Attachment 22
Fucking hell, if that's genuine.
Attachment 22
Fucking hell, if that's genuine.
I can't believe the fucker actually turned up at the Avery household. What the fuck is wrong with him.
This gave me a genuine lol.
That bit in brackets.Mr. Kratz, Can You Answer These 22 Questions About Ryan Hillegas?
Ken,
As you may be aware, the person I think most likely did this was Ryan Hillegas. I'll just compose a list as you have done that I need answers to so I can go back home (which I would very much like to do at this point, actually cause my friends and family are giving me loads of crap right now for being in Manitowok).
It might just be my sense of humour, but this is a brilliant read.Originally Posted by SvN
The casual throwing in of completely useless and insignificant titbits as if they're as relevant as visiting some complete strangers unannounced on Christmas Day is gold.But I didn't come to Wisconsin to try on silly hats. My objective was to get to the Avery homestead a good ninety minutes away by car by late afternoon. The busses that day were running, at least so far as I could determine, early morning or in the evening. I'm a night owl, so early in the morning wasn't going to work, and I didn't want to take the later bus as I would have arrived at the Avery's at an injudicious hour, particularly on Christmas day. That left me with no option but a taxi which was going to be expensive, but I had no choice.
After casting around a bit along the row of taxis you typically find at an airport, I finally found Gary, an Iraqi expat who was willing to take me for $150. I was to eventually learn that the price had been greatly reduced from a year ago owing to the proliferation of services like Uber.
I immediately liked Gary. As an interlocutor, he was neither indifferent nor overbearing in conversation. And he had interesting stories to relate. What more can you ask for when talking to anybody, really? On the way we fell into conversation easily. Most interestingly he told me that he once worked at notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad Iraq. What would anyone think hearing a statement like that? So I asked him a bunch of questions about it, and it turns out that he was there before Saddam Hussein took power in the early 70s (I believe it was). He said it was actually a nice place to work then -- laid back, no one being tortured or shot. His job was to manage the workers who build and maintained the facility as far as I could determine. The next way station on his life's journey was to move to the US to learn how to become a tractor mechanic. While he was here, he was able to meet and marry a woman with whom he's been married to for almost four decades.
He eventually asked me where I was going and why. I told him I was here in Wisconsin to look into the hunch that I developed while watching Making a Murderer. He hadn't heard about the show, but when I explained to him that it was my belief that a killer was on the lose, he understood and offered encouragement. "You are doing the right thing", he said. I asked him if would be ok for me to post the phone number to his taxi business in case others needed a ride out to Manitowok, and he said that would be fine.
There's actually some reasonably compelling stuff in that blog.
http://ideape.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12...t-says-so.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oKF4ExbNVc...10.57%2BPM.png
It was deffo Hillegas.
There was an episode of Touch of Frost from years back that had the fit blond from Teachers in it (now married to Keith Allen I believe, having met on the set of Bodies, which I still haven't seen) that was set in a university where a psycho was preying on female students and doing a lot of weird shit. All stereotypical stuff obviously, but his mannerisms, the good looks and a certain sense of confidence come arrogance is the absolute spit of the way Hillegas looked and behaved in the footage shown of him.
Which given Touch of Frost was merely an entertaining break out drama for the lovable David Jason (and this is reality) probably means he had absolutely nothing to do with it, but I mention it anyway.
Hillegas' Facebook profile, that's remarkably open.
https://www.facebook.com/ryan.hillegas
Mike Hallbach's is in his friends list as well.
In posting that one wonders how this might all end. It's alright in my hands as while I'll admit I'm probably intrigued too much by this case, I am on the right side of hatstand and therefore pose no threat. There must be hundreds who aren't though.
That does take some big balls to do that, then later they called the police on him..hahaha
I've read it all now and it's fair to say it's a good read (irrespective of it ultimately being pointless) and the chap writing it is very interesting. He also has a rap sheet as long as your arm.
I will not be getting into blogs and other shite.
