved later he was innocent of that crime. There was much well- known disdain and dislike of Steve Avery by those in the local sheriff’s office. It was later found that failure to thoroughly investigate other possible leads was back-shelved due to such conflict. Some suggests that they took advantage of a bad situation to put away someone they did not like, which is hard to argue with given all the evidence surrounding the case.
The question many have asked is did this same Sheriff’s Office do this thing again? Perhaps a better question however, is why was the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Office allowed anywhere near another case involving this man after such a history and being in the middle of a high profile lawsuit? Especially since some of the investigating officers were also persons of interest in the lawsuit.
When Steve Avery was exonerated, he filed a lawsuit for 36 million dollar lawsuit. He was even warned by others that by doing so, he would be inviting trouble and put himself at risk for retaliation. 36 million is a pretty large motivator, so the question many have is would the same department that dropped the ball the first time around and helped wrongfully convict a man with whom top officials in the department clearly disliked, do it again?
Rather than speculate, I feel the best and most objective way to look at this controversy is simply this. Does the evidence the prosecution claimed proving his guilt add up? Does it lead a reasonable person to conclude guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt? Or, does this claimed evidence, including supposed evidence not shown in the film, lead a reasonable person to conclude that there IS in fact doubt?
The following issues regarding this case on behalf of the prosecution remains inconsistent, and calls into play SERIOUS questions regarding meeting the standard, “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
Conflict of interest with Manitowoc County
Something that you would think obvious right from the start is a gross conflict of interest. The Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Office had already falsely imprisoned this man once for 18 years on rape charges. It was later shown that in all probability they knew of a more likely suspect, (the real rapists) but refused to follow alternative leads. There was is also ample evidence of contention between Manitowoc County S.O. and Avery.
As well as a checkered past, Manitowoc County S.O. was also the subject of a 36 million dollar suite. They had been publically humiliated, disgraced, and now on the line for a massive lawsuit. The fact Manitowoc County S.O. was allowed within miles of this case is amazing to say the least. Why this was allowed to happen is a matter of great concern and one that should be thoroughly questioned.
Typically, anytime there is such a conflict of interest, third party nonpartisan agencies are brought in to maintain integrity of the investigation and to avoid the VERY thing that has transpired regarding this case and all of its controversy.
Also, Deputies from Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Office who had already been under scrutiny for Avery’s false imprisonment the first time around were allowed to participate in this new investigation, and wasted no time becoming active in the process.
“Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Lt. James Lenk and Sgt. Andrew Colborn were suspected of becoming aware of evidence during the 1990s that Avery did not commit the 1985 rape and ignoring the information, while Avery remained in prison. In October 2005, less than three weeks before Teresa Halbach is murdered, Lenk and Colborn were questioned during a sworn deposition connection with Avery’s $36 million lawsuit against Manitowoc County.”
Before Avery was proven innocent, these officers had received a call from another county who had a man in custody who had admitted to the crime. They instead, ignored this information and withheld it. That right there should lead anyone to question why this agency was involved at all to begin with.
Also, the fact that these same two officers were questioned in a sworn deposition in regards to the lawsuit and then a mere 3 weeks later were now involved leading the investigation on a missing persons case that soon became a murder case of Teresa Halbach. Immediately they began looking at Avery as the main suspect, which again seems amazingly coincidental.
As you will later learn, the fact these two officers were also the only ones to find ANY DNA incriminating evidence tying Avery to this murder investigation is even more amazingly coincidental, and sets the foundation for some very troubling questions that have yet to be thoroughly explained in anyway way that could be considered logical or satisfactory, instead they simply appear to be just ignored.
8 Days to Search the Property
The property was locked down 8 days while the police had full reign to search the premises. Many have questioned such an amount of time indicating that 8 days of access to the property while the Avery family was elsewhere was unusual and excessive. After 5 days of searching, according to testimony of those from other agencies involved, no incriminating evidence was found. Then later, when not under supervision, incriminating evidence shows up despite the first 5 days finding nothing.
The Key Found in Avery’s Trailer
Despite having days to search Steve Avery’s trailer for evidence, nothing had been found. Two other participating agencies had been searching his room and stated that there was no key in plain view. Then, after serval searches of finding nothing major, a key to the victim’s Toyota Rav 4 shows up in the room on the floor in plain view after a nightstand was claimed to had been “shaked”..
