Posted on 01/19/2016 2:24:06 PM PST by Faith Presses On
Full title: Steven Avery's ex-fiancee makes new claims, telling TMZ Avery once tied her to a bed with rope
Steven Avery's ex-fiancee, Jodi Stachowski, is making new claims against him -- including that he once put her into circumstances similar to the circumstances that led to the death of Teresa Halbach.
TMZ says Stachowski has said she believes Avery's nephew, Brendan Dassey's account of Halbach's rape and murder -- because Stachowski says Avery once tied her to a bed post with rope and tried to videotape it.
(snip)
TMZ says Stachowski has said she believes Avery's nephew, Brendan Dassey's account of Halbach's rape and murder -- because Stachowski says Avery once tied her to a bed post with rope and tried to videotape it.
Stachowski said Avery has a history of using fear as a weapon -- and she provided TMZ with a letter she got from Avery in August -- asking for money. The letter asks that Stachowski pay Avery "for all the money that I spent on you" -- or he will "put you in Taycheedah Correctional Institution." The letter says: "You are no good, and you say I am trouble -- but you are trouble. You are just a drunk on the road." In the letter, Avery says Stachowski won't be able to get drunk in Taycheedah.
(Excerpt) Read more at fox6now.com ...
I watched that series...a bit of a waste of time IMO.I’m not sure about the kid but the uncle is just a murdering piece of white trash.And I’d be willing to bet that he had at least *some* involvement in the earlier rape as well.
I tied a girl to a bed once.
We both had a real good time...she made me promise to do it again.
Every one is entitled to justice, guilt established beyond a shadow of a doubt. 7 of 12 jurors voted not guilty first round.
Also, don’t know if we can believe this woman now. She’s an alcoholic and was all for Steve during the trial. Strange she waits until the nation turns on these dirty cops to speak out. Yes, those cops are the same ones who framed Avery first trial (Avery proven innocent on that one).
I think they should both have new trials. Girlfriend should have to give this testimony under oath.
I’m more perturbed about the fornication, than bondage play.
I did too! Same results!
Ever been on a jury in a criminal trial?
Most people who have will tell you there are always some people who think the person in guilty [or innocent] who change their verdict to innocent [or guilty] after they've been through the meat grinder of a deliberation.
Avery got a fair trial.
His ex asked the filmmakers to remove her from the film. She told them at the time that she was afraid of Avery and never believed he was innocent. To their shame, they kept her in the "documentary" against her wishes.
The film includes virtually none of the inculpatory evidence, and is entirely one-sided.
Despite the defense attorneys' breathless assertion that the blood evidence against Avery was planted, the FBI crime lab found no trace of preservative in the blood in Teresa Halbach's car. NONE. What do Avery's lawyers have to say about that? "It's unjust that the FBI came up with this test so fast." Not that the test was wrong mind you, simply that is was "wrong" for the FBI to "create a test on such short notice." That second part isn't even true. The EDTA test was well-known and requires only sophisticated equipment that's in the inventory of crime labs of several larger states, a few universities, and most certainly the FBI.
It's telling that the only "juror" who believes Avery was innocent was one who was excused after a single day of deliberations. So he has no idea how the jurors examined the evidence when the real deliberations began. Several others have now spoken out, and the REAL jurors say they "sleep quite well" with their verdict.
The film makes a big deal out of the lack of adequate counsel for Avery's nephew, but the truth is that appeals have been made for the inadequacy of counsel, and they have all failed. Appeals courts do grant retrials on this basis. In the face of their inability to establish inadequacy, the appellate attorneys are trying to push a much weaker line: that Brendan Dassey's attorney was not "loyal" to him. Good luck with that. Dassey made a taped confession to the police, and Len Kachinsky thought his only hope was to cut a deal with the prosecution in exchange for leniency. That makes him a typical lawyer, not a "disloyal" one, and so far, no court is interested in this line of defense. [The biggest problem is that the burden of proof will be on Dassey's lawyers to prove "disloyalty" in Kachinsky's state of mind, which is virtually impossible to do.]
On the basis of the film, I'd probably agree that Brendan Dassey deserves a new trial. Problem is, the film is so dishonest, I'm not going to base any decision on what the filmmakers have presented. Dassey's police interview admittedly looks bad for the cops. But we saw about 10 minutes of it. The trial jury watched all FOUR HOURS and they didn't buy the defense's assertion that Dassey was coached.
