Talk:Steven Avery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Exact dates

This article needs exact dates given wherever possible and it needs to be updated frequently.--Hraefen 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Source for first sentence

Do we have a source for the claim that he is the "first person in the U.S. to not only be charged with a homicide after being exonerated by DNA evidence for a previous crime, but to be convicted as well". Silverfish 19:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

Replace "Avery is also focus of the Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer" with "Avery is also the focus of the Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer" KellenSun (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Cannolis (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

Please change, 10 years for violating Statute 941.29(2)(a) felony possession of a firearm to 5 years because although a class G Felony in Wisconsin is punishable by up to ten years in prison, Steven Avery was only sentenced to 5 years to run concurrent with the first count on his list of charges, 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide 940.01(1)(a) a Class A Felony, which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. MBaness (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

 Verified Done  Adrian^[232] 22:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016

Can someone with a basic competency in English correct this recent gaffe? The past tense of "plead" is either "pleaded" or "pled", not "plead". Thank you. 32.218.40.141 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Done So I changed it back to pleaded after finding this source that explains that that is the proper past tense of the verb plea, http://grammarist.com/usage/pleaded-pled/ --Majora (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. The verb is "plead"; the noun is "plea". Example: "He entered a plea of guilty." "He pleaded/pled guilty." 32.218.40.141 (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2016

Please change the intro to exclude the word "convict." In my opinion, the word "convict" is subjective in nature and one should not be referred to as a convict as their primary title. How about, "Steven Avery is an American man from Manitowoc County, Wisconsin."

Thanks,

DhulW (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC) DhulW (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  Adrian^[232] 16:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that that the term "convict" is subjective. Steven Avery has been convicted of murder whether everyone agrees with that outcome or not. This might be a topic that Project Criminal Biography can help with. I assume that project has more experience with how to identify persons convicted of a crime who continue to assert their innocence. I'm not necessarily opposed to changing the lead, but I think any changes should be in accordance with Wikipedia's established guidelines.Knope7 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Could we possibly use the term "convict" as an adjective? For example, the intro could read, "Steven Avery is a convicted American man from Manitowoc County, Wisconsin." He did have a legal trial where he was indeed convicted of a crime. Whether or not he continues to assert his innocence while in jail seems irrelevant to me. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Gregory Allen

Why is there no mention of the fact that Gregory Allen, and NOT Steven Avery, committed the 1985 assault against Penny Bergsten? Joltergeist (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You can add it to the article, if you wish. I think it needs a good update anyhow. The time line is pretty complicated, and as the article stands quite a few important parts are missing. Danrok (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I just added mention of Gregory Allen to the article. Also, this website is an exact timeline of the entire Steven Avery case(s). If someone would like to go through it and clean up the article in regards to the timeline, that might be helpful. I will also help here and there. http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2015/12/22/steven-avery-case-timeline/77742664/ Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

Brendan Dassey confession to Agent Fassbender and Investigator Weigert. Bhwlawfirm (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Petition for presidential pardon

The part about a petition for a presidential pardon should include the fact that the United States Constitution does not grant the President the power to pardon state offenses.

The petition created on January 7. 2016, should link to the whitehouse.gov petition, to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.28.129 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Murder trial section

I would like to remove the text regarding the jury makeup. Its relevance is not explained, and there are weight issues.Which Hazel? (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The content is well sourced and appears to be relevant to the trial, even if it may not be pertinent to the article on Avery himself. Since there appears to be no article on the murder incident, this seems to be the most relevant place for that information.

What I would propose instead is to fork parts of this article into a "Murder of Teresa Halbach" article, but that would need to be composed and created first.  Adrian^[232] 07:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point; The amount of sources that discuss aspects of the trial dwarfs the jury composition. This article places too much weight by its sheer existence. Sure, "fix it" by adding other sources to fix the weight, but leaving it in implies this was a significant part of the trial, which it was not.Which Hazel? (talk) 10:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is frequently the case on WIkipedia that sections are not sized appropriately relative to their significance to the subject. The section on the jury makeup is about as short as possible to include the relevant information. The claims of jury makeup and intimidation are obviously very significant to this case and should remain (whether or not explained in the article, jury deliberations are arguably the most important part of any trial). 2601:600:8200:1E0:8C61:C019:E3DB:AE (talk) 10:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Unquestionably any claims of jury intimidation belong if sourced. If it is too big/small, that is a matter of editing, not a matter of whether it should exist. Since he was released, this is exactly the kind of information that belongs in the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Since he was released"??? I'm sure that's news to his family and lawyers. 32.218.39.58 (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Was referring to September 11, 2003, got my cases confused... Point remains that it is relevant and sourced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Steven Avery, the person, not about the Halbach murder trial. If you want to start an article about the Halbach case, the info about the jurors would be appropriate. But it isn't in this article about Steven Avery, the person. 32.218.152.133 (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