As for the people believing he did it, or 50/50 or whatever, what makes you think he did? None of the evidence shown in the documentary seems convincing enough to me, at all. The confession is bollocks, the key is bollocks, the bullet DNA is bollocks. The bones were shown to be moved. The car in the property is bollocks considering he had that crushing machine which would have been better than the lol idea of using two branches to cover it. the only decent piece of evidence is the blood inside the car with his DNA, but the fact that his previous evidence was tampered with and that not a single fingerprint was found apparently make it far from convincing. Am I missing something here?
Nope, you summed it up quiet nicely fella.
I don't think you're missing anything, it's just that more people than one would imagine don't understand what the role of a jury is. Which reminds me of this quite brilliant set of questions from the Vicky Pryce case jury.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...e-8503427.html
I suppose they at least had the good grace to own up to not having a fucking clue as to what they should be doing, rather than tossing it off for the time they were meant to be deliberating.
Ok, DONE!
The fact that I had seen something about Anonymous getting involved in this, and that all the conversations with Avery were always on the phone (even if that could have been to create the sense of chronology) made me always believe he was still in prison, regardless of the current state of the appeals etc.
However, like Yev, I kind of expected a little more redemption, or something interesting to come up right at the end that would re-open the case.
I kept expecting more information to pop up about that fucker L.E.N.K., and like you lot I also felt well miffed by both the Brother (although he did some good acting at points if he was involved) - but more importantly about the Ex, Ryan, and also the two other Dasseys (can't remember the relations) that acted quite odd, Bobby Dassey and another older dude. Maybe it was Dytrich or something. What the fuck were they all about?
Scott Tadych (wasn't it?). He was Brendan's stepdad, wasn't he? He did seem quite odd too, yeah.
The thought of being on trial with a jury of twelve average joes off the street is fucking terrifying.
For a while I thought it was Scott too, but that Ryan dude seems suspect.
The 'discovery' of the key is absolutely amazing
So the big news today is that one of the jurors (not the one that was excused) has claimed that they think Steven was not guilty, was framed, and they were afraid to hold out on their not guilty vote and feaful for their own safety.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/steven...16-1?r=US&IR=T"(The juror) told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty,'' Ricciardi said. "They believe Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin."
"That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.
There was behind-the-scenes vote-trading going on during the trial,the juror told the filmmakers, and the verdicts on each count were "a compromise."
"So that was a significant revelation."
The juror also said he or she voted to convict, but claimed the decision came under duress.
"They told us really that they were afraid that if they held out for a mistrial that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and that they were fearful for their own safety,'' Demos said.
The filmmakers said they have not been able to verify the claims because they have not spoken with any other jurors. If there was a new trial, though, the mystery juror would be willing to serve as a "source," they said.
Looks to me like a case of someone who was too unprincipled/lazy to stand up for what they thought was right at the time massively regretting it now.
If I genuinely thought someone was innocent/guilty having heard all of the evidence and finished deliberating it wouldn't matter to me what the other 11 thought, I'd stick to my guns and people who aren't prepared to do that shouldn't be called.
Nothing beats web sleuths. I check in on the mob over at Zodiac Killer fairly regularly and considering they're investigating something that's been idle for the best part of 45 years it's unbelievable what they turn up. Admittedly there're some absolute loons as well.
I read through the entire 2005 thread from websleauths. One poster inparticular, Sherlockmom, who makes some absolutely horrendous posts on the subject. I wonder what she thinks now, knowing what she knows. It's a huge thread and it's useful for nothing other than following how events unfolded and how the media was portraying them at the time.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...oc-31-Oct-2005
58 pages SvN? You must be more into this than I am...
In other news, I ended up coming across Statement Analysis last night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_analysis Which looks dodgy enough, but people who think Avery is guilty seem to be pointing towards this technique proving that, despite Avery saying "I didn't do it" numerous times.
I've found the entire thing fascinating. I've even read quite a few legal documents that were part of the Dassey case, as they've all been released.
