Making A Murderer: Netflix Documentary Series (SPOILERS)

[Turinqui-Calima]

On 2/11/2016 at 0:52 PM, Swordfish said:

The cops had to  have made a split second decision to frame him, and at the same time, coincidentally the actual killers ALSO had to decide to frame him as well.  All of this happened within hours of each other.

Basically, in order to believe he didn't do it, you pretty much have to assume the cops killed her themselves, and then a whole bunch of other cops, technicians, and investigators were brought into the conspiracy, and they did all this pretty much in the open in basically a couple hours, without anyone noticing.

Most people who think SA might be innocent do not seem to think the cops killed her, so that is clearly not what you 'have to' believe. As much as I think there were some crooked cops, I don't think they would murder someone they would consider a good person. The first scenario, i.e. both the cops and the actual murderer decided to frame SA, sounds a lot more plausible to me. If the murderer was another member of the Avery family for instance, that person would most definitely know that SA was not loved by the police. Even if the murderer was someone else, s/he would have probably known who SA was due to the media coverage of his release from prison and lawsuit, and after TH was reported missing it was reported that Avery Salvage was the last place she was seen.

As for who is involved in the planting of evidence, it really only has to be Colborn and Lenk. All the others could just be incompetent and/or refusing to believe that their colleagues would do something so wrong.

I think much of the evidence that you say 'isn't in dispute' is troublesome or misleading in some way

The body was burned in his burn pit.  A burn pit he admits to having a tire fire in the night before. Her stuff is found in his burn barrel.

This is clearly being disputed. The body parts where found in a burn pit where SA burned stuff, including that night, but some remains where found in the gravel pit off of Avery Salvage. I have trouble understanding why Avery would burn the body right by his home where anyone in the family can come by at any time, then move just a few bones to another burn pit that is away from his property. Alternatively, he burns the body off the property and then moves the bones to his own property using a burn barrel for some reason?

Her car is found on his lot.

It was found on the Avery Salvage Yard lot, not just ‘his’ lot, and it’s a very large lot where other family members live as well. The car was parked on the other end of the lot and there are many ways for anyone to enter the lot without passing any of the homes.

His DNA (from sweat, not blood) is found on both the key and the car.

IIRC it's not necessarily sweat, it could be skin. Either way, the DNA evidence from the car was recovered in April 2006, months after the crime. The investigator who opened the latch admits to not changing gloves before opening the latch and could have been the source (this is from Day 4 of SA's trail). As for the key, you acknowledge that the cops might have planted it and they could have easily rubbed it on SA's sheets/clothes before doing so to get his DNA on it.

He has a cut on his hand. His blood is found in the car in spots consistent with the cut.

How is the cut 'consistent' with the spots? They seem pretty random to me. SA works with sharp tools, so him having cuts is not odd. If you acknowledge that cops might have planted evidence that would include the blood, right? If SA left the blood spots, why are there no finger prints?

He's got a violent, predatory past.

Yes, he does not come of as a wonderful person, but the violence in his past was never random. It's always been towards women he knew/dated.

He conspired to get her there, made suspicious phone calls, and he'd made her uncomfortable before.

How are the phone calls suspicious? He was asking for her to come take a photograph of his sisters car that was for sale and used his sisters name. When she was late he called her again, maybe to see where she was. As for the past instance of making her uncomfortable, here is the quote in question from the receptionist at AutoTrader:

"She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel, I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’’

He had discussed doing something very similar to what played out here with another prisoner.

I have seen this mentioned before but don't know the source. How similar?

A bullet from his gun was found with her DNA on it.

