Making A Murderer: Netflix Documentary Series (SPOILERS)

[Dr. Pepper]

I think when looking at past cases where the wrongfully convicted are finally freed, it's easy to see how and why Brendan and possibly Steven receive guilty verdicts and lose all appeals despite a lot of reasonable doubt involved.  If I recall correctly, the DA who prosecuted the Central Park Five still refuses to admit that the confessions were obviously false and coerced despite DNA evidence and a confession exonerating the five who had been convicted.  The Norfolk Four and the West Memphis three also had similar outcomes, though both of these cases resulted in them having to take plea deals in order to be released (and members of the Norfolk Four are actually required to be registered as sex offenders as part of the deal) instead of full exonerations despite the real perpetrators being brought to justice.  

I think the public is becoming more aware of false and coerced confessions, though I think it's still reasonable that a sizeable majority balk at the idea that we could claim to do something that we didn't do.  

[Swordfish]

The sheer volume of stuff that would have had to happen (without anyone noticing) in order to have completely framed this guy is staggering.  It's straight up conspiracy theory stuff.

I'm not saying they didn't plant evidence, they are shady as fuck, but it's pretty clear he did it.  

[Nictarion]

12 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The sheer volume of stuff that would have had to happen (without anyone noticing) in order to have completely framed this guy is staggering.  It's straight up conspiracy theory stuff.

I'm not saying they didn't plant evidence, they are shady as fuck, but it's pretty clear he did it.  

I don't think it's clear at all. The guy was stupid enough to leave blood all over the victim's vehicle, but he did a Dexter Morgan like clean up job in the trailer or garage or wherever he supposedly killed her?I find that hard to believe. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Simply planting the key and the dna evidence coupled with a very obviously coerced false confession is enough to have framed him.  It seems pretty likely that Teresa was killed on Avery property but considering it's a communal property, it could have been anyone with access.  Not saying it wasn't Steven, but when the cops start acting shady and planting evidence, it becomes outrageous to convict whether or not one feels the defendant definitely did it.  

[Swordfish]

37 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

I don't think it's clear at all. The guy was stupid enough to leave blood all over the victim's vehicle, but he did a Dexter Morgan like clean up job in the trailer or garage or wherever he supposedly killed her?I find that hard to believe. 

like I said, this is straight up conspiracy theory thinking.  The guy is not the brightest bulb in the shed.  Assuming that because his actions don't make complete sense in retrospect somehow indicates innocence is not compelling.  If you just killed someone and you're in a rush to hide evidence, you're gonna make some dumb mistakes.

If you think about all the things that would have had to happen here in order for him to be innocent, on top of all the things that just straight up point to him being guilty, there's really only one conclusion to make IMO.

 

[Swordfish]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Simply planting the key and the dna evidence coupled with a very obviously coerced false confession is enough to have framed him.

Possibly.  But those are not the only pieces of evidence we have, so i'm not sure what your point is.

And i don't believe the DNA evidence was planted.  There's no proof of that.

[DaveSumm]

23 hours ago, Swordfish said:

And i don't believe the DNA evidence was planted.  There's no proof of that.

So you think it was coincidence that his blood was tampered with? I believe Dr Pepper's point is that regardless of whether he did it or not, the key and the coerced confession are enough to bolster the case to make a guilty verdict more likely. They don't have to have planted every single bit of evidence in order to frame him, and at the very least we know Lenk and Colborn weren't supposed to be there and definitely were. There's no way in hell, regardless of where your opinion falls, that the MCSD didn't severely screw this up. 

What else is there other than the key and blood that isn't circumstantial? As far as can remember everything else is consistent with somebody killing her and moving the bones to the Avery firepit. Which also happens to be consistent with an immaculate garage, in the time it takes to scrub down the garage that meticulously you could probably strip down the Rav 4 and melt it, let alone crush it in the crusher.

[BigFatCoward]

with my police head on, he is guilty as fuck, and he was totally framed. also the prosecuting lawyer was a full on fucking moron. 

