Man freed by DNA found guilty in slaying

[merwin]

Man freed by DNA found guilty in slaying

CHILTON, Wis.- A man who spent 18 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit was convicted Sunday of murdering a photographer, whose charred bones were found in a burn pit outside his home.

Steven Avery, 44, shook his head when the verdict was read. He faces a mandatory life prison term for killing Teresa Halbach, 25, on Halloween 2005 near his family's salvage yard.

Halbach disappeared Oct. 31, 2005, after going to the yard in rural Manitowoc County to photograph a minivan that Avery's sister had for sale through Auto Trader Magazine. Avery had called that morning to request the photo, testimony showed.

A few days later, Halbach's vehicle was found in the Avery salvage lot under branches, pieces
of wood and car parts. Investigators then spent a week on the 40-acre property and found charred fragments of her bones in a pit behind Avery's garage and in a barrel, along with her camera and cell phone.
...

-------------

Looks like they may have gotten it right the first time as well...

[Kagemusha]

1. What's the basis for your assertion at the end there?

I'd like to know, and I'm not going to prejudice the answer. I'll just listen.

[ends_dont_justify]

17. It certainly calls our forensic methods into question even if it proves nothing N/T

[Warren Stupidity]

22. How?

Two different crimes separated by 20 years. One - the 1985 rape - was categorically not committed by Avery. The second crime - this murder - appears to have been done by Avery. How does the murder call into question at all the forensic methods used to exonerate Avery from the rape? Please be specific.

[mikelgb]

29. I think he did "Rot" in prison, that is the problem

he went in a man and came out an animal

imo

[MidwestTransplant]

36. That's my thinking as well

[Zynx]

33. Avery;s original conviction had nothing to do with forensics. They weren't used.

[Bluzmann57]

2. Just a total dumbass

That is all the guy is. A murdering dumbass. Screw him, he needs to rot away in a prison cell for the rest of his life.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. How is that?

"Looks like they may have gotten it right the first time as well..."

uh - no the DNA evidence exonerated him in the rape, that is not even contested. If you are going to jump to conclusions try this one: 18 years in prison for something he didn't do turned him into a sick twisted animal. At least that leap of logic can be sustained with a reasonable argument.

[merwin]

4. Just a hunch.

An innocent man let of jail after being 'wrongly convicted' does not go and shot and burn somebody.

DNA evidence is not always correct. When it matches positive, it's damn hard to refute. But when it doesn't match, there are times when it can be a false negative. DNA evidence also let off the Zodiac killer who, while never charged, was in my mind guilty as hell.

In any case, only my opinion.

[w4rma]

8. Or, another scenario, he was innocent when he was locked up, but was rehabilitated into a criminal

by the prison system.

[merwin]

10. Could be. I was just throwing my thoughts out on it.

I'm not saying he did it or he didn't do it. I'm just saying that due to the current circumstances, I'm inclined to think that he did commit the rape as well.

[Poiuyt]

14. No - He's been in and out of trouble his whole life

including cruelty to animals, which is often a good indicator of more serious crimes to come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery

[w4rma]

27. Yes, both are possible. (nt)

[Dinger]

15. That Is A Likely Scenario

I think that he might be guilty, but as someone who has followed this case closely, and live about 45 miles from where most of this happened, I can see that some sloppy police work was done, and the prosecution got favorable treatment by the judge. I have read several papers on this (Green Bay Press Gazette, Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel, Wausau Daily Herald, and Appleton Post-Crescent), and have closely followed it on t.v. While I was not in the courtroom at any point, I feel that I do have reason for my opinion on this case. I believe that this case will go on to an appeal, but after that, who knows? I just want justice, and want the guilty person, whoever that might be, to face that justice.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

38. Or maybe he was a twisted fuck all along who simply didn't commit the rape, who knows?

Just because he's a sick fucker doesn't mean he should be inprisoned for crimes he didn't do though.

[knight_of_the_star]

9. Excuse me?

"DNA evidence also let off the Zodiac killer who, while never charged, was in my mind guilty as hell."

I would like a link to prove this, to best of my knowledge he was never caught.

[merwin]

12. Go watch Zodiac. It'll explain it all.

Their prime suspect throughout the years could never be 100% pinned down. Then, when they could do DNA testing, they stopped looking at him because saliva on the envelope didn't match his. However, there was an abundance of coincidences surrounding him. Plus, an ineffective police system on top of it all.

I never said he was caught. In fact, I stated that he was never charged.