“Lenk found the keys to Halbach’s vehicle inside Avery’s bedroom in plain view after officers from Calumet County, the state Division of Criminal Investigation and Two Rivers Police Department apparently did not see them in previous searches.”
Not only was this key suddenly found after serval previous searches, it had no DNA on it from the victim. It only had contact DNA on it from Avery. It has been suggested that this indicates the key “cleaned”. After all, why would the victim’s key not have her DNA, but Avery’s? Critics say obviously Avery “cleaned the key”, however this could just as easily be said about it being cleaned and planted.
Also, why would Avery go to the trouble of cleaning a key, only to then leave his own DNA on it to be found in his room when something so easy could have been disposed of? The troubling fact is once once again, Lenk, a person of controversy in past issues, is the one who suddenly finds this crucial piece of evidence after days of searching resulted in nothing, and despite testimony from officers of the other agencies saying there was no such key in the room.
Something truly troubling, however, is despite the conflict of interest and both Deputy Lenk and Colborn being involved in the pending lawsuit with Avery, they were still allowed to lead the search on the Avery property. For days, while other agencies where there, under close supervision, nothing was found. The first night they were unsupervised by participating agencies, they then “find” the key in the room? Are they extremely lucky or is this yet another coincidence? Those who don’t believe in “coincidences” would suggest perhaps a pattern is beginning to show.
Bullet Fragment in Garage
Again, here is another piece of evidence that never was found in earlier searches, but then suddenly shows up later after the scene had been “cleared” and Deputy Lenk had been in the garage. They allegedly found a bullet fragment with the victims DNA in Avery’s garage, saying this is where he must have shot and killed her. But, NO trace evidence or blood was found. The only DNA found was on the bullet fragment. Another problem, however, the forensic expert who handled the bullet admitted on the stand she cross contaminated the bullet fragment, and therefore, it was no good anyway as evidence because its integrity was compromised.
Normally, this would obviously mean it could not be upheld as evidence right? They allowed it anyway, and many argue the only reason it was allowed is because it was the ONLY piece of evidence out of over 100 pieces tested that found the victim’s DNA on it. Without that, there is nothing theoretically “placing” her in the garage.
So, the only piece of evidence that places the victim’s DNA in Avery’s garage also happens to be something that was located with the involvement of the two Deputies that have conflict of interest, on a night they were not supervised. The expert stated it was contaminated by mistake, and yet it is still allowed as evidence? Not only did the forensics expert admit to contaminating the bullet, she also had the highest rate of cross contamination issues when compared to others in the same field in her area. Is this something that should have been allowed to be upheld as evidence, and if so, with its known issues can it really be deemed as “credible”? You decide.
Inconsistent Crime Scene Log
Anyone who has worked a crime scene knows, you lock down the site and keep a log with one way in and one way out. Everyone signs in and out and they come and go, this keeps the integrity of the scene.
Another curious issue arises, however. The time indicating the Toyota Rav4 located on the Avery property, shows that again, Deputy Lenk was at the scene. He signed out when leaving, but there is no record of him ever signing in. Why? Some argue this suggests he was already present on the scene before it was locked down, which also, once again, coincidentally is when the victim’s Rav 4 was located, which you will later learn, was located in an amazingly quick amount of time, only 15 minutes, by searchers once stepping onto the 40 acre junkyard full of cars.
No Trace Blood Evidence
When it comes to blood trace evidence there is nothing to support the theory the prosecution brought forward. Brenden Dassey, the nephew of Steve Avery, was relied upon by the prosecution in many areas. While Dassey was convicted in a separate case, it is now agreed by many, his testimony was coerced and unreliable. Dassey was found to have a very low I.Q. and clearly lacked the mental culpability to truly grasp what was going on in comparison to that of a reasonable person. After questionable means of obtaining a confession from Dassey, the prosecution claims the victim was stabbed, shot and had her throat cut. This supposedly took place either in the bedroom or Garage. The amount of blood that would result from this would be substantial.
