Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Thelomen Toblackai

PressRun wrote: »

I think a key point is reasonable doubt though. If I had been sitting on that jury, there is no way I would have felt comfortable returning a guilty verdict just because I felt like he probably did it. There would still be a niggling doubt in my mind that he didn't, and I'd want to know for sure before I returned a verdict that was going to send someone to prison for the rest of their life, and possibly prevent the real murderer from being brought to justice. To my mind, there is still a possibility that Teresa's murderer is still out there, happy knowing that they got away with it. That's probably the worst part. If both men are innocent, then that woman has not received justice.

The show doesn't present the full trial and all evidence that was presented though. It was deliberately one sided to sell the story. So none of us are in a position to say with any confidence the jury were wrong.

That wasn't my point anyway, as I said the police department and court seemed pretty incompetent. Given the conflict of interests I also wouldn't rule out evidence planting. But not an entire set up. Perhaps it was so messed up the jury couldn't return a guilty verdict but without witnessing the full trial it's hard to tell.

From what I seen as one sided as it was I'd be surprised if Avery wasn't the killer. So the poor family not only has a bunch of idiots locking up their son for 18 years but then they have to go through it all again because he was actually a psycho but being innocent the first time people bought into his lies this time. That's the cruellest part of it, how he exploits all that to string his family along and ruins lives all over the place.

Sunflower 27

Heisenberg. wrote: »

Please don't ever sit on a Jury!!

Oh please,Did you see it all? Did you see them caught out in their lies?

I saw enough of their shoddy underhand tactics. I would usually want to hear both sides, but when the other side are clear liars, and in court, why would you bother? They stooped so low it is unforgivable.

datk

Just like Avery's lawyer said, I hope they are guilty, I can only imagine the torture of being locked up and nobody even willing to listen to you with all the appeals being rejected.

I do think Teresa Halbach's brother, ex and roommate were odd. Managing to guess the password for her phone records, I presume most companies limit the number of logons before locking the accounts. I've locked myself out of my own accounts and I set the password in the first place! But can't see how they'd be able to plant Avery's DNA etc and what a coincidence that they ended up on his land.

I think Brendan Dassey's step-father Scott Tadych and brother could be an option - something happened and in a bid to save their own skin they were best placed to make it look like Avery did it and they'd know the police would jump at the chance to get him. I think Brendan getting caught up was an accident.

I did end up googling all things Avery and Dassey after I finished watching the series and discovered that Avery's wife is now married to Peter Dassey - Brendan's dad!! When she wasn't mentioned after they divorced I presumed she'd move far away from the area to distance herself and her children from the situation.

Sunflower 27

Heisenberg. wrote: »

Please don't ever sit on a Jury!!

Oh, I have. I heard both sides, you have to when you are there. Kind of how it works

PressRun

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

The show doesn't present the full trial and all evidence that was presented though. It was deliberately one sided to sell the story. So none of us are in a position to say with any confidence the jury were wrong.

That wasn't my point anyway, as I said the police department and court seemed pretty incompetent. Given the conflict of interests I also wouldn't rule out evidence planting. But not an entire set up. Perhaps it was so messed up the jury couldn't return a guilty verdict but without witnessing the full trial it's hard to tell.

From what I seen as one sided as it was I'd be surprised if Avery wasn't the killer. So the poor family not only has a bunch of idiots locking up their son for 18 years but then they have to go through it all again because he was actually a psycho but being innocent the first time people bought into his lies this time. That's the cruellest part of it, how he exploits all that to string his family along and ruins lives all over the place.

They did speak to the juror who did sit through the trial and had to leave because of an illness in the family during deliberations, and he said that he wasn't convinced of his guilt and that when he was there, there were seven others who weren't either. He even went on to say that the three who were convinced of his guilt refused to participate in deliberation. Now, I don't know what sort of agenda a former jury member would possibly have to push to say that they came out of the trial unconvinced.

If there's further evidence that was presented in the trial that the public should know about before they start calling for the heads of members of the police or prosecution, then let's hear it. I'd love for the prosecution team that worked on it to produce something compelling and clear-cut that closes it down once and for all. For all their claims that the documentary is untruthful, they haven't actually produced any evidence as of yet that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Avery did it. And that's the bottom line really.

carter10

Luis Colossal Thinker wrote: »

I seem to be the only person that thinks they are both 100% guilty . like her truck disappeared on his land and she was burned on his land, who the hell else did it.
I didn't think it was very good tbh, dragged on way too long. I had lost interest by episode 6/

There were others ' on the land' who could have done it, see attached doc

PressRun

datk wrote: »

I think Brendan Dassey's step-father Scott Tadych and brother could be an option - something happened and in a bid to save their own skin they were best placed to make it look like Avery did it and they'd know the police would jump at the chance to get him. I think Brendan getting caught up was an accident.

