==
Foreword:
This article is the author's defense lawyer for the suspect Steven Avery in 2005 after watching the documentary series "Making a Murderer" broadcast on Christmas in December 2015 Jerry Buting wrote a sentence that aroused interest. Defense lawyer Jerry Buting said in an interview with the producer at the end of the play:'If you want to reverse the case, you have to use new technology to find evidence like the last time.' (To the effect). The author is interested in: What evidence was presented in the court? With this question in mind, I deliberately re-searched related articles to see the confirmed facts of the prosecution and defense. Although the points listed below are not all, they are enough to make readers think.
The cause and consequence of this case, please go to Netflix to watch the episode "Making a Murderer". For the convenience of reading, the "Suspected Murder SA" in the following refers to the convicted murderer Steven Avery, and the "Dead T" refers to the victim Teresa Halbach.
=====
Evidence provided by the prosecution to the jury in 2006 (confirmation of facts):
01) There are six bloodstains on the car that belong to the suspect SA. The blood does not exist in the liquid used in the laboratory to store blood, that is, non-experimental blood. .
02) There is the DNA of the suspected SA under the hood of the car. Whether the palms of the suspected SA have sweaty palms can not be confirmed, but the DNA is confirmed.
03) Part of the bones of the deceased T was glued to the tyre ring, which means that part of the remains of the deceased T was ignited together with the tires. Tires play a role in supporting combustion, and tires are objects that can be seen everywhere on site.
04) The suspect SA used a pseudonym on the same day. His sister's name was the deceased T. The original sentence was'Call the girl who came earlier.'
The deceased T had talked to a colleague a month ago that she did not want to see the suspect, because the suspect once only wore a towel and opened the door to see her. Although the deceased later saw the suspect several times because of the shooting of the vehicle, the deceased T felt that the suspect SA had sexual harassment.
05) The suspected SA had used the'eliminate caller ID display' (×67 function) phone to make 3 calls to the cell phone of the deceased T from 2 to 3 on the same day. But after 4 o'clock, instead of using this function, you can directly call the deceased's cell phone. (The prosecutor speculated that the first 3 times the suspect SA was to induce the deceased T to answer the phone, and the one after 4 o'clock was a deliberate alibi.)
06) The last few voice messages of the deceased T's mobile phone were deleted by the signal sent from the mobile phone. (The prosecutor speculates that the suspect SA deletes unfavorable messages after getting the mobile phone, because it is not necessary to enter the password again in the mobile phone, just redial.)
07) Some items of the deceased T such as mobile phone, camera, PDA, pants The buttons and the teeth of the deceased T had been burned, but they were not burned. The place where they were found was behind the home of the suspect SA.
08) There are only two places where the body of the deceased T can be confirmed, both of which are less than 20 feet behind the suspect SA's home. The other defense claimed that the unidentified fragment found nearly 1 mile outside the home of the suspect SA could not confirm whether the bones of the deceased T, because the family of the suspect SA had the habit of hunting nearby.
09) The suspect SA had set fire to something after being at home for a long time that day. The ignition was not only confirmed by the suspect SA and his 16-year-old nephew, but also confirmed by eyewitnesses.
10) The head of the deceased T was confirmed to have been shot one or more times. One of the bullet shells was found in the garage of the suspect SA, and some of the shells contained the deceased’s DNA.
11) The gun of the suspect SA has always been hung in front of the bed (with a license). The gun is consistent with the above-mentioned ballistic impact of the deceased T's DNA found in the garage. (Accordingly, the prosecutor explained: due to time sequence, it is impossible for the police to steal the gun in advance and then kill the person T, and finally hang it back to the bed of the suspect SA)
12) The car key of the deceased T was found in the room of the suspect SA . The key is only the DNA of the suspect SA, and the DNA of the deceased T does not exist. (The prosecutor speculates that the suspect SA washed the DNA of the deceased T)
13) The suspect SA bought handcuffs, ankle chains and other items before the incident.
14) The last person seen on the deceased T’s public itinerary was the suspect SA.
15) The suspect SA has about five days to freely remove all traces of murder.
16) The former cellmate of the suspect SA said that the suspect SA once declared to him that'to build a room where you can rape, torture, rape and kill women at will.' “The best way to dispose of the body is to burn it.” The reason is that the suspect SA wants to retaliate against the woman. The false accusation of sexual assault put him in jail for many years.
====================
Defense’s rebuttal
01) The blood on the car may still be stored blood in the laboratory. The FBI’s “non-experimental blood” test in the last week has defect.
02) Since the DNA of the suspect SA under the hood cannot be confirmed as sweat, it is also possible that someone took a piece of old clothes worn by the suspect SA and wiped it on. If it is really sweaty, why is there only the suspect DNA and no fingerprints? The female laboratory technician in charge of testing the hood admitted that she did not put on new gloves to open the hood as required, and she still used the same old gloves to collect evidence. This shows that she may have accidentally or deliberately printed the suspect's DNA after contacting other suspected SA objects on the scene.
03) The tyre ring mixed with part of the bones of the deceased T can only prove that the killer had indeed used tires for combustion to burn the corpse. It is also possible that someone (the suspected bad police) used the tires seen at the scene during the eight days of the lockdown search for evidence. Done.
04) It is not uncommon for the suspect SA to contact potential customers with different aliases in order to sell cars. It's normal to ask someone familiar with the magazine to come by my sister's name. Whether sexual harassment is true or not cannot be judged, but will any man sexually harass another woman before getting married?