Despite this fact, NO trace blood evidence was found, nothing in the bedroom and nothing in the garage. Reportedly, the only blood that was found in the garage was deer blood. The prosecution claims they cleaned it up with bleach, and used a pair of Dassey’s pants with some bleach stains on it as supporting evidence. The problem with this, however, is that even if one could miraculously clean up all the blood trace evidence with bleach, (While this does destroy DNA evidence, there would still be the ability to find some evidence of the blood using Luminol.) While certain bleaches may interact with it and help camouflage Luminols effects, it’s highly unlikely that all trace evidence that would show with Luminol would be removed. It would most likely take someone with a black light, Luminol, and specific cleaners to be able to go over a scene and see what they’re doing.
it is highly beyond reason that Steve Avery and Brenden Dassey were so meticulous, that they were able to achieve ZERO blood evidence to be found from the victim- including anything showing up with Luminol and a black light. There was no evidence replacing the mattress or carpet, and even if new carpet had been laid, Luminol will show where blood soaks through to the floor and settles.
For those unfamiliar with Luminol,
Forensic investigators use Luminol to detect trace amounts of blood at crime scenes, as it reacts with the iron in hemoglobin. Biologists use it in cellular assays to detect copper, iron, and cyanides, as well as specific proteins by western blot.
When luminol is sprayed evenly across an area, trace amounts of an activating oxidant make the luminol emit a blue glow that can be seen in a darkened room. The glow only lasts about 30 seconds, but investigators can document the effect with a long-exposure photograph. Crime scene investigators must apply it evenly to avoid misleading results, as blood traces appear more concentrated in areas that receive more spray. The intensity of the glow does not indicate the amount of blood or other activator present, but only shows the distribution of trace amounts of in the area.
Also, Luminol reacts better to older decomposing and dried blood. It can also be applied repeatedly. Just to illustrate how effective Luminol is at showing blood, even years later, in 2004 Luminol was used to show the blood pool on the staircase of Lincoln County Court House, where Billy The Kid made his infamous escape after shooting and killing Deputy Bell Billy on April 28th, 1881. That’s a 123 years later!
Also, if they were able to achieve such as thing, then their argument is that Dassey was so good, he could clean away all the blood with bleach, while wearing jeans, and completely avoid getting a speck of blood on his pants, but could not prevent getting bleach on them? Steve Avery is reported to have an IQ of 70, and well as Dassey, who is learning disabled. The idea that these men are efficient enough to achieve Hazmat professional level clean-up while at the same time splashing bleach over their clothing, but not blood, seems a bit curious to say the least.
What is also troubling is is simply this…The garage floor had years of grime, grease, and even deer blood. Had the floor been deeply cleaned with bleach that could removed all trace evidence, there would obviously be signs of the rest of the floor being cleaned as well. How could the victims blood be removed to the point of now trace at all but yet all the grease, grime, deer blood etc. that was on the floor remain undisturbed and unmolested from any such cleaning?
Evidence Tampering and Broken Chain of Custody
This case fact is perhaps one of the most troubling of all. Whether or not one believes that Steve Avery’s blood was planted, it is absolutely without question this evidence was tampered with and the chain of custody broken. After the defense requested to access blood taken from Avery in 1996, from the rape case, they find the evidence seal tape, signed and dated, had been broken. The vile had a puncture from the needle in the top. The defense checked with LabCorp to inquire if there would be any reason for such a puncture mark to exist. They stated no, there should not be any such puncture.
The bigger question, however, is, who tampered with it? What is an absolute fact is this evidence was opened and the seal broken without proper logging, then taped back together with Scotch Tape. Anyone who has ever handled evidence knows how absolutely crucial it is for the chain of custody to be fully accounted for and not broken. The fact any blood of Steve Avery was found at the scene, (and there is a clear indication that this evidence was tampered with), and no explanation as to who, when, where, or why, is a staggering black cloud that should cast doubt into any reasonably objective person.
The Toyota Rav-4
When it comes to the Toyota Rav-4 belonging to the victim, serious issues just don’t add up.