torturing the cat & assaulting his cousin

the reference on this wiki site to steven avery pouring gasoline onto his family cat & throwing it in the fire doesn't mention that the cat died. in the documentary, it was unclear whether the cat died or not because they didn't even mention the gasoline part (they simply said that steven was fooling around & tossed the cat in the fire, which may lead people to believe that the cat ran out of the fire since the viewers didn't know that it had 1st been soaked in gasoline). it would be more complete to include that information on this wiki site.

the documentary also mentions that steven avery ran his cousin off the road & masterbated in front of her (a sexual act, which may have played into his wrongful conviction of rape). this wiki site doesn't mention the sexual act in front of his female cousin....

It doesn't mention it because it was just the cousin's unproven accusation. 32.218.152.133 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Phil Show

Two episodes (friday then monday after) were dedicated to discussing him and his case in response to the netflix documentary. Should we mention this exposure as notable? Phil engaged this news lady and had unique interviews with the sheriff. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There have been dozens of talk show episodes on Making a Murderer and the Halbach case. Why cherrypick Dr. Phil?? Not noteworthy. 32.218.44.109 (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is it not noteworthy? There is an entire pop culture section but only two things in it, why not flesh it out? Beach drifter (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned, there have been dozens of shows about this case. Why is Dr Phil singled out with a section of its own. As a compromise, he could be mentioned in the pop culture section, or a new section under media coverage. --Dmol (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, "Media Coverage" would sound much better. I'm just going to change the section name. I think the original editor made a new heading to try to keep it looking like the rest of the section, which had poor formatting anyways. Beach drifter (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

In response to Beach drifter's statement: Having a source is not the criterion for including information in an article. It also has to be cogent, relevant, important, and without undue emphasis on any particular pieces of information, which this is not.32.218.44.109 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I really think you are looking too much into this. This is one sentence. There is no undue weight. Weight is applied when there are conflicting viewpoints on a topic. This is much simpler than that, there are no viewpoints being argued. Criteria for a sentence to be in an article is not nearly what you are making it out to be. It is not the same as establishing notability for the article its self. I supported this edit solely because it was nice to see an IP make a good edit, which they even left a nice talk page note for. Then immediately someone wants to revert for no apparent reason. Lighten up. Improve the article instead of reverting everything. Beach drifter (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that reverting changes quite often does improve an article. There has to be a standard for inclusion of content in order to keep an article relevant and succinct. I'm not sure if Dr. Phil is particularly noteworthy, unless his show added meaningful information and/or it is mentioned in other reliable secondary sources. With that said, I think we still could include a shortlist of where Avery and his cases were mentioned in major parts of pop culture as long as it is restricted to a single sentence or two. Something along the lines of: Avery's case gained large coverage in news and talk shows including the Dr. Phil Show, etc, etc... That's terrible phrasing, but I think the gist is there.  Adrian^[232] 11:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. There are two issues here: (1.) Is the mention of Dr. Phil trivial? (2.) Is the mention cherry-picked? Adding other shows to the statement would both make the statement sound less trivial and broaden the content beyond one cherry-picked show. 32.218.34.216 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with this strategy of mentioning a group of shows. In addition to the point already made about how there are dozens of talk shows featuring current issues such as Avery's case, I would note that many times these talk shows are featuring or even promoting an already-generated piece of media on a case, such as a documentary, a book, etc., as opposed to a show like 48 Hours or some true crime documentary that is itself more likely to be revealing new info about a case rather than piggybacking on already-popular coverage. Therefore, the talk shows often do not add too much to the party. Even interviewing someone who hadn't been interviewed a lot previously, such as a law enforcement official, doesn't add much if the official doesn't say anything jaw-droppingly different or additional.TheBlinkster (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Murderer"