[atreides1]

28. This was the man

Arthur Leigh Allen

Though many people have been suspected of being Zodiac through the years, only one, Arthur Leigh Allen (18 December 1933 - 26 August 1992) has been seriously investigated. In July 1971, a friend of Allen reported his suspicions about him to the Manhattan Beach Police Department, and the report was forwarded to the SFPD. When questioned later, Allen claimed without prompting that the bloody knives he had in his car the day of the Lake Berryessa attack had been used to kill chickens; and when asked if he had read The Most Dangerous Game, he replied affirmatively and said it had made an impression on him. This interested the police, as the 408 character cipher appears to reference that short story. Allen was the only suspect in the case whom police had enough evidence against to execute not just one, but three search warrants: on 14 September 1972; 14 February 1991; and 28 August 1992, two days after he died. Allen denied his guilt in interviews but there was much circumstantial evidence against him. Police found no physical evidence to prove that Allen was the Zodiac Killer, and the Vallejo PD chose not to press charges against Allen, a felon, despite finding weapons and explosive components in his home following the 1991 search.<40> Ultimately, Allen's fingerprints and handwriting did not match the Zodiac's, no concrete evidence linking him to the Zodiac killings was ever found, and recent DNA testing on the Zodiac letters in 2002 did not provide a match. However, neither Vallejo nor SFPD ruled Allen out after the test results.

[Az_lefty]

30. Mr Allen ????? He was my elementary school teacher!

good lord, I never realized he was a suspect. He was dismissed from his teaching position for molesting a young girl (student) in 1968 from Valley Springs elementary school.

[knight_of_the_star]

40. You're basing that off a movie?

To my understanding based on documentaries on the subject Zodiac was never caught and the closest they had to a suspect denied his guilt to the grave. It wouldn't surprise me if the movie was sexed up with that in there to make a good story, but to my knowledge he was never caught.

[merwin]

44. Facts in the movie were correct.

Of course it was hollywood-ed up a bit, but the facts in the movie are the same facts from real life.

[knight_of_the_star]

48. I checked up on the subject

The closest they've gotten is six possible suspects all of whom have alibis or were not in position to do all the murders and none of whom matched on the dna.

[LisaL]

26. The DNA from a rape case actually matched to another man.

[Dinger]

5. I Felt So Sad For Both Families

I have observed jury trials, and been a part of a jury, and have seen how devastated all families involved are. It doesn't change the fact that a crime was committed, but on a human level, it is just sad to see so much pain. My sympathies go out to the Halbach family and the Avery family. They have both been through hell.
The prosecution and defense both made strong cases. I am certain that this case will be appealed. Avery says he was set up, and there were a number of things that have come out about the jury that make me wonder if any tampering took place, and Avery says this case was payback for a multi-million dollar lawsuit he brought against those who put him in prison the first time. There is a strong case for appeal, in my opinion, however, it begs the question, did the sherriff's department, if they set Avery up, kill Theresa Halbach too? If not, then who did? But, that is not part of this case. It was Avery's guilt or innocence that was in question.
As far as "Looks like they may have gotten in right the first time . . .," as soon as Avery was arrested, some people here in Wisconsin soon brought up the possibilty of bringing back the death penalty, and questioned the effectiveness of DNA testing, etc. That brings about a host of problems that I, for one, do not want to see come to Wisconsin. And no, they didn't get it right the first time. That's why Avery was freed.

[LisaL]

24. I don't believe he was set up for the murder.

To me, the evidence of his guilt in the murder seems strong. I have no idea why people have a hard time accepting that he could be both innocent of rape and guilty of murder. After all his conviction of rape was before DNA testing, and DNA testing was used to exonerate him. It was also used to convict him of murder.

[Dinger]

6. I Worry About The Chilling Effect This Will Have In Death Penalty Cases Across The Country

Will this cast a cloud over other DNA evidence? Will this give fuel to the fire of death penalty advocates? Here in Wisconsin, soon after Avery was arrested, we started hearing about bringing the death penalty back. Make no mistake, this case will be used by people who want to bring the death penalty (state sanctioned murder) back.

[merwin]

7. By chance do you know what DNA evidence they used in the rape trial?

I can guess that it was semen, but i have no clue.

I think there's pretty much no way to counter a positive DNA match. But a negative one doesn't necessarily mean that the person didn't do it (in some cases). For example, the Zodiac murders. DNA ruled the main suspect out, because of the saliva on the envelopes. However, he may not have been the one that actually did the licking of the stamps. From what I recall, back in the day, the people at the post office would lick the stamps sometimes.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Uh so he raped her but it wasn't his semen?

You lost me on that one.

The semen's DNA collected from the rape victim didn't match his DNA.

[merwin]

13. Was it a semen match? That's what i was asking.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. It was a semen non-match.

The semen did not match the DNA of either Avery or the woman's boyfriend. A non match is pretty conclusive that it was not Avery's semen, which is why he was exonerated.

[Eric J in MN]

16. Maybe the sample

...of seman found on her underwear or wherever was from a boyfriend and not from the rapist.