- Deputy Colborn, one of the Deputies involved in the lawsuit regarding Avery’s false conviction, called into dispatch the license plate for the Victim’s Rav-4, which dispatch confirmed as being a 1999 Toyota Rav-4 belonging to the victim. The problem? The Toyota Rav-4 had been missing and was not found until two days later by volunteer researchers on the Avery property. Why and how is Deputy Colborn calling in a vehicle that supposedly is still missing, only to be found two days later by volunteer searchers? When Deputy Colborn was asked on the stand by the defense, how he could be calling in the vehicle on the date of the recording to dispatch, he responded “I shouldn’t be”. This major discrepancy was never explained by the state.
It is argued that this suggests that perhaps Colborn found the vehicle with the victim in it and called it in to confirm it, then didn’t report it found, only to have it relocated to the property to be found two days later. While many critics want to discount that possibility, no other explanation is given that matches up with the time line of events.
- When the Rav-4 was located by searchers, they found it in a scrap-yard property of 40 acres filled with junked cars. From the time they went onto the site from the time they reported finding the vehicle, it only took them approximately 15 minutes to locate the vehicle. This has been brought up as being either very lucky, or the searches were indirectly and unknowingly lead to the vehicle.
- The Rav4 was sloppily located on the property with a few random items thrown on the vehicle as if to hastily conceal it. The problem with this is there was no rush to conceal the vehicle, there had been days to decide what to do with it. Also, Steve Avery had access to a vehicle crusher on the property. Remember, supposedly he was so meticulous, he was able to remove all blood- trace evidence, yet the vehicle was left to be found with no attempt made to dispose of it, including crushing it into a cube?
- Steve Avery’s blood was found in the Rav4. The blood, however, is smeared in odd ways, and not necessarily consistent with prosecution claims that Avery had an open wound on his hand. Here is where the prosecution gets extremely murky. There were no fingerprints found in the Rav-4 by Avery. They argue Avery must have been wearing gloves. But wait, he was supposedly bleeding from his finger, spilling blood in the Rav4. So, he had on gloves preventing finger prints being left in the car, but somehow left blood in the car from a cut on his finger that was in a glove? This contradiction has never been explained.
- The victim’s blood was found in the Rav4 where he was accused of moving the body. So, again, we have someone that does an amazing clean up job that experts say would be impossible, leaving no trace evidence behind matching the claim of a cut throat and gunshot to the head, but he then proceeds to leave the car on the property full of blood stains? The other question is if the victim was killed in the garage, like the prosecution argues, and then the body moved 20 feet away to a burn pit, then this means she was never placed in the vehicle by Avery. Why would he move the victim from the garage to the Rav 4, just to take the body back out again to a burn pit just feet away? At this point, there is no consistency in the claims.
EDT and the Vile of Blood
This is another black spot on the case that brings in serious questions. Those who are convinced of Avery’s guilt constantly refer to this as “proof” of his guilt.
The vile of blood from the evidence that was tampered with is stated to contain EDTA, an anti-coagulation preservative. The judge, Willis, allowed the prosecution to request the FBI to conduct a test to check for EDTA. The problem is that the FBI first stated that it would take months to develop the test. The other issue is that at the time, such a test had not been conducted for 11 years because it was stated there was no reliable test on record for checking for EDTA.
The prosecution then got the FBI to agree to come up with a test that was put together in only a few weeks. The judge decided to allow this. The defense requested to be able to do their own independent EDTA testing, which the judge refused. Why allow one and not the other?
The problem, however, is that there was NO basis from which to create the test. The defense brought in a lab expert who testified that the test was unfounded. They created a test suddenly for the prosecution with no sound foundation to base the testing on. How long does EDTA last? Do the compounds break down after so many years? What levels of EDTA can be tested after so much time has passed and based on the amount of blood? This test had no peer review studies, no back- to- back confirmation, nothing to show its validity as a sound scientific test. The fact a test that was literally created for the case, in crash course time, with no basis or confirmation of accuracy, is highly suspect. The defense asked if the blood stains in the back of the SUV had been tested for EDTA. The FBI tech stated it had not. He was then asked how could he know if it contained EDTA? The FBI tech then stated that “it was scientifically reasonable to assume that the untested blood in the back had no EDTA”….the Lab expert for the defense laughed at this and said “they’re not in the business of guessing what is or is not in a specimen”. How the FBI tech could have sated “it was scientifically reasonable” to assume untested blood did or did not contain a compound is dubious to say the least.
The very basis that one could conclude that this blood did, or did not come from the tampered vile is realistically unfounded and still inconclusive.