05) The suspect SA and the deceased T may not agree. It is not abnormal to find the deceased T with the function of eliminating the caller ID for the first 3 times, and it is normal to use the normal phone call to find the deceased T for the fourth time.
06) The voice message of the deceased T can also be deleted from the network, as long as the password is known. The ex-boyfriend of the deceased T was able to print out the contact records of the deceased’s T phone from the Internet because he guessed the password (the password was the birthday of the deceased’s sister T).
07) The deceased T’s mobile phone buttons and other objects were burned and found behind the suspect’s home. This does not mean that the suspect SA was the murderer, but it may also be the work of the bad police.
08) It was confirmed that there were two places where the body was burned, but it was also confirmed that the body was burned in more than one place, which meant that the body had been transported. It’s just who moved it and where it moved from where it was impossible to confirm. But the bad police moved in from another murder scene to burn the corpse.
09) The suspected murderer SA burns things in a waste car park at night to play with the murderer's corpse burning is not necessarily the same sign.
10) If the suspected SA is planted by a professional bad police, it is not difficult to make sure that the magazine shell in the garage has the DNA of the deceased T. This garage with lots of clutter obviously has traces that have not been cleaned for a long time. If the deceased T was shot here, where would the blood be splashed? It is impossible to erase all of them. The police even knocked on the garage floor and did not find the blood of the deceased T. In addition, if the suspected SA is really deliberately committing a crime, why does it leave an obvious bullet here?
11) For the suspected SA family who has hunting habits, the bullet coincidence is normal. The real murderer wants to plant the suspect SA as long as he finds a cartridge case at the scene and tries to get the DNA of the deceased T. Just like the so-called “sweat” of the suspect SA under the hood of a car, it is possible to smear it with the clothes worn by the deceased T.
12) Someone would be so stupid to leave the car key of the deceased T in his room. Is such obvious evidence to make people trouble him? And this key happens to have its own DNA? If SA is suspected, he can at least wear gloves without leaving his DNA on the car key? Anyway, the DNA of the deceased T was washed out, not bad for his own.
13) Buying handcuffs, fetters and iron chains are for fun after marriage with your fiancé, and has nothing to do with the deceased T.
14) That was only the last meeting of the deceased T's public itinerary. It does not mean that the suspected murderer SA is the last person to see the deceased, nor is it the real murderer.
15) The police also had a full eight days to lock down the scene to search for evidence, or plant stolen goods.
16) Unless there is other reliable evidence to prove it, under the pressure of the prosecution, the credibility of the words of any former cellmate is zero.
===
In addition to the basic confirmed facts above (points 1-15 are all scientifically proven, and the 16th is the testimony), there is also a basic fact that the prosecutor and defense don’t often mention, but it has also caused controversy among netizens. It was the car of the deceased T.
Positive opinion: Why didn't the suspect SA need to dispose of the car that was found in the abandoned car yard of the suspect SA? It was precisely because the car was discovered that it caused a police search. If the suspect SA has been conspiring for a long time and deliberately chose to commit the crime when his fiancée was drunk driving and there was no one in the house, would he leave such a big evidence at home? The car was driven by someone else’s real culprit, such as a bad policeman who came here to carry the stolen goods The possibility is higher.
Negative opinion: Because the suspect SA cannot deal with this car 100%. Regardless of whether it is handled by a car press or other methods, there will be remnants. As long as the police find the remnants of the car, the suspected SA’s charge will be confirmed. It's a capital crime to accidentally let people see the suspect driving away the car and dumping it somewhere else. In contrast, it is safer to put it in a waste car yard and dispose of it slowly, and if necessary, it is safer to say that someone else planted it (the records of the waste car yard indicate that as many as 4000 cars were processed here in 2005). What's more, the corpse should be disposed of most urgently by the suspect SA after the murder.
====
Several related incidents after the 2006 verdict:
1) The suspect SA was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to life imprisonment. After being not released on bail, he filed an accusation in 2009. He accused his two brothers (Earl Avery and Charles Avery) as the real killers, and the motive was that the brothers were jealous of him and would receive 36 million US dollars in compensation.
2) In the film, in 2005, the ex-girlfriend Jodi who helped the suspect SA defended SA publicly admitted that she believed SA was the murderer after the documentary was broadcast in 2015. Because the suspect SA threatened to kill her many times, she also reported the domestic violence of the suspect SA several times before 2005.
3) Ken Kratz, the prosecutor in charge of the case in 2005, received an email interview after the documentary was broadcast and pointed out that the documentary lacked about 80-90% of the evidence. For example, the film only mentions that the suspect SA had thrown a cat into the fire and burned it to death, but it didn't mention that the suspect SA put gasoline on the cat first.
4) The suspect SA and his brothers had many recorded sexual harassment reports before the incident in 2005. For example, his brother Charles Avery was accused by his wife of using a telephone line to strangle his neck and then forced him to faint. In this case, his wife chose not to sue. Another brother, Earl Avery, was also charged with the fourth-degree sexual assault on his two daughters in 1995. Earl pleaded guilty not to appeal and was imprisoned for 45 days and three years in custody.
======
Conclusion:
Some of the case-handling personnel related to this case, especially the prosecutor Ken Kratz of the prosecution, are people with many doubts. The law enforcement agencies’ case-handling procedures and neutrality have also been criticized. The author has no intention in this article why people call for injustice or say "justice has been served", etc. What the author hopes is that readers can re-examine the most basic facts and make their own judgments!
End) 2016-02-03 in New York
View more about Making a Murderer reviews