[Swordfish]

On 2/6/2016 at 11:19 AM, DaveSumm said:

So you think it was coincidence that his blood was tampered with?

I don't know why his blood was tampered with. But let's be clear, it's the broken seal that is the problem there.  not the puncture hole in the vial.

Do you think it's coincidence that he had a cut on his hand in the exact spot that would be likely to leave the blood spots in the car?

Do you think the sweat based DNA also found in the car(and on the key) was a coincidence?

Quote

I believe Dr Pepper's point is that regardless of whether he did it or not, the key and the coerced confession are enough to bolster the case to make a guilty verdict more likely.

I don't believe the confession was introduced at his trial.  

Quote

They don't have to have planted every single bit of evidence in order to frame him, and at the very least we know Lenk and Colborn weren't supposed to be there and definitely were. There's no way in hell, regardless of where your opinion falls, that the MCSD didn't severely screw this up. 

I've already conceded that those coops are shady as fuck.

 

Quote

What else is there other than the key and blood that isn't circumstantial? As far as can remember everything else is consistent with somebody killing her and moving the bones to the Avery firepit.

Just out of curiosity, have you read anything about this case other than the documentary?

Again, the number of things that would have had to happen for him to be innocent is utterly staggering, and completely unbelievable.

I don't think there is compelling evidence the bones were ever moved.  Quite the contrary, actually.  The bones were fused together with the tires burned in the pit, and the tools used to smash up the bones were also found in the fire pit, as were some of her teeth, and the rivets from her jeans.  her belongings were also found in the burn barrel.

I'd be fine with giving him a new trial, but the result is extremely likely to be the same.

Quote

Which also happens to be consistent with an immaculate garage, in the time it takes to scrub down the garage that meticulously you could probably strip down the Rav 4 and melt it, let alone crush it in the crusher.

The garage was not immaculate. As for the car, it's likely he didn't have much time to deal with it, what with dealing with burning the body, and cleaning up the garage. 

But of course, that's speculative.

[DaveSumm]

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't know why his blood was tampered with. But let's be clear, it's the broken seal that is the problem there.  not the puncture hole in the vial.

How so? They both point to someone breaking into it and stealing it don't they? And why would the seal be more of a problem than the puncture hole?

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Do you think it's coincidence that he had a cut on his hand in the exact spot that would be likely to leave the blood spots in the car?

Well, I don't know. That's my overall point really; I believe the cops screwed up at least some of it, and so I have no idea where to draw the line. They could have planted all of it, or he could actually be guilty, or both. The cops ruined my ability to have an opinion. But a cut on a hand for someone who works on cars isn't particularly strange (I work in a warehouse and have two cuts on my hand as we speak), plus there's the inconsistency the lawyer pointed out that there was blood but no prints. So was he wearing gloves or not?

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Do you think the sweat based DNA also found in the car(and on the key) was a coincidence?

Again, I believe the cops are shady as fuck as you do. If you can entertain the idea they planted any of it, then it's not a stretch that they planted all of it. In my head, I work backwards from the blood. The vial is one hell of a thing to find when you're specifically looking for some way the cops could have stolen his blood. If they plant blood, the rest isn't a leap at all (I seem to recall a separate interview with Dean Strang where he said it was getting repeated a lot that it was sweat, when it may not have been. It was some form of DNA).

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't believe the confession was introduced at his trial.  

Which is exactly what was so absurd about it; they got to have their cake and eat it with Brendan's version. They use a dodgy confession to tell the whole jury watching at home what they want them to think, but then retract it cos they know he's a terrible witness. 

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I've already conceded that those coops are shady as fuck.

 

Just out of curiosity, have you read anything about this case other than the documentary?

I've read numerous articles on it, none of which I particularly rate as any more impartial than the documentary itself. I concede it's not an impartial documentary, but they've made a fair effort at it considering nobody on the prosecution wanted anything to do with it. Most articles swing the other way, and want to inflate the amount of evidence they 'missed'. I'd be happy to read any you thought were balanced.