Was Scott Tadych the one who gave conflicting statements about when he saw a bonfire on Avery's property? I couldn't figure him out at all or why he was getting in the middle of it.

J. Marston

Most heartbreaking thing was in the final episode:

Steven's mother looking at places for him to live when he gets out. Poor woman.

Thelomen Toblackai

PressRun wrote: »

They did speak to the juror who did sit through the trial and had to leave because of an illness in the family during deliberations, and he said that he wasn't convinced of his guilt and that when he was there, there were seven others who weren't either. He even went on to say that the three who were convinced of his guilt refused to participate in deliberation. Now, I don't know what sort of agenda a former jury member would possibly have to push to say that they came out of the trial unconvinced.

If there's further evidence that was presented in the trial that the public should know about before they start calling for the heads of members of the police or prosecution, then let's hear it. I'd love for the prosecution team that worked on it to produce something compelling and clear-cut that closes it down once and for all. For all their claims that the documentary is untruthful, they haven't actually produced any evidence as of yet that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Avery did it. And that's the bottom line really.

That's one jury member who wasn't there for the full deliberation though. He like the others may have changed their initial opinion like others did after going through the evidence. It did seem odd that they let him off for mutilating the corpse but convicted him of murder when a large part of the evidence was burnt remains. That doesn't make much sense to me.

But you can't really base an opinion on what one jury member says his initial opinion was before deliberations when all others found Avery guilty after discussing the evidence for days when you haven't seen the full trial and all evidence.

I'm not saying he's clearly guilty or that there's enough to suggest there's no doubt. But the documentary is entirely Avery's side of the trial and it deliberately presents the story to paint a picture of innocence and a cover up. It's neither a full nor entirely accurate representation of the investigation or the trial.

The other evidence they claim was shown changes the story dramatically. The requests from Avery for Teresa specifically to photo the car, the fact Teresa was uncomfortable with Avery due to his previous behaviour, the multiple phone calls on the day, the fact he used a different name when making the appointment, her phone and palm pilot being found in the burn barrel behind his house, the bullet with her DNA found in his garage matched that of his rifle, the handcuffs and stuff Avery bought in the weeks prior. Add that to the evidence we seen. The fact there was no activity from her phone after her visit to Avery which by all account definitely happened and was the last place she was seen alive by anyone, her car was found on his property with his blood inside, the defence argued it wasn't reliable but the FBI test could be seen by the court as perfectly valid, teeth and bones from Teresa found amongst the remnants of a fire in his back yard, the bullet etc.

The case can be made that the police planted the key, possible tampered with other evidence, that the blood in the jeep wasn't reliable and they were hell bent on Avery and didn't bother fully and properly investigating the case and all possible suspects. There may be a case made that there wasn't enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt. But tbh there's plenty there to convince a jury she was there, she was murdered and disposed of on the property and Stephen Avery was responsible. It's not clear that it was a travesty by any means and that an innocent man went down a second time. Considering after the fact even if the trial was such a farce he shouldn't have been found guilty the Brendan Dassey statements and phone calls to his mother which weren't all shown in the show but depict Dassey as clearly stating that they did kill Teresa. That to me gives enough evidence to show it was indeed Avery that killed her whether he should have been found guilty of it or not.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

That's one jury member who wasn't there for the full deliberation though. He like the others may have changed their initial opinion like others did after going through the evidence. It did seem odd that they let him off for mutilating the corpse but convicted him of murder when a large part of the evidence was burnt remains. That doesn't make much sense to me.

But you can't really base an opinion on what one jury member says his initial opinion was before deliberations when all others found Avery guilty after discussing the evidence for days when you haven't seen the full trial and all evidence.

I'm not saying he's clearly guilty or that there's enough to suggest there's no doubt. But the documentary is entirely Avery's side of the trial and it deliberately presents the story to paint a picture of innocence and a cover up. It's neither a full nor entirely accurate representation of the investigation or the trial.