Should we call him a murderer, instead of someone convicted of murder? Especially since the authorities were wrong once already in his case? I worry that when journalists and so forth pile on to someone who has been convicted, they create the impression that the matter is settled, but as the present example (and many others) show, it merely means that the state was, in the opinion of a jury, able to meet its burden in this case.71.191.44.242 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say I thought this whole story stunk when I first heard it back in 2005. Really, that someone proven innocent of rape by the Innocence Project later goes on to commit a brutal rape and murder worse than the first? And all while he was suing the county for millions of dollars. I'm glad to see that Netflix causing people to take a second look at this very fishy case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.96.8 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Someone sitting on a 38 million dollar pot of gold is not going to jeopardize his attempt to get his gold with a rape and murder of another human being. Furthermore spending 18 years in prison will induce him not to go anywhere near a prison again. 175.45.116.66 (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of people commit crimes for which there is little doubt they were perpetrators of after spending very long stretches in prison again for crimes there's little doubt they were perpetrators of. In fact, there are those that suggest the system in the US almost encourages repeat offenders in some circumstances. Avery's circumstances are somewhat unique in that he didn't commit the crime he spent most of his pre-alleged murder time in prison for although from our article it sounds like he still would have spent at least a year of the 18 years he did spend for "assaulting his cousin and illegally possessing firearms". But this doesn't change the fact people can and do, do stuff which sends them to prison even after spending 18 years.

And rich people do commit crimes includes rapes and murders, even though they know if they go to prison they'll lose most utility of their money for a long time, perhaps for life. In fact, this includes people who aren't particularly rich themselves, but have inheritance or trust funds which they may lose partially or completely, perhaps even after they are released. It may be true these people often believe, sometimes unfortunately correctly, sometimes fortunately incorrectly that they will be able to get away from it due to the wealth, connections and how smart they are; whereas in this case Avery should have if anything thought he was at more risk, but even that's complicated.

None of this means he did commit the rape and murder, simply that the claim he didn't commit it because he probably due millions (I don't know if the $36 million figure is accurate since from what I've seen most figures like these used when filing lawsuits tend to end up lower when the case is either settled or if it goes to court, after the case & appeals are done, but millions seems likely for such a long stretch of wrongful imprisonment) or because he'd already been in prison for a long time, isn't very compelling.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a lot of people in prison that wouldn't have committed a crime had they thought about consequences. The fact that he was potentially going to receive the proceeds of a lawsuit means nothing 86.45.46.23 (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course you should call him a murderer. He and Dassey did murder Teresa Halbach despite what people who watched the Netflix series and are arguing for two convicted murderers to be free from prison, they both did murder Halbach.100.34.201.59 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steven Avery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151222152101/https://pr.netflix.com/WebClient/getNewsSummary.do?newsId=2772 to https://pr.netflix.com/WebClient/getNewsSummary.do?newsId=2772

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Adrian^[232] 04:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Brendan Dassey

There is enough information released to start a separate article on Brendan Dassey.--Flaminbassist 11:58, 23 April 2006

Be bold and go ahead and create it. --mtz206 00:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Halbach too. Royalbroil 06:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would create the articles, but I have interest since Halbach was a somewhat distant relative of mind (second or third cousin). Someone please create these articles! Royalbroil 00:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• If you're aware of your possible subjectivity on matters relating to Avery/Halbach/Dassey to the point where you might not want to write the article yourself, I think this is a good indication that you're striving for objectivity and should therefore write the article yourself. I haven't noticed you making any detrimental or POV edits to this article. Go for it.--Hraefen 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just been looking for online news sources regarding Brendan Dassey, and all I can find is page after page of deleted pages. Anyone know why the media have been deleting so many articles about Brendan Dassey? Danrok (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] -- 32.218.38.209 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is definitely enough information for Brendan Dassey to stand on its own as an article. Has anyone looked into creating it yet? Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Dassey should not get his own page. This will just simply attract trolls who are biased and who are convinced that Avery and Dassey are innocent and they'll spam the page/article, and will not be objective and look at the actual facts or evidence that were presented in both the case and trial.100.34.201.59 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If they are convinced that they are innocent, how does that make them a troll? What nobody seems to appreciate about jury trials, is that the jury are told two stories, and then they are asked to guess based on this, which is the more likely to be correct. If someone disagrees with the guess, does this make them a troll? Can the people who say they are guilty, not also be guilty of bias? In fact it might even appear that you would like to shut this page down because it also attracts people who are convinced of their innocence?46.7.85.68 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