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Again, the number of things that would have had to happen for him to be innocent is utterly staggering, and completely unbelievable.

Is it? I'm not sure. The police would have had to plant a bullet, a key, and some blood. Everything else has a narrative attached to it that the lawyers put forward; someone else killed her, moved the bones. I confess it's been months since I saw it, I may be forgetting things.

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't think there is compelling evidence the bones were ever moved.  Quite the contrary, actually.  The bones were fused together with the tires burned in the pit, and the tools used to smash up the bones were also found in the fire pit, as were some of her teeth, and the rivets from her jeans.  her belongings were also found in the burn barrel.

Well if that's the case I'd be interested to read more. I'm no expert, I'm just going on the possibility floated by the lawyers that they were.

47 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'd be fine with giving him a new trial, but the result is extremely likely to be the same.

The garage was not immaculate. As for the car, it's likely he didn't have much time to deal with it, what with dealing with burning the body, and cleaning up the garage. 

But of course, that's speculative.

Remember there was several days between her disappearance and the discovery at Avery yard.  I'm sure he could have found time to clean a garage and crush a car (how long could crushing a car take?), and there was no blood in the garage. When I say immaculate, I mean there was no other evidence there except the bullet.

[Swordfish]

16 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

How so? They both point to someone breaking into it and stealing it don't they? And why would the seal be more of a problem than the puncture hole?

No.  These vials are typically filled using syringes, so those puncture holes are quitre common.  The nurse who took his blood was prepared to testify that she made that hole when she filled the vial.

 

Quote

Well, I don't know. That's my overall point really; I believe the cops screwed up at least some of it, and so I have no idea where to draw the line. They could have planted all of it,

In theory, sure they COULD have.  in reality, that's extremely unlikely, unless you believe they also killed her.

Even then, the number of things that had to fall in line, and fall in line extremely quickly to believe that theory, is just staggering.

 

Quote

or he could actually be guilty, or both. The cops ruined my ability to have an opinion. But a cut on a hand for someone who works on cars isn't particularly strange (I work in a warehouse and have two cuts on my hand as we speak), plus there's the inconsistency the lawyer pointed out that there was blood but no prints. So was he wearing gloves or not?

This is where you start getting into conspiracy level thinking.  There are things that are difficult to explain at any crime scene. Going through each one and speculating about what it does or does not mean individually is fine, but the more important analysis is the totality of the evidence.  You can come up with convoluted explanations to describe individual pieces of evidence, but if you have to do that over and over and over, you're probably reaching.

Quote

Again, I believe the cops are shady as fuck as you do. If you can entertain the idea they planted any of it, then it's not a stretch that they planted all of it. In my head, I work backwards from the blood. The vial is one hell of a thing to find when you're specifically looking for some way the cops could have stolen his blood. If they plant blood, the rest isn't a leap at all (I seem to recall a separate interview with Dean Strang where he said it was getting repeated a lot that it was sweat, when it may not have been. It was some form of DNA).

Where would they have gotten his sweat?  Again, this is pure reaching.

They have to have decided, for your theory to make sense, that not only were they going to frame him, but that they weren't going to find any evidence from anyone else, otherwise they'd get caught.  they had to assume no one else was going to confess, or be in some other way implicated.  they had to assume no one would see them moving all this evidence around.  And the local cops were not the only cops on the scene, so you also have to believe the FBI was in on it as well.

it's just too far fetched for me to even consider someone else being guilty, given the additional evidence against him that is not even really contested.

 

 

[Locke_Lamora]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I don't know why his blood was tampered with. But let's be clear, it's the broken seal that is the problem there.  not the puncture hole in the vial.

Do you think it's coincidence that he had a cut on his hand in the exact spot that would be likely to leave the blood spots in the car?

Do you think the sweat based DNA also found in the car(and on the key) was a coincidence?