Separate Burn Sites
The prosecution has argued that Avery burned the body in a burn barrel 20 feet from his trailer. This is supported by bones and personal items found burnt in the barrel. However, some of the victim’s bones including a pelvic bone, was found in a rock quarry miles away from the property. The Prosecution admitted that perhaps the initial burn site may have been elsewhere, however, why would Avery burn the body off-site and then move it on to his property, or why would he burn the body on the property, but then move part of it elsewhere off-site? Again, this is a low IQ person that they argue was able to remove all trace evidence of the killing, but leaves bones fragments spread miles apart at different sites?
Does this evidence sound logical? Or, does it sound more logical that the body was burned off site and then moved to the property for some reason by someone, leaving behind some of the fragments at the original burn site, i.e. the rock quarry? That at least would logically add up.
Regardless, there are multiple burn sites and explanation as to why has never been addressed.
Deleted Voice mails
No other possible leads or suspects were investigated in this case. This is interesting, considering the fact the first time Avery was arrested by the same sheriff’s office, other leads were not thoroughly investigated either. Typically, in missing person cases, the family and close ties are considered as people of interest. In this case, the ex-boyfriend of the victim, her roommate, and brother were never looked into as possible leads. The roommate didn’t report her missing for 4 days. The most troubling aspect of this, however, is the brother and ex-boyfriend admitted to “hacking” into the victims voice mail account by “guessing the password”. He said they were trying to listen for anything that would explain where she was. The problem, however, is they deleted some of the voice mails. Why?
Why wouldn’t this information have been turned over to authorities? If your sister was missing, would you then delete voicemail? Why they deleted these missing voice mails, what was on them, and why it was crucial they get access to her account and erase this data was never questioned.
Conflict of Interest with Jury
Since the documentaries release, it has been discovered members of the jury should never have served to begin with. Two jury members that found Avery guilty had direct ties to the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Office. One being a women married to a county clerk. The other, Carl Wardman, one of the Jurors in the 2007 Avery trial, was confirmed at the time to be an active volunteer for the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Office. Despite being a volunteer for the same S.O. that was being sued by Avery and responsible for his arrest, he was still allowed to remain on the jury.
“Wardman had been a volunteer with the department for at least a year before the trial started.
He was one of the Manitowoc County sheriff’s department’s most active volunteers, clocking in over 300 hours in 2007.”
Carl Wardman also has a son, Christopher Wardman, who is a deputy and a sergeant for the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Office, and was an active deputy at the time of the trial while his father was on the jury. You would think the conflict of interest and bias of this would be obvious, and would discount Carl Wardmen from serving on this jury. Despite these facts, however, he was allowed to remain on the jury.
Since the film was released, one jury member has reached out to the film makers and stated they believed Avery was framed, but feared for their life and the life of their family. They stated they felt pressured to vote guilty and stated “if they could do this to Avery, then they could do this to anyone”
“One of the jurors revealed to the series’ creators on Tuesday that they believe Avery was framed, but voted guilty in fear for their lives.”
Obviously these facts surrounding the jury should be troubling to anyone, and could be argued as grounds for a mistrial.
“The Documentary left out Evidence”
Since the release of the film, many have come forward claiming it left out “damning evidence” of Steve Avery’s guilt. Much of this has been championed by the District Attorney of the case, Ken Kratz. A few years after the conviction of Avery, Kratz was suspended and publicly disgraced when was he found to be sexting female clientele. He used his position of power and influence to make advances on women. Something Kratz later blamed on a “prescription drug addiction.”
The Associated Press reported that he sent a barrage of racy text messages to a 25-year-old woman a year earlier while he was prosecuting her ex-boyfriend for abusing her. Kratz, then 50, called the woman a “hot nymph” and advertised himself as “the prize” with a $350,000 house and a six-figure salary. He told her he wanted her to be “so hot” and “treat me so well that you’d be THE woman. R U that good?”
The credibility of Kratz obviously has come into question. After all, now that it is known he used his position of power in such ways, it would not be unreasonable to then wonder how this kind of mentality had an effect in the Steve Avery case. Regardless, many feel that coming out now in protest of the film is just an attempt to save what little credibility he may, (if any) have left. The following are claims of “damning evidence”, stating it was omitted from the film because it’s so damning. To the contrary, the film-makers stated they included all crucial evidence, and that this evidence simply was not as important in relevance to other evidence in the film, and that they cannot include everything. After looking into the claims of this evidence, you decide, is this damning?