The other evidence they claim was shown changes the story dramatically. The requests from Avery for Teresa specifically to photo the car, the fact Teresa was uncomfortable with Avery due to his previous behaviour, the multiple phone calls on the day, the fact he used a different name when making the appointment, her phone and palm pilot being found in the burn barrel behind his house, the bullet with her DNA found in his garage matched that of his rifle, the handcuffs and stuff Avery bought in the weeks prior. Add that to the evidence we seen. The fact there was no activity from her phone after her visit to Avery which by all account definitely happened and was the last place she was seen alive by anyone, her car was found on his property with his blood inside, the defence argued it wasn't reliable but the FBI test could be seen by the court as perfectly valid, teeth and bones from Teresa found amongst the remnants of a fire in his back yard, the bullet etc.

The case can be made that the police planted the key, possible tampered with other evidence, that the blood in the jeep wasn't reliable and they were hell bent on Avery and didn't bother fully and properly investigating the case and all possible suspects. There may be a case made that there wasn't enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt. But tbh there's plenty there to convince a jury she was there, she was murdered and disposed of on the property and Stephen Avery was responsible. It's not clear that it was a travesty by any means and that an innocent man went down a second time. Considering after the fact even if the trial was such a farce he shouldn't have been found guilty the Brendan Dassey statements and phone calls to his mother which weren't all shown in the show but depict Dassey as clearly stating that they did kill Teresa. That to me gives enough evidence to show it was indeed Avery that killed her whether he should have been found guilty of it or not.

It all seems very weak though. Who said she didn't like Avery? Her boss? How can that be evidence if it can never be proved she said it.

The boss may have disliked Avery, maybe jealous of the money be was going to get. A comment a dead woman supposedly made can't be legitinate evidence.

It is clear why Brendan 'confessed' and that was shown in the documentary very well.

Again, how do we know he said send Teresa? Maybe he found her non judgemental and that was important to him? Maybe he knew people looked down on him and she didn't.?

There are just too many what ifs and maybes for that to be actual concrete evidence of anything. To me, none of that points to murder. It means nothing.

Thepoet85

PressRun wrote:

Was Scott Tadych the one who gave conflicting statements about when he saw a bonfire on Avery's property? I couldn't figure him out at all or why he was getting in the middle of it.

Yea he was. He also said that SA got what he deserved, and it was the best day ever when he was convicted. He clearly had deep feelings of hate for SA.

In addition to this, Tadych and Bobby Dassey were seemingly able to corroborate each others alibis. In fact Bobby said that Tadych could say to the minute when they passed each other on the road coming from hunting.

Bobby also said that he saw TH taking photos of his mum's van around 2:30pm, and then approaching SA's trailer. This was then refuted by the impartial bus driver who said she saw her taking photos ar approximately 3:30, as this was the time she dropped the kids off there daily.

Bobbys Mum also claimed at some point that he took a shower before and after hunting.

None of this is incriminating obviously but I feel they certainly were overlooked as potential suspects due to the apparent tunnel vision displayed by the authorities (Akin to the 1985 case).

A lot of other suspicious characters involved, but something about those two didn't sit right with me.

J Mysterio

gilberto_eire wrote: »

Have to say this is a great watch.

Would make a great drama in itself its so off the wall.

Just going onto episode 5 now.

In fairness its never exactly slow but once you hit episode 3 and get settled it turns into a binge.
If I hadn't an exam today id have got way further last night.

So tempted to google the people involved to their story since but just about staying strong until I finish it.

Im leaving at this point for fear of spoilers. See ye after.

Wompa1

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

It all seems very weak though. Who said she didn't like Avery? Her boss? How can that be evidence if it can never be proved she said it.

The boss may have disliked Avery, maybe jealous of the money be was going to get. A comment a dead woman supposedly made can't be legitinate evidence.

It is clear why Brendan 'confessed' and that was shown in the documentary very well.

Again, how do we know he said send Teresa? Maybe he found her non judgemental and that was important to him? Maybe he knew people looked down on him and she didn't.?

There are just too many what ifs and maybes for that to be actual concrete evidence of anything. To me, none of that points to murder. It means nothing.

That one juror also claimed the initial count from the jury was 7 not guilty 2 guilty with the rest undecided.

What ever about Steven. What happened to Brendan is beyond evil and a joke. Actually what happened to Steven is evil too. Even he is guilty, there was clear grounds for a mistrial. Unfortunately, for her family that would have been awful but I think that would have been justice in this case. You can't convict with so much of the investigation and evidence being compromised.

Sunflower 27

Wompa1 wrote: »

That one juror also claimed the initial count from the jury was 7 not guilty 2 guilty with the rest undecided.