[LisaL]

19. Do you think the investigators would be really that dumb not

to figure that out? That dna from a rape case matched to another man, not the victim's boyfriend, and not Avery.
I actually would not be surprised if after 18 yeas in prison a nice falsely convicted man would turn into a criminal, and it does not sound like Avery was all that nice even before he went to prison.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. maybe? Guess what: it didn't match the boyfriend either.

Sorry about the facts and everything. Avery didn't rape the woman 20 years ago but it appears he did commit this murder. Those are the facts. His guilt in the murder says nothing at all about his innocence in the rape.

[LisaL]

21. His trial was a long time ago. They used victim's identification.

Later on they did a DNA test and it matched to another man, not Avery. Victim by the way felt horrible she falsely identified Avery, when it was revealed DNA did not match. Eyewitness identification is not very reliable, I think it's a well known fact.
Well, after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, I imagine many an individual would be full of anger at the world.

[Zynx]

32. There was no DNA evidence at his original trial. It was in the 80's.

[mark414]

42. the DNA evidence they used was traced to a completely different person

who was already in jail for something else by the time they figured out how badly they had fucked up Avery's life. would he have killed this girl if he was never locked up for 19 years for something he never did? who knows, but you're showing a bit of disrespect to and ignorance of the american legal system and equal rule of law.

[LisaL]

20. I don't think there is any doubt that he was innocent of rape.

I have seen an interview with the victim. She feels horrible she identified the wrong man. The DNA from the rape case matched to another man. No one is arguing he was falsely exonerated for that rape.

[Sadie4629]

18. It isn't over yet

His very young (teenage?) cousin is about to go on trial for the same crime.

[Zynx]

31. Sorry Nancy Grace, he couldn't have committed the rape.

Get over it. It's not possible.

[Goblinmonger]

34. That's funny

I hate that horrible windbag. And an appropriate comparison here.

[superconnected]

35. I'll have to sustain from judgement about the first crime

just because the dna exonerated him doesn't mean he didn't do it.

All it means is they didn't get the dna evidence to link him to it.

He may have, he may not have. His history points to he was capable.

I doubt he went in normal and came out an axe murderer. That I'll call bullshit on.

[LisaL]

43. What a ridiculous thing to say.

[merwin]

45. How so?

[Solon]

46. Because he wasn't guilty of the crime of rape which he was convicted for.

Avery isn't a nice guy, we can ALL agree on that, and now he gets to spend the rest of his life in jail for a crime he actually committed, and that's OK too.

When Avery was convicted of rape 20 years ago, forensic DNA testing was in its infancy and wasn't allowed in courts yet, and the most common way to match semen, if possible, was blood type matches, which doesn't narrow things down that much. Generally, they were accurate in about 1 in 4 cases, not exactly a slam dunk as far as being "beyond a reasonable doubt" as required by the courts, but is used to eliminate SOME known suspects, when possible.

DNA testing, which came later, exonerates or condemns people much more accurately than blood type, eyewitness testimony, and most circumstantial evidence. Modern DNA forensic techniques have an accuracy of about 1 in a Trillion, more than the entire population of the Earth, in other words, if you leave DNA behind at a crime scene that cannot be explained away in an innocent way(like a high traffic area), but let's say in the semen of a person you raped then good luck trying to prove you didn't rape them.

The point being that, while I'm not defending Avery's actions now, or any bad acts in the past, the crime he was convicted for 20 years ago he was not guilty of. You cannot condemn accepted science like DNA testing for exonerating a guy who wasn't guilty of the crime 20 years ago, when they didn't even have the technology to test the DNA properly in the first place.

I don't even know what you are arguing here, should we just leave people in jail for crimes they didn't commit just because they MAY commit crimes in the future? Should the appeals process be repealed entirely?

[superconnected]

47. you should see my other thread on the topic you just brought up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x449650

Having worked at 3 police departments, I know crap happens with samples. My issue isn't that their dna test is wrong, it's that all we know is they didn't get his dna from the rape victim. That does not mean it was impossible for him to have commited the crime. They simply didn't swab his.

I'm not saying he committed the crime, I'm saying I suspend judgement because I do not know he didn't just because someone else had semen in that woman. I don't know the whole ins and out of the case but I suspect he was linked to it for other than dna reasons to start with. Either way, I can't call it because I don't know. That may sound stupid, but surly you can guess how your reversed position sounds - faulty.

[LisaL]

49. The DNA from the victim matched to

another man. The victim mistakenly identified Avery. She herself feels horrible about it.
It's seems rather simple to understand. What is it you are not able to comprehend?

[Bucky]

37. You spend 18 years in jail and see what it does for how much you value life

I'm glad they got the right guy this time. But you can't help but wonder if all that time in the joint made him who he is.

[slackmaster]

39. Cat burners have no regard for life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery

[mark414]

41. they got it WRONG the first time

and he was rightly released after 19 years for something he never did. that is a ridiculous and terrible statement to make.