The Bullet Fragment in the Garage “Matched Avery’s Rifle”
Kratz claims that the rifle bullet fragment found in the garage matched Avery’s .22 rifle that was located in his trailer. He claims the bullet was found before the gun was seized.so how could they have set that up? Here is the problem with this argument…
Despite the bullet already being admittingly contaminated, there is not record of the bullet “matching the rifle”. The rifling of the bullet was not matched with that of Avery’s rifle. The bullet was flattened. The only relevance the bullet found, had to Avery’s .22 rifle, was that the bullet was .22 caliber and the rifle was a .22 caliber. That is all. It could have been any .22 bullet. They did find .22 spent casings on the property that matched the tooling on the rifle, however there were hundreds of spent .22 casing all over the property, so this was nothing unusual. They reportedly shot those rifles around the property.
So, all that was left is a questionable .22 projectile that has no evidence it was fired by Avery’s rifle at all, or came from ANY of the spent casings on the property. The only relevance at all was the fact the rifle and the bullet were the same caliber, one of which is the most popular worldwide and most reading this article now probably own.
Burnt Personal Belongings in the Burn Pit
Kratz claims that burnt remains of the victim’s property were found in the burn barrel, such as a PDA and camera. He states this is inconsistent with the theory of planting evidence. This is odd, considering such items could have easily been placed and does nothing to discredit the claim of planting evidence.
Sweat DNA was Found Under the Hood Latch of the Toyota Rav4
Kratz continues to claim that sweat DNA was found under the hood on the latch of the Toyota Rav-4. This is FALSE. There was transferable DNA found under the hood of the Toyota, which was later admitted by a forensic tech, that cross contamination was highly likely. This not only voided the evidence as being credible, but there is NOTHING in the court documents that states this DNA is from sweat. It is non-blood DNA that can be found in skin cells, which can be transferred in many ways. It is Kratz THEORY, and claim that this DNA was a result of sweat. It has never been proven or officially stated it was sweat. Kratz has been repeating this everywhere he can in the media. So much so that even show hosts like Judge Jeanine on Fox news have repeated this as fact without fact-checking first.
This was not used as crucial evidence in the case because of its obvious problems, however, Kratz continues to act as if this is damning evidence that proves otherwise and the film purposely left it out because of it. In reality, the evidence is not what he says it is, and the courts threw it out.
Steve Avery used *67 to Disguise his Phone Calls
Critics claim that Avery used star 67 to disguise his phone calls when calling and requesting Teresa Halbach come out and take pictures of a car to be sold. While some claim this is proof of guilt or suspicion that seems a bit heavy of an allegation. It is also known that Steve Avery was not well-liked in the community and despite being exonerated of the rape through DNA in the first case, many refused to believe he didn’t do it.
The fact someone in this position may want to conceal who they are when calling someone is not unheard of. While it certainly may be strange to some; stating it is evidence and damning proof of murder is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
Steve Avery had Purchased cuffs and leg Irons
It’s been said that the film that it did not included the “fact” that Steve Avery had purchased cuffs and leg irons before Teresa Halbach’s murder. As it turns out, however, again, this evidence was not included in the Avery case and had issues of its own. For one, no DNA evidence was ever found on the cuffs. There was no evidence of such items being used in the room where she was allegedly held. Also, after further research, it appears these were not actually legitimate law enforcement grade restraints. It appears these were actually novelty restraints like those purchased at sex shops, i.e. pink fuzzy cuffs. Such restrains are not strong enough nor made to actually restrain an individual and only give the illusion of being restrained. It’s stated that he purchased these for use with his fiance who was in jail at the time for a DUI.
Regardless, they are hardly the smoking gun of guilt that many claim the film intentionally left out.
Despite this lengthy article, there still remains many issues lest to cover. The issues regarding Brenden Dassy and his case, as well as his questionable testimony, were not even touched. If this is a topic you find interesting, it’s strongly encouraged to do the hard research and really dive into it. It’s a fascinating case that raises many legitimate questions regarding the investigation and our justice system in general.