What ever about Steven. What happened to Brendan is beyond evil and a joke. Actually what happened to Steven is evil too. Even he is guilty, there was clear grounds for a mistrial. Unfortunately, for her family that would have been awful but I think that would have been justice in this case. You can't convict with so much of the investigation and evidence being compromised.

I agree totally. Watching that O'Kelly creep with brendan was sickening. His tone was so mean and intimidating. All he wanted was the confession and the signature. And to think he was meant to be on Brendan's side!!!! Appalling.

The worst scene for me was Brendan's mother after the verdict. I cried at that. Her pain was so deep. Her son had totally been stitched up and she knew it. God, that was horrific.

Brendan seemed such a gentle soul to me. He was easily intimidated and that was totally exploited.

Those guys that put Brendan behind bars deserve all the hate they get. I still can't believe the blue ribbon bit. It was so bizarre and creepy. Terrible acting!!

Sunflower 27

If you are suspicious of Bobby & Scott, read the following:

https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y5brb/they_are_guilty_and_they_couldnt_be_happier_about/

Chocolate girl

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

If you are suspicious of Bobby & Scott, read the following:

https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y5brb/they_are_guilty_and_they_couldnt_be_happier_about/

Just finished it last night so sad and unjust. I think these 2 had something to do with it.

Sunflower 27

Chocolate girl wrote: »

Just finished it last night so sad and unjust. I think these 2 had something to do with it.

When you consider that Steven Avery was on the verge of a major payout and would be set for life, murdering a young woman on his property and leaving her car and remains there makes no sense. He knew that he would be caught if he did that and sent back to prison.

I think the cops know it was the other two but let Steven take the fall regardless (and planted the key/blood to make sure he did). He had disgraced them all by being freed. They had it in for him, without question.

I do think Brendan saw something, but I think he saw something with Bobby and was protecting his brother. I think that was another reason he reluctantly implicated Steven.

JaMarcusHustle

Look - there's far more evidence that implicates Steven Avery than there is evidence to implicate Bobby and Scott.

Whether Steven Avery is genuinely guilty is obviously very much up for debate, but people thinking it's more likely Bobby and Scott did it together is ridiculous, especially as all we have to go on is a documentary and a very biased one at this.

To think Bobby and Scott did it just because the documentary hinted at is ridiculous when there is zero evidence to suggest they did.

There's less evidence to implicate Scott and Bobby than there is to implicate Steven Avery.

finglashoop

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Look - there's far more evidence that implicates Steven Avery

Is the evidence reliable though? The police make it look that way. Its highly suspicious.

The car and the key can be ignored as the most dodgy cop you could imagine seen the car and called in the reg and the key Was obvously planted there in plain sight by the second most dodgy cop and they didnt find it first time round. It wadnt hidden. Just out in the open with no dna from the owner of the key

The blood spots in the car could be from the sample the police have why else is there a needle hole in a sealed sample.

So the evidence is set up to point at Avery whether he is actually guilty.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

It all seems very weak though. Who said she didn't like Avery? Her boss? How can that be evidence if it can never be proved she said it.

The boss may have disliked Avery, maybe jealous of the money be was going to get. A comment a dead woman supposedly made can't be legitinate evidence.

It is clear why Brendan 'confessed' and that was shown in the documentary very well.

Again, how do we know he said send Teresa? Maybe he found her non judgemental and that was important to him? Maybe he knew people looked down on him and she didn't.?

There are just too many what ifs and maybes for that to be actual concrete evidence of anything. To me, none of that points to murder. It means nothing.

There's enough there to make a very strong case against Avery. It's also not clear why Brendan confessed, the show did not show the full confessions or full phone conversations. The full transcript of the phone call to his mother after his attorney screwed him over had all manner of stuff about Avery molesting him and others that was edited out for the show.

There's a lot of what ifs for you after watching a pretty one sided show that never mentioned any of this stuff. Perhaps there was less for a jury who sat through days and days of evidence.

And it points to murder because it gives Avery prior interactions and a possible obsession with Halbach. Added to the other evidence it paints a pretty compelling story that Avery is the murderer.