The filmmakers have claimed this thing was neutral. That's prima facie evidence of their dishonesty. Everyone associated with the case says this thing is advocacy filmmaking and has made not attempt at all to present a balanced view.
Amazing how you can totally ignore the fact that these cops framed an innocent man in the first trial.
No matter what you think of Brendan Dassey, he’s slow and never should have been questioned without an attorney.
I watched the entire series and even if they were bias, the cops were there when they shouldn’t have been, constantly lurking where they were supposed to be kept out.
Doesn’t really impact me what happens but personally, very disappointed in the entire circus.
I watched the first episode online since it I didn’t have to subscribe to Netflix to participate in the new judicial process of justice via social media.
I found it to be incredibly biased and shoddy journalism, unashamedly defense lawyer advocating for its client, not truth.
It’s entirely possible that police tampered with evidence. But as the documentary makers proved, so does the secular humanist media, and they are even more ruthless in pulling the marionette strings of the media-believing public.
Personally, I prefer handcuffs. Seriously: I watched at ten episodes of Making A Murderer and at first leaned Avery was innocent & it was a revenge set-up but now I am leaning that he did it and suckered his nephew into being an accomplice.
Amazing how you can swallow every assertion made by a defense attorney as if it's the Gospel.
First, the cops didn't "frame" him. He was picked out of a lineup which was procedurally correct and performed in a way which was completely legal.
Is it a failure of our legal system that he was unjustly convicted the first time? Yes. But a jury heard the evidence and believed it. It's all we've got. And he was freed, and he was compensated, and he also was awarded additional money in the settlement of his lawsuit. It falls short of any reparations we can make, but it's all we can do. And it certainly doesn't mean he receives a get-out-of-jail-free card for murder.
Second, even if I stipulate to accepting the hypothetical that he was "framed" that fact has nothing to do with the murder case.
NOTHING.
If Avery were guilty in the first case, got paroled, then murdered Teresa Halbach, you can be quite sure that the trial judge would NOT have permitted evidence of his earlier conviction to be presented. It's completely prejudicial. By the same token, evidence that he was innocent of an early charge is also prejudicial, and also not admissible.
No matter what you think of Brendan Dassey, he's slow and never should have been questioned without an attorney
I won't hold you responsible for this comment, since [like most other evidence to the contrary] they don't talk about it in the film, but Kachinsky was busy with another case at the time, and Kachinsky's investigator WAS present at the questioning, and was told to call Kachinsky to intervene if the police deviated from a pre-agreed line of questioning. The statement made by Dassey's mother that she wanted to be present at his interview and was not permitted to, is also disputed.
Dassey's most damaging statements were made before he even had a lawyer. And again, his mother was present, and again, despite what she says now she could have been in the interview room, and she could have called a lawyer at any time.
Before and during trial the question of the admissibility of some of Dassey's testimony was raised. Given the protocol in place, neither the trial court nor any appellate court has ruled the evidence inadmissible.
Now, if you want to maintain that position now that you have some facts withheld from you by the filmmakers, what you'd be saying is that you have a better grasp of the rules of evidence in Wisconsin than the trial court, appellate courts, and the WI Supreme Court.
But even if I again stipulate to the hypothetical to allow you some more rope to hang yourself, the problem is, you aren't saying that Brendan Dassey's testimony is false as a matter of fact. You're just quibbling about it as a matter of law because you think a young man characterized as "slow" and "learning disabled" shouldn't have been questioned by police.
Most criminals are stupid. No court has ever ruled that stupid people are entitled to special protection under the law. And despite what you've seen on TV, the cops will work people over very hard in a murder investigation, even when their lawyers are present.
I watched the entire series and even if they were bias, the cops were there when they shouldn't have been, constantly lurking where they were supposed to be kept out.