Yeah, I've read a fair bit of the transcript of his statement.
It's all really interesting but fuck reading extremely long threads on an internet forum populated almost entirely by loons.
Exactly what I said earlier.
If you're interested in the case there are some interesting things to found though.
I am sure there are, I just don't want to go through all the shit.
In the interest of discussion:
I am sure most, if not all, of us agree that the 'jury of your peers' system is fucked up. Having some regular folks who don't really understand things deciding whether you spend your life in jail or not simply does not sound right. What are the alternatives though? Would a system where someone who understands law (the judge could be it I guess) makes the decision be any better? Initially I think it would but then I think it would also be more prone to corruption and would be more likely to side with the state as the prosecutor. What do you folks think?
Well, if the jury actually consisted of a bunch of people that knew law, say aspiring judges, that may be the best bet. Then at the same time, it seems a little less democratic, and like you say it seems like those people would have to be in many trials and the risk of corruption would increase monumentally.
Actually I can't think of a better idea myself.
I seem to be the only one that wasn't hooked to the Serial podcast last year, but if you haven't listened to Series 1, then go and get it. You'll love it if you enjoyed MaM.
Series 2 isn't really anywhere near as good so far, unfortunately.
Been meaning to listen to that after listening to a few other podcast series. There's also another Netflix show that people keep comparing this to that I want to see too.
Despite what happened here, I think jury of your peers is the best system.
Implementing a system where any sort of ‘professional’ people are employed to judge is not only open to corruption, but more worryingly open to those involved being swayed by previous cases and the judgements about people they’ve made in those being used to form preconceptions which are then fallen back on rather than relying on the evidence at hand.
I would imagine if you asked any law enforcement officers or lawyers if they ‘knew’ if the accused was guilty within minutes of meeting them and they were being honest, their response would be ‘yes’ and I doubt that that opinion would change (again if they were being honest) having formulated/reviewed the evidence. That’s all that would happen with any sort of professional system.
That said, I appreciate the current system’s not perfect and to my mind it would certainly benefit from jurors being scrutinised more before being selected. Not sure how you do that in practice, but there’s certainly a legitimate issue with them not understanding what they’re there to do and that has to be the system’s fault more than theirs.
Having had friends who’ve done it they’ve pretty much outlined the above as being problematic. I’d quite like the chance myself at some point, just to get a better feel for what it’s actually like.
It's an awful idea. For the reasons I listed above, plus (and I might be wrong), but I think law students aren't allowed on juries (in England?) because all that happens is they end up applying laws they don't understand properly or worse still, introducing elements to their verdict that either weren't covered in the way they would have done or they believe have been covered incorrectly.
And the problem in this case wasn’t only the jury, but more the system up to that point.
How about 'testing' a jury's decision in the case they choose guilty. Taking this case as an example: If they believe there is no doubt that he did it, then they should be able to recreate how the murder happened and be able to prove that their recreation is consistent with all the evidence presented. I doubt they could do that.
What's it called, do you know?
Have you seen The Jinx, by the way?
Yeah, you're absolutely right. As I wrote that I realized it wasn't ever going to be a good idea.
Yeah but, well, that's kind of the prosecutions (and defence's) tasks, isn't it?
Sort of. An explanation of why they came up with the verdict they did would be beneficial I feel because as Yev expressed, many of them probably are not really sure of what they are supposed to be doing.
If you want to narrow jurors down to aspiring crime writers, then yeah, fill your boots.
And it's reasonable doubt, not no doubt.
One thing that is important here is that one has to distance themselves from what we saw and put ourselves in the jury's position. So, if, for example, we take the blood found in her car - by the time we see that bit in court, we've seen 4/5 hours of a documentary in Avery's favour, a whole load of dubious things the cops may have done and an unveiling of Avery's blood sample that looked unbelievable in terms of the conditions it had been kept in and an unveiling which set up a quite beautiful cliffhanger into the next episode.