• Specifically asks for Halbach to photo his car.
• Halbach allegedly is uncomfortable with Avery and reluctant to go to his home.
• Avery uses a different name to make the appointment.
• Avery purchases handcuffs and chains in the weeks prior to the visit.
• Avery calls Halbach numerous times on the day of the disappearance but not from his own phone.
• Halbach did visit Avery and was seen by numerous people in his yard.
• There is no account by anybody that she was seen afterwards.
• There is no activity on her phone after the time she was seen at Avery's.
• Her car was found on the Avery site.
• Avery's blood was found inside the car.
• Her remains were found at a burn site at the back of his house.
• Her phone and camera were found in a burn barrel at the back of his house.
• The key to her car was found with his DNA inside his home.
• A bullet matching Avery's rifle was found with Halbacks DNA in Avery's garage.
• His nephew Brendan made multiple statements saying he murdered her.

There's no way in hell that's a weak argument lacking evidence. The only argument is whether the police interfered with stuff enough that he shouldn't have been convicted. Likewise Dassey said enough to suggest he was there when it happened, but given how it was handled by the police and the fact he was screwed over by his lawyer there's an argument it's not admissible in court.

I find it odd people are happy to point fingers at the boyfriend, the brother, Bobby Dassey or Scott Tayback? with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest they did anything. Yet ignore or play down an absolute mountain of evidence pointing to Stephen Avery.

JaMarcusHustle

finglashoop wrote: »

Is the evidence reliable though? The police make it look that way. Its highly suspicious.

The car and the key can be ignored as the most dodgy cop you could imagine seen the car and called in the reg and the key Was obvously planted there in plain sight by the second most dodgy cop and they didnt find it first time round. It wadnt hidden. Just out in the open with no dna from the owner of the key

The blood spots in the car could be from the sample the police have why else is there a needle hole in a sealed sample.

So the evidence is set up to point at Avery whether he is actually guilty.

Im not arguing whether Avery did it or not - I'm undecided myself.

Im just arguing the hypocrisy of those saying they think Avery is innocent and that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych did it when there's zero evidence they were even remotely involved.

Sunflower 27

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Look - there's far more evidence that implicates Steven Avery than there is evidence to implicate Bobby and Scott.

Whether Steven Avery is genuinely guilty is obviously very much up for debate, but people thinking it's more likely Bobby and Scott did it together is ridiculous, especially as all we have to go on is a documentary and a very biased one at this.

To think Bobby and Scott did it just because the documentary hinted at is ridiculous when there is zero evidence to suggest they did.

There's less evidence to implicate Scott and Bobby than there is to implicate Steven Avery.

To be fair, Bobby and Scott lied about the timeline. Why do that under oath?

Tbey also had access to SA's property. Further, the evidence against SA is dodgy as anything.

JaMarcusHustle

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

To be fair, Bobby and Scott lied about the timeline. Why do that under oath?

Tbey also had access to SA's property.

Ah sure they said two different times?

Case closed then, sure that's as good as video evidence of them pulling the trigger! Lock them up and throw away the key.

You strike me very as much as the type of person who reads a story, and immediately takes it as fact and are too busy spewing outrage and scandal to stop and think about it.

Sunflower 27

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

Im not arguing whether Avery did it or not - I'm undecided myself.

Im just arguing the hypocrisy of those saying they think Avery is innocent and that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych did it when there's zero evidence they were even remotely involved.

Of course there is no evidence. Despite being at the last place she was seen they were never considered suspects. Avery was pegged with crime and the authorities ran with that.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

There's enough there to make a very strong case against Avery. It's also not clear why Brendan confessed, the show did not show the full confessions or full phone conversations. The full transcript of the phone call to his mother after his attorney screwed him over had all manner of stuff about Avery molesting him and others that was edited out for the show.

There's a lot of what ifs for you after watching a pretty one sided show that never mentioned any of this stuff. Perhaps there was less for a jury who sat through days and days of evidence.

And it points to murder because it gives Avery prior interactions and a possible obsession with Halbach. Added to the other evidence it paints a pretty compelling story that Avery is the murderer.

• Specifically asks for Halbach to photo his car.
• Halbach allegedly is uncomfortable with Avery and reluctant to go to his home.
• Avery uses a different name to make the appointment.
• Avery purchases handcuffs and chains in the weeks prior to the visit.
• Avery calls Halbach numerous times on the day of the disappearance but not from his own phone.
• Halbach did visit Avery and was seen by numerous people in his yard.
• There is no account by anybody that she was seen afterwards.
• There is no activity on her phone after the time she was seen at Avery's.
• Her car was found on the Avery site.
• Avery's blood was found inside the car.
• Her remains were found at a burn site at the back of his house.
• Her phone and camera were found in a burn barrel at the back of his house.
• The key to her car was found with his DNA inside his home.
• A bullet matching Avery's rifle was found with Halbacks DNA in Avery's garage.
• His nephew Brendan made multiple statements saying he murdered her.