18 years vs. 12 years

The prison terms for Avery's endangering safety and possession of a firearm were served concurrently with the term for sexual assault. That means that the entire 18-year term was served for the sexual assault, while only the first six were served for the other charges. This is confirmed by the cited sources:

• "18 years in prison for a sexual assault he didn't commit"
• "Avery, quite famously, did serve some 18 years after that. Rarely noted is that, during the first six or so years, he was serving concurrent sentences for what he did to his cousin."
• "Steven Avery; Time Served: 18 years"

Sorry, Joe, 18 is correct. 32.218.33.213 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The source cited specifically for that number says (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "While it's true that the first 6 years were served for a valid conviction, the fact remains that he served 12 years for a crime he did not commit." He would have served the 6 years anyway. So 12 is correct. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

In double-checking that source, I notice that you were very selective in quoting it (second, above) - carefully leaving out the following: ""None of that makes right the 12 or so years the man spent behind bars for something he didn’t do." Not to pile on, but yes, 12 is correct. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That arithmetical mumbo jumbo is what we call original research. The terms were served concurrently, meaning he was serving time on the sexual assault charge the entire time he was in prison. If the terms had been served consecutively, then the first 6 years would have been for the endangering safety and firearms charges and only the last 12 years would have been for the sexual assault. You want sources for 18?

• "a Manitowoc County man who spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit" (from the Appleton Post-Crescent, reputable local newspaper in the area that has been heavily involved in covering the trial and the documentary
• "Avery, who spent more than 18 years behind bars for a 1985 sexual assault he did not commit"
• "the Manitowoc man wrongly incarcerated for 18 years for sexual assault,"
• "who served 18 years behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit"
• "Avery had previously spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit."

And, of course, the Innocence Project (quote above) counts him as having served 18 years unjustly. That alone trumps the single blog post you're touting. 32.218.39.240 (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not WP:OR - I've already reproduced one appropriate citation (there are others) - and "concurrently" actually means that for the first 6 years he was serving both sentences simultaneously, and for the last 12 years he was serving only the second sentence, for the crime he didn't commit. Thus, he served 6 years for a crime he did commit, and then 12 additional years for one he did not. Or to put it another way, he served 18 years, but the last 12 of which were unjustified.

All of that said, I'm aware that some sources do say "18", though I suspect that most don't know about (or understand) the concurrent sentence part. I'm always amenable to compromise; let me see if I can come up with a middle-ground phrasing that will make everybody happy. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm at 2RR on this, technically (though neither was an actual revert, per se), so I can't correct it again until tomorrow; but I will do so. (Unless you'd like to save me the trouble and self-revert, of course.) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary, I see another editor has already fixed it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

He still served 18 years for a crime he didn't commit. As it is worded now: ...served 12 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. This is factually incorrect, since he in fact served 18 years for this crime, despite 6 years being also served concurrently for another crime. The problem here is in the wording. I think what you want it to say is something along the lines of ...served 12 years in prison unnecessarily due to a crime he did not commit. Since the current wording of 12 years is not explicitly stated in reliable sources, and several sources confirm the 18 years wording, this seems to fall under OR, albeit more specifically WP:CALC. As long as the result of the arithmetic is a proper representation of the sources, it is fine. However, this is not the case in its current incarnation.  Adrian^[232] 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I can help with this debate, but the following does occur to me: Avery was purportedly seeking $1 million in damages for every year he was unjustly incarcerated and a further $1 million per year in punitive damages making $36 million in total according to the documentary. As he would have had to serve six years for the other offences regardless, surely based on Dr Joe's point, this would have reduced his claim to $24 million. FWIW, I would have phrased it as, "Served 18 years in prison including 12 additional years for a crime he did not commit.46.7.85.68 (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Griesbach book

Would someone here note that his book has been found to be replete with factual errors in the states favor, has been outed on Amazon and is a PR scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.68.93 (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Prove it, liar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.128.112.153 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steven Avery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106230932/http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2015/12/22/steven-avery-case-timeline/77742664/ to http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2015/12/22/steven-avery-case-timeline/77742664/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)