• The hand that supposedly had a glove on it which was the reason that there were no fingerprints in the car? Or the blood spots that had also been shown as possibly being artificially created. The key, which was the most obviously tampered with piece of evidence that ONLY has Averys DNA and nothing from Teresa Halbach on it? I think you answered your own question here. The non-blood DNA on the car is suspicious, but finding some on the KEY leads me to believe that the police had access to that form of SA's DNA. In short, not a coincidence at all...

I don't believe the confession was introduced at his trial.  

• Yes this is correct. The prosecution did not want the confession introduced because they did not want the defense to rip it to shreds. It had already done its damage to the community and in turn the Jury through the media attention it received. Having the defense undo that would have been counter productive.

I've already conceded that those coops are shady as fuck.

Just out of curiosity, have you read anything about this case other than the documentary?

Again, the number of things that would have had to happen for him to be innocent is utterly staggering, and completely unbelievable.

• This I do not understand. The whole point of the documentary is that there is so much probable doubt that it is incredible that he was convicted whether he did it or not. Unfortunately for him a corrupt local government ensured that he went away a second time. I think what you are alluding to as a circumstance for him being innocent as unbelievable, is the incredible scale of corruption that would have had to take place by a very powerful authoritative group in our society in order for him to be Innocent. This is where I am with you as the thought is an incredibly scary one. It is what leads me to say that I believe SA is innocent but I can't be certain because deep down I want him to be guilty because of that fear. But when you look at the evidence that was planted/tampered (The key w/SA dna, the bullet w/ TH blood, most likely SA blood in the car, and what I believe to be true, the car itself) it is not to hard of a stretch to believe that if they were capable of that well then honestly they could have been capable of it all.

I don't think there is compelling evidence the bones were ever moved.  Quite the contrary, actually.  The bones were fused together with the tires burned in the pit, and the tools used to smash up the bones were also found in the fire pit, as were some of her teeth, and the rivets from her jeans.  her belongings were also found in the burn barrel.

• I mean the bones were moved. They found remenants of Teresa Halbach at the quarry up the road. Is it so hard to believe a scenario where the remains of TH were moved onto SA property?

I'd be fine with giving him a new trial, but the result is extremely likely to be the same.

The garage was not immaculate. As for the car, it's likely he didn't have much time to deal with it, what with dealing with burning the body, and cleaning up the garage. 

• The garage was beyond immaculate. Not a single bit of DNA from TH (except for the oops look at what we found months later in a half an hour the second time we went in how convenient lol bullet) yet every other source of DNA was completely intact with no evidence of a clean up. A forensics team couldn't do that good of a job in that short of a time span, yet we are to believe that this one man did, and then either didn't have enough time or the wherewithal to take care of the car, AND THEN invite the public/police to search his grounds... you can see where this is going. This is all on top of the fact that after he supposedly parked the car he then spent at least 5 minutes covering it up? You know instead of parking it in the car crusher 100 feet away, flipping a switch and being done with it in 30 seconds. Are we still even talking about the same guy?

But of course, that's speculative.

Now I truly do not know whether or not Steven Avery committed the murder of Tersea Halbach. But I will say that I believe he is innocent. Nothing adds up, every piece of evidence has a flaw, and there is probable doubt throughout. To me that is the very essence of what our justice system should return as a verdict of innocence, but like I said, I don't think I want to live in a world where Steven Avery is truly innocent because the implications of that are downright scary.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Locke_Lamora said:

Now I truly do not know whether or not Steven Avery committed the murder of Tersea Halbach. But I will say that I believe he is innocent. Nothing adds up, every piece of evidence has a flaw, and there is probable doubt throughout. To me that is the very essence of what our justice system should return as a verdict of innocence, but like I said, I don't think I want to live in a world where Steven Avery is truly innocent because the implications of that are downright scary.

I think part of the problem is a lot of people have seen way too many crime shows where there's always a smoking gun, and the evidence always lines up perfectly.

Quote

• Yes this is correct. The prosecution did not want the confession introduced because they did not want the defense to rip it to shreds. It had already done its damage to the community and in turn the Jury through the media attention it received. Having the defense undo that would have been counter productive.