This was the bullet that was found in the spring search of the garage and the DNA sample that was contaminated. 

~~~

If you want to talk coincidences, it is odd to me that there are so many questions surrounding all the evidence. It doesn't seem to add up and I have trouble with anyone who claims to be sure.

Just realized how long this post has become - sorry for that.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Turinqui-Calima said:

Most people who think SA might be innocent do not seem to think the cops killed her, so that is clearly not what you 'have to' believe. As much as I think there were some crooked cops, I don't think they would murder someone they would consider a good person. The first scenario, i.e. both the cops and the actual murderer decided to frame SA, sounds a lot more plausible to me. If the murderer was another member of the Avery family for instance, that person would most definitely know that SA was not loved by the police. Even if the murderer was someone else, s/he would have probably known who SA was due to the media coverage of his release from prison and lawsuit, and after TH was reported missing it was reported that Avery Salvage was the last place she was seen.

As for who is involved in the planting of evidence, it really only has to be Colborn and Lenk. All the others could just be incompetent and/or refusing to believe that their colleagues would do something so wrong.

I think much of the evidence that you say 'isn't in dispute' is troublesome or misleading in some way

The body was burned in his burn pit.  A burn pit he admits to having a tire fire in the night before. Her stuff is found in his burn barrel.

This is clearly being disputed. The body parts where found in a burn pit where SA burned stuff, including that night, but some remains where found in the gravel pit off of Avery Salvage. I have trouble understanding why Avery would burn the body right by his home where anyone in the family can come by at any time, then move just a few bones to another burn pit that is away from his property. Alternatively, he burns the body off the property and then moves the bones to his own property using a burn barrel for some reason?

Her car is found on his lot.

It was found on the Avery Salvage Yard lot, not just ‘his’ lot, and it’s a very large lot where other family members live as well. The car was parked on the other end of the lot and there are many ways for anyone to enter the lot without passing any of the homes.

His DNA (from sweat, not blood) is found on both the key and the car.

IIRC it's not necessarily sweat, it could be skin. Either way, the DNA evidence from the car was recovered in April 2006, months after the crime. The investigator who opened the latch admits to not changing gloves before opening the latch and could have been the source (this is from Day 4 of SA's trail). As for the key, you acknowledge that the cops might have planted it and they could have easily rubbed it on SA's sheets/clothes before doing so to get his DNA on it.

He has a cut on his hand. His blood is found in the car in spots consistent with the cut.

How is the cut 'consistent' with the spots? They seem pretty random to me. SA works with sharp tools, so him having cuts is not odd. If you acknowledge that cops might have planted evidence that would include the blood, right? If SA left the blood spots, why are there no finger prints?

He's got a violent, predatory past.

Yes, he does not come of as a wonderful person, but the violence in his past was never random. It's always been towards women he knew/dated.

He conspired to get her there, made suspicious phone calls, and he'd made her uncomfortable before.

How are the phone calls suspicious? He was asking for her to come take a photograph of his sisters car that was for sale and used his sisters name. When she was late he called her again, maybe to see where she was. As for the past instance of making her uncomfortable, here is the quote in question from the receptionist at AutoTrader:

"She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel, I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’’

He had discussed doing something very similar to what played out here with another prisoner.

I have seen this mentioned before but don't know the source. How similar?

A bullet from his gun was found with her DNA on it.

This was the bullet that was found in the spring search of the garage and the DNA sample that was contaminated. 

~~~

If you want to talk coincidences, it is odd to me that there are so many questions surrounding all the evidence. It doesn't seem to add up and I have trouble with anyone who claims to be sure.

Just realized how long this post has become - sorry for that.

There aren't really any questions around any of that evidence.  that's the whole point.

Saying, 'Well this is theoretically possible' is not equivalent to 'there are questions about this evidence'.

Again, if you want to believe all that evidence was planted, then you are a conspiracy theorist.  Period.

You can look at any individual piece of evidence and come up with a plausible sounding theory about how it may be suspect, but if you have to come up with literally dozens of explanations for various pieces of evidence involving at LEAST half a dozen cops, the ME, and the DNA test lab, plus a set of unknown actual murderers?  You're in conspiracy theory land.  The totality of the evidence is compelling, and then notion that all of this is possible is absurd.

This is pretty fruitlless, but I'll give you an example of where you start going south.

 

COULD the body have been moved into the pit?  Theoretically yes.  but there's no evidence of it being planted there, and there IS evidence that it was burned there.  So bam. You've just expanded the conspiracy to the ME in order to make your conspiracy theory work.

And so on and so on and so on....

 

But I've already explained all this...  So...  yeah.  Futility.

[Turinqui-Calima]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

COULD the body have been moved into the pit?  Theoretically yes.  but there's no evidence of it being planted there, and there IS evidence that it was burned there.  So bam. You've just expanded the conspiracy to the ME in order to make your conspiracy theory work.

But we KNOW that bone fragments where found in two different burn pits, so we know that the body was either burned in two separate pits OR the bones were moved in one way or another. Whatever you think happened you have to think of some sort of possible explanation for this.

What makes you say that the ME (or actually Special Agent from the Arson Unit) would need to be part of the conspiracy?

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Turinqui-Calima said:

But we KNOW that bone fragments where found in two different burn pits, so we know that the body was either burned in two separate pits OR the bones were moved in one way or another. Whatever you think happened you have to think of some sort of possible explanation for this.

 

The bones in the quarry were never confirmed to have been the victims bones.

So no, we don't know that the body was burned in two different burn pits.  