I'm happy you've bought into the ridiculous theory of the defense that Avery was framed. Unfortunately, the conspiracy required is so broad that it isn't just the cops "lurking" around, and it isn't just Detective Lt. Lenk. It's also a quite few of Avery's own relatives, cellmates, the people who searched for Halbach's car, the state crime lab, the FBI, police from an entirely different county, the DA, ... And while there is no proof whatsoever that the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office planted any evidence (just the slimy insinuations of some defense attorneys) none of the circumstantial evidence against Avery was -- or even could have been -- planted. And there was forensic evidence against him that most assuredly was not planted.
That is why the defense is so thoroughly demolished by the lack of EDTA in the blood in Halbach's car. That evidence, unless it contained traces of the preservative, could not possibly have been planted. And there was other forensic evidence not even covered in the film. Teresa's DNA in his car. Teresa's DNA on a bullet fragment. And so on.
I'm sure Avery will eventually name the "three tramps" who were supposedly in the railyard behind Dealey Plaza. He's already floated the theory that Teresa Halbach was murdered by: her brother, her roommate, her ex boyfriend, two of his brothers, his former in-laws, and of course, the police in two different counties.
Tell me, do you also believe in any of the following: UFO's, ESP, the Hollow Earth, Alien Abduction, Ghosts, Demons, Demonic Possession, Astrology, Numerology, Faith Healing, Snake Handling, The Thimersol Vaccination Conspiracy, the Templar Conspiracies, The Illuminati, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Spear of Destiny, The Kabbalah, Hypnotherapy, Aroma Therapy, Psychoanalysis, Homeopathic Medicine, ...
Boy, you’re really off-the-rails over this. Are you a lawyer?
As bad as the distorted depiction of actual events by the media is, it's insignificant compared to the enormous volume of information they simply do not cover. The lies by omission in this "documentary" are overwhelming.
I watched the series, and what struck me was the total lack of any DNA in Avery’s trailer. The victim supposedly had her throat slashed on Avery’s bed, and he managed to clean up every last tiny splatter of blood in that bedroom?
The prosecution got around that in the Avery trial by claiming the victim was killed in Avery’s garage, apparently by gunshot.
Then, at the Dassey trail, the very same prosecution team was back arguing that the victim had her throat slashed in Avery’s bedroom.
So which was it? Was she killed in the garage, or while tied up on Avery’s bed?
I must admit, two different stories argued by the same prosecution team at two different trials, was very troubling to me.
Think "Hurricane" Carter was innocent? He wasn't. Despite a public outcry, and his release, the evidence against him was -- and remains -- overwhelming: http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/spare_us_the_lies_about_the_late_hurricane_carter_mulshine.html
Steven Avery is lowdown scum. Before he went to prison for the rape he didn't commit, he had already molested a younger relative, exposed himself to various women in the community, tortured a cat to death, and threatened a female relative with a firearm it was a felony for him to possess owing to a prior felony conviction. He raped, tortured, and murdered Teresa Halbach in cold blood, destroyed the life of his nephew by involving him in the crime, and the only thing "unjust" about his conviction is that there is no death penalty in Wisconsin.
Holding trials on the basis of biased filmmaking is no way to conduct the criminal justice system.
The prosecution doesn't have to establish exactly where she was killed, only that she was dead and there was sufficient evidence to put Avery [or Dassey] there.
The most likely scenario is that she was murdered in the garage. The prosecution was not obligated to maintain that theory in Dassey's trial, although Dassey made statements both to the effect that she was stabbed in the bedroom and shot to death in the garage. It's not terribly relevant unless you believe that the manner or location of her death is material to the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Like all lawyers, prosecutors are entitled to use whatever they can in the framework of the law. In Dassey's case, they used his own statements against him. They needed to make it a case of pitting his trial testimony against his statements to the police. They had no other evidence against Brendan Dassey as far as I know. His own statements were enough.
They didn't need to do that in Avery's case, because the circumstantial evidence against Avery alone could have convicted him. Add to that the forensic evidence, and they did not need to drag Dassey into Avery's trial. [and as he proved in testifying in his own defense, he would have made a very poor witness either for or against Avery.]
Any scientist....in any discipline... with a quarter of a brain will you that a negative result proves nothing. All it shows is either what you were looking for isn’t there, or your test wasn’t sensitive or conclusive enough. Tests have to designed to that a what you want to prove is the result of a positive test.
In my mind, not finding EDTA proves nothing...other than their test didn’t detect it. That does not mean it isn’t there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.