There's no way in hell that's a weak argument lacking evidence. The only argument is whether the police interfered with stuff enough that he shouldn't have been convicted. Likewise Dassey said enough to suggest he was there when it happened, but given how it was handled by the police and the fact he was screwed over by his lawyer there's an argument it's not admissible in court.

I find it odd people are happy to point fingers at the boyfriend, the brother, Bobby Dassey or Scott Tayback? with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest they did anything. Yet ignore or play down an absolute mountain of evidence pointing to Stephen Avery.

Many of those points are mere heresay. Tbe guy worked in a car junkyard, of course he bought feckin chains lol.

Who said she was anxious of Avery? Her boss?
That is mere heresay now. That can't be proven and the boss could have an agenda, who knows?

Why is it odd her possessions were burned with her? Still doesn't mean one person murdered her over another.

Brendan was clearly coerced to confess and later retracted it.....

How does no activity on her phone after being at Steven's house mean he did it??? It just means she was harmed or killed shortly after and there was more than Avery on that property then, but the others lied about being there.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

adox

I really enjoyed watching this to a point. I binged watched in a couple of sessions as it was so well made and such a captivating story.

However:

The whole documentary was totally biased towards the Averys, something I was fine with for the most part. I told myself this is a case of wrong doing on a grand scale and so they are showing how it played out, they will be vindicated at the end of it. The fact that the two of them remained in prison at the end of it as a huge surprise to me and left a bit of a bad taste in the mouth about how the whole documentary was presented. The aspersions that they cast on the cops, more or less accusing them of being corrupt and planting evidence etc had me convinced that the cops would be found out and prosecuted by the end, must be the way thy are so blatantly putting it out there, but no, nothing happened and the two convictions were upheld.

Now I'm not debating the guilt or innocence of the two accused but rather the totally one sided presentation from the documentary makers, with very serious accusations and insinuations about various police officers, officials etc. This would all have been fine if this had ended up being proven but it wasn't. I was astonished by the ending, not because the the two are still in jail per say but because of the way the whole thing was presented. id be very surprised if some of those having the finger pointed at them aren't taking legal action.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Many of those points are mere heresay. Tbe guy worked in a car junkyard, of course he bought feckin chains lol.

I'm not talking regular chains I'm talking about handcuffs and restraints. Apparently he claimed they were for use with his girlfriend. Which is all well and good until you have someone else (Dassey) describing a scene with Halbach handcuffed and restrained.

Who said she was anxious of Avery? Her boss?
That is mere heresay now. That can't be proven and the boss could have an agenda, who knows?

It's a statement from the district attorney who prosecuted the case that this was evidence shown in court that wasn't mentioned in the TV show. I like you have no idea of the specifics beyond it was statements that came from her co-workers.

Why is it odd her possessions were burned with her? Still doesn't mean one person murdered her over another.

It's not odd it's simply a separete site on his property where her belongings were found.

Brendan was clearly coerced to confess and later retracted it.....

Its not clear at all and definitely not from the one sides view in the show. That first interview was 4 hours in length. The others similarly 3/4 hours long. The show showed very little of it. He may have been coerced to a degree but the full transcripts of the interviews and his phone calls has him clearly giving details that were never put into his mouth by detectives.

How does no activity on her phone after being at Steven's house mean he did it??? It just means she was harmed or killed shortly after and there was more than Avery on that property then, but the others lied about being there.

It means there was no sight nor trace of her or her activities after she was seen outside Avery's house. Doesn't mean he did it but it's a pretty big factor when someone disappears and ends up dead. Again if you look at all the evidence it's a lot of stuff that points to Avery.

You're picking out a couple of things and ignoring a lot of other stuff too. I get why people think he shouldn't have been convicted but there'd have to be an incredible amount of organisation for it to be a set up and for him to be innocent. Does anyone you seen in the show strike you as a criminal mastermind ??

Sunflower 27

Heisenberg. wrote: »

No I didn't see it all. Neither did you.
What we got was an emotionally charged 10hr documentary that was wholly one sided and very carefully edited to suit the defence.

Yes, there are some suspicious points throughout but anyone that says they are 100% sure of innocence or guilt from watching a documentary should pretty much rule themselves out of Jury duty for life.

Oh give over, please. I saw enough corruption to last a lifetime in that documentary. Why would anyone believe those cops?