But you're missing the overall point entirely.  Again. Which is what would have had to have happened here for ALL of this evidence to have been planted.

 

Quote

What makes you say that the ME (or actually Special Agent from the Arson Unit) would need to be part of the conspiracy?

To cover up the fact that the bones had been moved.

[DaveSumm]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

But you're missing the overall point entirely.  Again. Which is what would have had to have happened here for ALL of this evidence to have been planted.

You're really not selling just how far fetched that is. Guy kills a woman, pins it on Avery, two shady (your word) cops plant a key, a bullet and some blood. Those three come as a package though as if you're entertaining a cop planting one, three is not a stretch. The fact that the documentary and the surrounding furore even exist is testament to how possible this is. I have no clue if he did it, but there's no way the possibility he didn't is up there with JFK, the moon landing or 9/11. I guess, technically it is a theory and it kinda resembles a conspiracy though.

[Swordfish]

Just now, DaveSumm said:

You're really not selling just how far fetched that is. Guy kills a woman, pins it on Avery, two shady (your word) cops plant a key, a bullet and some blood. Those three come as a package though as if you're entertaining a cop planting one, three is not a stretch..

it would be useful if you actually read the thread before responding, rather than simple repeating a variance of an argument that is both inaccurate, and has already been refuted numerous times.

Three is not the number. As I've already explained.  Numerous times.

 

[Turinqui-Calima]

51 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The bones in the quarry were never confirmed to have been the victims bones.

So no, we don't know that the body was burned in two different burn pits.  

But you're missing the overall point entirely.  Again. Which is what would have had to have happened here for ALL of this evidence to have been planted.

To cover up the fact that the bones had been moved.

They were confirmed to be from a human female and had the same burn marks and the fragments in the Avery burn pit.

As far as I know, even Kratz never challenged that the bones were moved, he just kind of ignored it. The Arson specialist's testimony does not say the bones were not moved so no need to claim 'cover up'.

[DaveSumm]

Yea I've been reading, thanks. I list those three specifically in relation to the 'conspiracy' part. There is a possible explanation (ignoring how likely we think it may be) for the rest that doesn't involve conspiring, as per Turinqui's post. Those three, however, require active attempts to manipulate evidence to frame him by the police.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Turinqui-Calima said:

They were confirmed to be from a human female and had the same burn marks and the fragments in the Avery burn pit.

 

Link?

 

Quote

As far as I know, even Kratz never challenged that the bones were moved, he just kind of ignored it. The Arson specialist's testimony does not say the bones were not moved so no need to claim 'cover up'.

 

Quote

There were no entire bonesthat were found, but at least a fragment or more of almost every bone below the neck was recovered in that burn pit.

[Fallon] Did you find evidence of any human bone identified as being collected from a site other than the burn pit behind the defendant's garage?

[Eisenberg] Human bone also was collected from what was designated "burn barrel number two."

Now, you did offer an opinion that you believe the location for the primary burning episode was the burn pit behind the defendant's garage, is that correct?

That is correct.

 

[DaveSumm]

So you believe the second burn pit was an unrelated killing? Another victim?

[Turinqui-Calima]

33 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Link?

Summed up by Buting in this article - Here

As for your other quote, he is arguing that the Avery burn pit was the primary burn location, i.e. not the only place where bones were found.

[Swordfish]

7 minutes ago, Turinqui-Calima said:

Summed up by Buting in this article - Here

 

 

Right.  his lawyer is trying to paint the picture that he's been framed.  We all know that.

That's a long way from proving that they were conclusively determined to be human female bones.

 

Quote

As for your other quote, he is arguing that the Avery burn pit was the primary burn location, i.e. not the only place where bones were found.

Well.  yes.  Of course.  So the body was burned in the pit behind Averys house.  That's what i have been saying all along.

As far as i can tell, nothing conclusive was ever determined about the bones from the quarry, and it seems to have been a place where animal corpses were routinely burned.

it it possible that somehow  the bones got moved from the place where they were burned at a later date?  i guess so.  But it's hard to grasp how that points to him being framed.  

maybe an animal moved them.  Maybe he moved them himself as part of a plan to get rid of the evidence?  i have no idea.  But again, you have to go to pretty great lengths to explain away the fact that the body was burned in his burn pit.  Which it was.

 

 

[DaveSumm]

28 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

maybe an animal moved them.  Maybe he moved them himself as part of a plan to get rid of the evidence?  i have no idea.

This is the crux of it: the defence's version of events may not hang together, but neither does the prosecution's. The possibilities of other unknown victims, or animals moving bones, or the perp completing 10% of a plan and then stopping are all as far fetched as anything we've thrown out.