Well...  the confession WAS used in Dassey's trial.  So your assertion that it would be pretty simple to 'rip to shreds' at trial is demonstrably false.  Never the less, the lack of the introduction of the confession is hardly evidence of his innocence.

Quote

• I mean the bones were moved. They found remenants of Teresa Halbach at the quarry up the road. Is it so hard to believe a scenario where the remains of TH were moved onto SA property?

 

The bones from the quarry were never confirmed to be from Halbach, and it's unclear whether they were even ever confirmed to be human.  The burn site was the source of the bones.  Again, this is a great example of why and how people fall for conspiracy theories.

 

[DaveSumm]

In isolation, seeking an alternative explanation for the bones (they were moved) might seem like a conspiracy theorist, but it's on top of a huge pile of doubt that the police did their job properly. And conspiracy theories are usually overlooking an obvious explanation; I would argue this case doesn't have one. What is the most obvious explanation to you? That he killed her in the garage, burnt her bones in the firepit, cleaned the garage to an absurd degree of efficiency, for some reason didn't bother with nearly as good a job with the car and simply threw some branches on it, the police search the property, miss very obvious pieces of evidence the first (I forget, three? Four?) times and suddenly find a bullet, a key? That that has nothing to do with Lenk and Colborn being present? That not one piece of Halbach's DNA is on the key because....? I dunno, he cleaned it and then was stupid enough to handle it afterward? That he wore gloves the whole time, but then took them off and smeared blood on the dashboard? That Colborn just guessed that they'd found a Rav4 on the Avery yard?

I concede that the picture the documentary paints doesn't hang together perfectly, but neither does the prosecution's version of events. Far less so, I believe. 

[Swordfish]

9 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

In isolation, seeking an alternative explanation for the bones (they were moved) might seem like a conspiracy theorist, but it's on top of a huge pile of doubt that the police did their job properly. And conspiracy theories are usually overlooking an obvious explanation; I would argue this case doesn't have one. What is the most obvious explanation to you?

That Avery killed her and burned her body, and that he made a bunch of mistakes trying to cover up the crime.

And that the manitowoc cops are a bunch of corrupt fucksticks.

 

[Jack Bauer 24]

Should have been a mistrial plain and simple.

[Swordfish]

7 minutes ago, Jack Bauer 24 said:

Should have been a mistrial plain and simple.

On what grounds?

[Jack Bauer 24]

15 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

On what grounds?

Those goons Colburn and Lenk should have been no where near this trial. Dude called in the RAV 4 days before it was found lmao. Oh, and they magically found the key right in plain view after 7 searches lol. What a massive troll job. And Dassey's coerced confession is an embarrassment. Kid got hosed.

[Swordfish]

7 minutes ago, Jack Bauer 24 said:

Those goons Colburn and Lenk should have been no where near this trial. Dude called in the RAV 4 days before it was found lmao. Oh, and they magically found the key right in plain view after 7 searches lol. What a massive troll job. And Dassey's coerced confession is an embarrassment. Kid got hosed.

 

um.... ok.....

So on what grounds would you have declared a mistrial?

[DaveSumm]

8 hours ago, Swordfish said:

That Avery killed her and burned her body, and that he made a bunch of mistakes trying to cover up the crime.

And that the manitowoc cops are a bunch of corrupt fucksticks.

 

I certainly agree that both can be true. The most reasonable scenario I can think of in which he did kill her is if he didn't do it in the garage, but just made a mess of the whole thing. Killed her some other way, panicked and hid the car poorly, and burnt the body. Then the cops framed him on top of that. The picture the documentary paints, that perhaps he didn't kill her and the cops framed him has the framing in common; so what are these staggering leaps that make this look like a conspiracy theory? Either someone killed her, stashed the car on his yard, and moved the bones, or he did it. We both seem to agree on the most unusual aspect of both, that the police were so incompetent throughout. And so I'm left having no clue whatsoever whether he did it; all that's left of the equation is some bones (and I'm no expert, but I'd have liked to see that discussed much further in the trial) and the car.