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I'm not talking regular chains I'm talking about handcuffs and restraints. Apparently he claimed they were for use with his girlfriend. Which is all well and good until you have someone else (Dassey) describing a scene with Halbach handcuffed and restrained.



It's a statement from the district attorney who prosecuted the case that this was evidence shown in court that wasn't mentioned in the TV show. I like you have no idea of the specifics beyond it was statements that came from her co-workers.



It's not odd it's simply a separete site on his property where her belongings were found.


Its not clear at all and definitely not from the one sides view in the show. That first interview was 4 hours in length. The others similarly 3/4 hours long. The show showed very little of it. He may have been coerced to a degree but the full transcripts of the interviews and his phone calls has him clearly giving details that were never put into his mouth by detectives.



It means there was no sight nor trace of her or her activities after she was seen outside Avery's house. Doesn't mean he did it but it's a pretty big factor when someone disappears and ends up dead. Again if you look at all the evidence it's a lot of stuff that points to Avery.

You're picking out a couple of things and ignoring a lot of other stuff too. I get why people think he shouldn't have been convicted but there'd have to be an incredible amount of organisation for it to be a set up and for him to be innocent. Does anyone you seen in the show strike you as a criminal mastermind ??

I'm picking out bits because I am working lol. I'll get back to it though.

Mightydrumming

Another question that no one can answer

It started out with the press release that TH had her throat slit whilst being tied up... there was plenty of footage taken in the bedroom post crime scene and not a single finding of blood on the mattress.

The two special agents (Mark Weigart and Tom Fassbender) then told Brendan about her throat being slit... where did they originally get that information from? Am I missing something??

Thelomen Toblackai

Mightydrumming wrote: »

Another question that no one can answer

It started out with the press release that TH had her throat slit whilst being tied up... there was plenty of footage taken in the bedroom post crime scene and not a single finding of blood on the mattress.

The two special agents (Mark Weigart and Tom Fassbender) then told Brendan about her throat being slit... where did they originally get that information from? Am I missing something??

I think it originally came from Brendan in one of the first interrogations. A lot of what he actually said was never shown in the show.

The lack of dna evidence to back it up may mean it was bull**** though.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I'm picking out bits because I am working lol. I'll get back to it though.

Lol ok hun xxx

Sunflower 27

Thelo, that list you posted includes the blood in tbe car, blood but but not a single fingerprint of Avery's and his blood was easily accessible by the cops, and the key that suddenly appeared???? Weird.

Did you cut and paste that list from somewhere as those points above have been mentioned on this thread as being highly suspect re Avery's involvement in tbe murder?

Mightydrumming

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I think it originally came from Brendan in one of the first interrogations. A lot of what he actually said was never shown in the show.

The lack of dna evidence to back it up may mean it was bull**** though.

Ah cheers!

Finding it near impossible to forget the whole situation, every day there's a new question

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Lol ok hun xxx

No, I will. I am on my phone. Hence the typos. Sorry for the delay.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Thelo, that list you posted includes the blood in tbe car, blood but but not a single fingerprint of Avery's and his blood was easily accessible by the cops, and the key that suddenly appeared???? Weird.

Did you cut and paste that list from somewhere as those points above have been mentioned on this thread as being highly suspect re Avery's involvement in tbe murder?

It's a list of evidence presented to the jury. The blood was 100% Averys. The defence argued it could have been planted and the prosecution argued with the help of fbi testing it was not the blood from the sample in the files.

It's questionable as all the evidence is but there's more evidence to say it wasnt planted than it was. I don't like the prosecution any more than anyone else but they had the evidence on their side.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

No, I will. I am on my phone. Hence the typos. Sorry for the delay.

Don't go getting fired on my account. I'm in no hurry to see posts.

Sunflower 27

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

No, I will. I am on my phone. Hence the typos. Sorry for the delay.

Actually, I addressed most of them. I want to read up more on the name he booked the appointment under. As for calling from different phones, credit reception? Maybe he suspected she wasn't calling him back?

I read she was late for her appointment and that explains one of the extra calls. I'll have to confirm that though.

He clearly didn't die the way Brendan said. I think most are agreed on that.

Did anyone else have access to Steven's trailer before the search where the key was found? I can't believe Teresa's dna was not on there and his was, unless someone wiped all hers and added his?

I find it odd that people are not looking closer at the others that were there at the time. That should have been a given.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Don't go getting fired on my account. I'm in no hurry to see posts.