To recap, this is what we know;
- Steve Avery had an IQ of 70 and not known to be of high intelligence, however, he at times is portrayed as cunning and clever, able to pull off amazing clean up-jobs to eradicate evidence while leaving other items of evidence in plain view.
- He was falsely imprisoned once and a victim of corruption in the system. He was then arrested and investigated by the same agency pending a lawsuit despite the conflict of interest
- No trace of evidence or blood was ever found on the property that supported a shooting, stabbing, or cutting of a victim’s throat
- The ONLY incriminating evidence, such as the key, or Rav-4 that was found that had the victim’s DNA or Avery’s DNA on the property was found by officers of the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Office, who should have been recused from the investigation in the first place
- The crime scene was searched 5 times and cleared, only to later have incriminating items found by persons with a conflict of interest when not supervised
- The crime scenes log has discrepancies as to who signed in and out.
- The vile of blood from the rape case where Avery was falsely convicted was tampered with and seal broken with log as to who accessed it and why
- There were multiple burn sites with no explanation as to why
- The Toyota Rav 4 was called into dispatch two days before being found by searches. Colborn, one of the two officers involved in the lawsuit, called it in. Why and how was he running a plate on a vehicle not yet reported to have been found and still missing?
- The blood in the Rav 4 was left all over, but he was able to clean up ALL evidence of DNA and blood from the trailer and garage covering up the killing? He would be so careful to clean up the trailer and garage but then just leave the vehicle with blood and DNA all over it?
- There was blood in the Rav 4 from a cut on his finger, yet no fingerprints in, or on the car. He was wearing gloves to prevent prints, but somehow still bled in the car?
- The FBI was allowed to create an unproven test on the fly for EDT, but the defense was not allowed the same opportunity.
- Steve Avery had access to a car crusher, and could have reduced it to small scrap. Despite this, and being accused of cleaning up all trace evidence, they then argue he left the car out in the open to be found?
- Despite being on a junkyard of 40 acres, the Rav 4 was found in 15 minutes by searchers; the same time that deputies of Manitowoc County were found to be at the scene and signed out, but never signed in. Lucky? Perhaps
- Other leads and persons of interest were ignored, despite the fact the victim’s voicemail was illegally hacked and voice messages deleted. Is this not destruction of evidence?
- Members of the jury had personal ties and conflicts of interest with the Manitowoc Sheriff’s office; one being a volunteer whose son was a sergeant with the agency
- Critics claim it’s not probable that Avery would be framed or set up by LE, yet he was, in fact, a victim of gross corruption the first time he was convicted of rape.
- Kratz, the prosecutor was later found to be an addict and disbarred for using his power to gain sexual favors from women clientele in cases he was presiding over. This brings into play serious character doubt as to the ethics used by Kratz during the Avery case as well.
And much more…..
At the end of the day, however, it doesn’t matter if you feel he is guilty or innocent. The real issues surrounding this case are not whether Steve Avery committed the crime necessarily.While important, yes, the real issue is this….was Steve Avery proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and given a fair trial?
Based upon the many discrepancies and glaring issues that have yet to be answered by the prosecution, does the evidence indicate a man who committed murder without question? Or, does the evidence suggest there may, in fact, be some corruption, or at the very least, shaky evidence disproving the prosecution’s claims?
What do you think? Did Steve Avery get a fair trial? Or should this case be reopened and is he deserving of a new trial in another part of the country?
What are your thoughts regarding the issues on this?
Nick is a former Arizona police officer and deputy. He is a Kaplan University Counterterrorism and Homeland Security graduate, graduating with highest honors. Nick is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, The National Society of Collegiate Scholars, the Golden Key International Honor Society, Alpha Betta Kappa Honor Society, and Alpha Phi Sigma Criminal Justice Honor Society. He has appeared as an expert commentator on Fox News Radio, and has been published in academic journals as well as Police One. Nick Can be reached on his public Facebook page,
or at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @Dialn0911 – See more at: https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2015/09/14/should-off-duty-police-officers-drive-marked-patrol-vehicles-for-personal-use-the-consequences-of-doing-so-may-be-grave/#sthash.0tvtkT2i.dpuf