[Swordfish]

8 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

This is the crux of it: the defence's version of events may not hang together, but neither does the prosecution's.

Of course it does.  The prosecutions assertion is that the primary burn location is the pit behind his house.  Which it is.

That there are random unidentified bones somewhere else is not harmful to the prosecutions point here.

 

Edit to remove getting sucked into more of this nonsensical discussion about evidence that is not even in dispute.

 

[Ken Stone]

I don't know that I want to live in a world where Brandon Dassey is found guilty, and OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty. 

[Jack Bauer 24]

37 minutes ago, Ken Stone said:

I don't know that I want to live in a world where Brandon Dassey is found guilty, and OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty. 

Sad but true.

[James Arryn]

Swordfish, the point I'm apparently not making is that your perception of what is and is not 'in dispute' either is affected by what the cops have done, and/or isn't but should be.

Like, without this documentary, you would consider much other evidence now 'in dispute' to be otherwise. The burden of proof is/should be pretty onerous, and in the same way that a witness caught lying' about X's overall testimony is considered compromised, so too is any case wherein the parties responsible for gathering and holding the evidence are found to have been deliberately manipulating it to achieve a specific outcome. All we 'know' now is what has 'now' been revealed to be 'in dispute'. The assumption that it must stop there is premised on the same assumption that would have considered all of this indisputable prior to the documentary.

 

[Swordfish]

19 hours ago, maarsen said:

Acc

18 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Swordfish, the point I'm apparently not making is that your perception of what is and is not 'in dispute' either is affected by what the cops have done, and/or isn't but should be.

Like, without this documentary, you would consider much other evidence now 'in dispute' to be otherwise. The burden of proof is/should be pretty onerous, and in the same way that a witness caught lying' about X's overall testimony is considered compromised, so too is any case wherein the parties responsible for gathering and holding the evidence are found to have been deliberately manipulating it to achieve a specific outcome. All we 'know' now is what has 'now' been revealed to be 'in dispute'. The assumption that it must stop there is premised on the same assumption that would have considered all of this indisputable prior to the documentary.

 

Ugh..  Quote feature...

Once again, I am not missing that point.  I'm adressing it directly.

Simply repeating this assertion that 'i'm missing something' does not make it any more accurate.

First of all, the parties you are talking about were not 'found to have been deliberately manipulating it to achieve a specific outcome'.  they are 'suspected to have been deliberately manipulating it to achieve a specific outcome'.

Second, I'm talking about REASONABLE doubt.  I have not made an 'assumption that it must stop there'.  I've simply pointed out how ridiculous it is to believe all of the evidence has been planted, and why it's not reasonable to believe.  The primary burn location of the body being a good example, but not the ONLY example.

That is DIRECTLY addressing the point you keep trying to make.

 

Perhaps this will help:

Quote

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but onlythat no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.

 

[Ken Stone]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Second, I'm talking about REASONABLE doubt.  I have not made an 'assumption that it must stop there'.  I've simply pointed out how ridiculous it is to believe all of the evidence has been planted, and why it's not reasonable to believe.  The primary burn location of the body being a good example, but not the ONLY example.

 

 

Were Branden and Steven the only ones at the bonfire? My impression was it was a white-trash bonfire party. 

 

One of the things that bothered me most in the documentary had to do with when the first couple of episodes. They showed footage from his civil trial where they had police on the stand. Whenever a question came up that had to do with SA being innocent of the rape the attitude was "Well I don't know about. I know he was exonerated but we don't know that he didn't do it." To me, that mindset was infuriating. The cops were quick to believe "the science" when it showed SA was guilty and dismissed "the science" when it showed him innocent. They were clearly working with some pretty heavy confirmation bias. It made it impossible for me to trust anything they said. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Ken Stone said:

Were Branden and Steven the only ones at the bonfire? My impression was it was a white-trash bonfire party.

 

One of the things that bothered me most in the documentary had to do with when the first couple of episodes. They showed footage from his civil trial where they had police on the stand. Whenever a question came up that had to do with SA being innocent of the rape the attitude was "Well I don't know about. I know he was exonerated but we don't know that he didn't do it." To me, that mindset was infuriating. The cops were quick to believe "the science" when it showed SA was guilty and dismissed "the science" when it showed him innocent. They were clearly working with some pretty heavy confirmation bias. It made it impossible for me to trust anything they said.

It was just the two of them.

And I agree with your second line of thought. It doesn't have to be a cover up, it can just be your standard blue shield always support the cop mentality.