Funny then that you reply so fast xx

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Actually, I addressed all of them. I want to read up more on the name he booked the appointment under. As for calling from different phones, credit reception? Maybe he suspected she wasn't calling him back?

I read she was late for her appointment and that explains one of the extra calls. I'll have to confirm that though.

He clearly didn't die the way Brendan said. I think most are agreed on that.

Did anyone else have access to Steven's trailer before the search where the key was found? I can't believe Teresa's dna was not on there and his was, unless someone wiped all hers and added his?

I find it odd that people are not looking closer at the others that were there at the time. That should have been a given.

The point was we can speculate all we like but we didn't sit through all the evidence presented. We watched a one sided TV show. You can't say he's innocent because of that. You should be asking the questions before deciding he did it or not, not after. That's how he ended up on prison for 18 years the first time.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

It's a list of evidence presented to the jury. The blood was 100% Averys. The defence argued it could have been planted and the prosecution argued with the help of fbi testing it was not the blood from the sample in the files.

It's questionable as all the evidence is but there's more evidence to say it wasnt planted than it was. I don't like the prosecution any more than anyone else but they had the evidence on their side.

Again, the blood evidence was tested with some technique that was hurriedly sorted out. Its legitimacy was put in doubt by the defence very well.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

The point was we can speculate all we like but we didn't sit through all the evidence presented. We watched a one sided TV show. You can't say he's innocent because of that. You should be asking the questions before deciding he did it or not, not after. That's how he ended up on prison for 18 years the first time.

I saw enough to know he should not have been convicted on the evidence presented and others should have been questioned.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Again, the blood evidence was tested with some technique that was hurriedly sorted out. Its legitimacy was put in doubt by the defence very well.

The defence tried to put it in doubt. Again we don't even know the nature of the test. Perhaps to the jurors there wasn't much doubt.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I saw enough to know he should not have been convicted on the evidence presented and others should have been questioned.

You saw a TV show. You didn't see all the evidence presented. It looked dodgy to me too on the tv show. But that was the aim of the show. Not to show an unbiased look at a trial. To push the conspiracy angle. And it did that by selectively showing the evidence and opinions.

8-10

I really don't understand why he would have cleaned the garage so meticulously as to not leave any blood DNA yet fail to even wipe the blood from the inside of the car. Why clean the murder scene so carefully and then not clean the place where the body was put right after?

I don't buy the garage theory.

Mightydrumming

8-10 wrote: »

I really don't understand why he would have cleaned the garage so meticulously as to not leave any blood DNA yet fail to even wipe the blood from the inside of the car. Why clean the murder scene so carefully and then not clean the place where the body was put right after?

One man during the show outlined that it would be near impossible for forensics to clean all DNA in the garage, let alone Steven! I find it hard to believe that the body was in the garage, at least no DNA evidence points towards it unless you want to go down the 'bullet' route which the woman who was to find DNA on it, f*cked the whole thing up... her excuse was ''I was teaching two students at the time''.

This particular woman received a phone call from fassbender during the investigation saying something on the lines of 'I want him to have killed her in the garage'.

daisybelle2008

What was the significance of the blue ribbon that O'Kelly was crying about I must have missed it?

Thelomen Toblackai

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

What was the significance of the blue ribbon that O'Kelly was crying about I must have missed it?

It's was a ribbon from the picture he had. I think it was of Teresa's church. He had a load of stuff on the table to try upset Brendan into giving him a confession.

The crying I took as fake to try make out how upset he was over how Teresa's death affected people. Maybe he's as crazy as his emails made him look and was genuinely crying about the fact the church put up the blue ribbons for Teresa.

Thepoet85

I personally don't think they had anything more than circumstantial evidence on their side. The blood could not be dismissed as being from the vial, so it's unclear if it's 100% from a fresh cut. In addition to that, they're was no trace of dna from either Avery or Dassey in the car bar the blood, no fingerprints. If that's the case then gloves must have been worn. And if he was wearing gloves, how did the blood get on the dash.

The prosecutions argument was that she was tied up, raped and had her throat slit in the trailer, but they never had an ounce of proof of that. They said she was shot in the garage. Again, bar the lone bullet, they didn't find a drop of blood or dna in the garage. seems odd.

These are all things that were laid out at trial, not the clever editing of the producers.

It was the job of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Avery, and for me they didn't achieve that. I'm not saying he was innocent, I really don't know if he is or not, but it wasn't the job of the defence to prove him innocent, merely not guilty. And there's a difference between the two.