Whereas the first thing they see is an FBI agent saying the blood couldn't have been planted because there's no (or they couldn't find) EDTA in it, which to be fair carries a lot more weight than a woman with no teeth subsequently saying the test might be a bit dodgy.
Which isn't to excuse the decision the jury reached, particularly not if some of them pussied out, but I can understand it - if they believe the police didn't plant the key and all the other evidence put forward hadn't been manipulated or staged then I can see how they found him guilty.
The Dassey situation is obviously completely different and I can't for the life of me understand what happened there. Well, beyond the jury thinking the lad was scum either directly or by association, so he must have done it. Which again, is far from excusable.
Not sure I agree. The goal of the 'professional system' would be to avoid exactly this from happening. We all think we're good judges of character (you should know.) This people, whoever they would be, would be trained to follow logic and reasoning rather than preconceptions.
Yeah but then you get the problem of: what if their motivation, or what you would call it, it batshit mental let's say. Who is actually to be given to power to question them and decide that it IS indeed batshit mental (and should be made void...or..?) ? The judge? Then you ultimately put all the power with him/her anyway, and that's also (more) open to corruption.
You just answered your own question
I may be incorrect that it was a Netflix show, but I've heard it mentioned a lot since this came out. Is it worth watching?
There were also apparently some stuff you didn't get to see in the documentary at all, one of them is they had proved somehow the bullet they found was actually fired from Steven Averys gun (which is why he was convicted on the possession of firearm charge, I suppose). That still doesn't mean that bullet wasn't tampered with, I reckon, but to a jury it's probably also further convincing.
I don't know if this is standard for the US (far from so in England), but I remember the jury on the Jackson sex abuse trial being interviewed afterwards, explaining why they found him not guilty. Which essentially boiled down to "would I let him anywhere near my kids? Not a fucking chance. Was there enough evidence demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that he fucked them? No".
Not sure if that would help as standard, in terms of educating the public a bit more, but ultimately 'the system' needs to better explain what's required.
Ah, yeah no it's HBO, that's why.You just answered your own question
I may be incorrect that it was a Netflix show, but I've heard it mentioned a lot since this came out. Is it worth watching?
And yeah, it is. Although I did enjoy MaM a little more, but The Jinx is definitely also very good.
A little more sensational, not quite as bleak perhaps, is how I'd describe it.
I'll have a hunt for it and give it a watch, cheers.
What's required definitely needs to be explained better. I've heard from people who have been called for jury duty and they've told me its a lolfest. As for the first part, that is sort of what I'm getting at. At least a summary of why the decision was taken could be provided, to determine whether the jury followed the proper guidelines. Would help people looking for appeals for one, if they could show that the jury didn't quite understand its role.
Yeah, of course, I saw all that. Which is why I can see how they reached their verdict.
What's worrying though is that the number of juror's that changed their minds over the course of deliberating. What could have been said in 2/3 days that was more convincing than a 6 week trial? If it were the case that the 7 jurors (was it?) who changed their minds did so because they realised they hadn't been following the judges instructions, then fine, but I suspect what's more likely (given the circumstances of the man involved) that a few belligerent hicks who had him bang to rights from the get go managed to wear down or bore off enough of the others who couldn't be arsed/were guilted into the repercussions of letting someone go who might have done that.
Agreed. That was the theory of the dude that was excused as well, wasn't it?
This blog really is required reading.
http://ideape.blogspot.co.uk/?view=classic
He's now got Ken Kratz to enter into dialogue with him.
Do you lads think that the documentary was quite biased? When watching it, I couldn't help thinking that my line of thought was being led down the path the makers wanted me to go down.
My 'theory' for a good while was that Avery had multiple personality disorder and therefore did it. That didn't quite match up come the end though, so yeah. He definitely deserves a retrial, there's no doubt about that. And the poor kid should be exonerated immediately.
The documentary was biased and manipulative, there's no doubt about that. Doesn't mean that it didn't make valid points though, but it is important to recognise that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote