Evidence 'Making a Murderer' Didn't Present in Steven Avery's Murder Case
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php
-- The documentary said that part of Avery's criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn't specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).
This doesn't change a thing for me. I never thought he was a saint. But he also wasn't fairly convicted of murder either. Also, there are no documented records of this. Take a look, literally every article is quoting one single journalist who made the claim without actual supporting evidence.
-- Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.
Re: past criminal activity (aside from female relative), examples? This was in the documentary but not presented at trial. Likely due to insufficient evidence to back up claims. And it still doesn't change the facts of this case.
-- In the months leading up to Halbach's disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.
He'd used her services a number of times before when selling vehicles. If you've worked with someone you liked in the past, isn't it common to request them for future work if they are available?
-- Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn't want to go out to Avery's trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.
This is more of Kratz being a ****ing scumbag. This never happened. It was excluded from the doc AND trail because the judge threw it out as unreliable. Yes, the judge that had it in for Avery didn't allow it in because there wasn't anything to support the assertion. As below:
There was no testimony from any co-worker to support the specific allegation that TH said that she wouldn't work with Avery again and that she was "creeped out" by him. Further, what the judge excluded was testimony from Dawn Plizska, TH's co-worker, that TH said Avery came to the door in a towel and that she and TH laughed about it and TH said, "ew." According to a newspaper article, the judge excluded it because the date could not be verified and "there were few details about the alleged encounter."
http://chippewa.com/news/victim-s-c...cle_fb32d5b4-4569-53de-bb0c-c6e2beccd56e.html
-- On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.
She was late arriving to their appointment, so why wouldn't he call her? This was also the 1990s when *67 was common for any number of reasons. Again, it proves absolutely nothing. If she was terrified of him, why would she go to a job at the salvage yard? If he called her and (presumably) spoke to her, why wouldn't she turn around and go home? Again, this proves nothing.
-- The bullet with Halbach's DNA on it came from Avery's gun, which always hung above his bed.
More bullshit from Kratz. The state forensic report matched the bullet to that TYPE of gun, not to his gun specifically. This isn't CSI, matching a bullet to a specific gun is very difficult to do. Oh and guess who also owned the exact same model of gun? Bobby Dassey.
