Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Field east

Commanchie wrote: »

Ok so youre sayig he admitted it himself thats enough for you. A federal judge ruled he was coerced into admitting involvement.

So on your logic hes innocent

I have watched both seasons. In one of the interviews ,by the prosecutor side, of Brendan and he was finlally telling the two interviewers re what apparently happened with regards to Theresa being tied to the bed , raped, and other gory actions. He was then asked a question like something along the lines of where did he get the idea of carrying out those actions and he said that he READ IT IN A BOOKand he actually gave the title of the book.
I thought that revelation to be extremely significant BUT that was the first and last time it was aired. None of the court cases ,submissions made ,opinions expressed - especially be Kathleen , etc, referred to it.
Did anyonee else notice that or am I missing something.?

Commanchie

walshb wrote: »

Yes, reasonable doubt. Doubt with actual bite/substance..it’s not here..

You havent watched it how would you know what substance is there you a lunatic. I mever ate mcdonalds but i know what it tastes like. Exact same

retro:electro

walshb wrote: »

Yes, reasonable doubt. Doubt with actual bite/substance..it’s not here..

Why is there no forensic evidence of a crime being committed or any evidence at all of Teresa’s presence in the garage or the bedroom?

walshb

The show kind of reminds me of 12 Angry Men...

Where Fonda argued and ended up getting a killer off. He presented doubt after doubt after red herring...

I remember one of the jurors said it to him about “what if you convince us all and it ends up that he really did kill his dad?”

That show was lost on most. Most saw it as a film about a writing nerd man in the dock. It wasn’t about that. It was about the right man in the dock, who got off because of a one man crusade, a crusade full of red herrings.

Little Less Conversation

walshb wrote: »

Dassey admitted to and provided accurate details surrounding events..

Kratz held a press conference the day after Dassey's confession. He took his confession as truth but if you had watch the second season, they are meant to investigate what Dassey said. They didn't investigate before holding that press conference.

walshb

retro:electro wrote: »

Why is there no forensic evidence of a crime being committed or any evidence at all of Teresa’s presence in the garage or the bedroom?

You’re back? Being called/implied a gob****e won’t endear you to me..

Anyway, haven’t you better things to be doing than arguing with me? Your words..

adox

Is there any point debating back and forth with someone who’s position is “you are all so gullible if you have any doubts about the convictions. You are sheep. They are definitely guilty. They were convicted in a court of law so they definitely did it.”

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Another defense red herring. Making out that he was so so stupid. Maybe he was, but he still admitted and provided details that were corroborated. Details due to him being involved, nothing else.. should we discount this because “he’s not the brightest spark?”

Sure I can say the exact same about Gerry Conlon. Making out he was tortured so bad he admitted to it, maybe he was but maybe he wasn't.

retro:electro

walshb wrote: »

You’re back? Being called/implied a gob****e won’t endear you to me..

Anyway, haven’t you better things to be doing than arguing with me? Your words..

You literally can’t even answer the most straightforward questions. It’s hilarious.

Field east

Essien wrote: »

The bit I can't wrap my head around is how/why, if he wasn't involved in the murder, did the ex become involved in the alleged cover up?

I believe there was police interference designed to convict Steve, but I just don't get why a civilian would become involved. How does that conversation even begin without someone risking their career?

(1) remember the young chap in cork who killed a younger near Neighbour if his and he got very involved in the search for the poor chap
(2) similar in England over I think 10 years ago a school helper killed two very young chaps in his house and , again got very involved in helping in the search for them until he was found out
(3) similar in the Naul case .

Commanchie

Field east wrote: »

(1) remember the young chap in cork who killed a younger near Neighbour if his and he got very involved in the search for the poor chap
(2) similar in England over I think 10 years ago a school helper killed two very young chaps in his house and , again got very involved in helping in the search for them until he was found out
(3) similar in the Naul case .

1)Robert hoolahan
2)Ian huntley
3)Joe O reilly

Mountainsandh

You need to reframe there for a second walshb.

The prosecution got SA convicted on some evidence.

If this evidence is not solid, if the evidence is patchy/void/faulty, then there can be reasonable doubt, and SA should not be in prison.

That's what KZ is demonstrating.


So, looking at the DNA bit I put above, which is just me recounting stuff that's in season 2.

If the DNA on the key cannot be reproduced, if it is proven to be faulty, inaccurate, inconclusive. Then that's a piece of evidence against SA discarded.

KZ says that she tries to achieve 2 aspects when exonerating a client : show that the evidence was flawed (raise reasonable doubt) and find out who did it.

walshb

Avery is in prison on a lot more evidence than Joe O’Reilly..

Anyone think he’s innocent?

RocketRaccoon

Bobby Dassey said he saw Teresas vehicle outside Averys trailer at about 2.40/2.45 but no sign of Teresa. How is this possible if her phone pinged a tower at 2.41?

He's as guilty as sin, there's no doubt about it in my mind.

Essien

Field east wrote: »

(1) remember the young chap in cork who killed a younger near Neighbour if his and he got very involved in the search for the poor chap
(2) similar in England over I think 10 years ago a school helper killed two very young chaps in his house and , again got very involved in helping in the search for them until he was found out
(3) similar in the Naul case .

The search i can totally understand.

But the cover up, as in moving the Rav4 to Averys, all the calls to the police, somehow getting possession of THs diary etc. I don't understand that bit.

For me, I can't see the motive in him doing that if he's not involved in the murder.

RocketRaccoon

Essien wrote: »

The search i can totally understand.

But the cover up, as in moving the Rav4 to Averys, all the calls to the police, somehow getting possession of THs diary etc. I don't understand that bit.

For me, I can't see the motive in him doing that if he's not involved in the murder.

I would love to see the explanation for how he had her diary.

Uncharted

walshb wrote: »

Avery is in prison on a lot more evidence than Joe O’Reilly..

Anyone think he’s innocent?

GO WATCH THE SECOND SERIES!!!

It's all there for you to see!!!

enfant terrible

Uncharted wrote: »

GO WATCH THE SECOND SERIES!!!

It's all there for you to see!!!

How many parts in season 1 and 2?

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Sure I can say the exact same about Gerry Conlon. Making out he was tortured so bad he admitted to it, maybe he was but maybe he wasn't.

I think you need to let go of this comparison. It’s quite insulting to what Gerry endured before breaking. Dassey’s confession isn’t remotely comparable..

Dassey gave them details and implicated Avery. Why? Easy...because Dassey was involved..

RocketRaccoon

enfant terrible wrote: »

How many parts in season 1 and 2?

10 in each.

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

I think you need to let go of this comparison. It’s quite insulting to what Gerry endured before breaking. Dassey’s confession isn’t remotely comparable..

Dassey gave them details and implicated Avery. Why? Easy...because Dassey was involved..

He gave them details, which, if you would log off and go and watch the second series you would see don't match up at all. This is why you're being argued with, you have no clue what you're talking about until you watch the second series.

enfant terrible

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

10 in each.

I look forward to the 20 part prosecution rebuttal.

RocketRaccoon

enfant terrible wrote: »

I look forward to the 20 part prosecution rebuttal.

I said it to my wife, I wish someone would do something like that.

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I said it to my wife, I wish someone would do something like that.

No real need. The trial looked after all that.

Commanchie

walshb wrote: »

No real need. The trial looked after all that.

When will you watch it

enfant terrible

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I said it to my wife, I wish someone would do something like that.

Out of interest what Avery's fans explanation for the deceased bones being in Avery's fire pit?

Essien

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I would love to see the explanation for how he had her diary.

Me too, somethings not right there at all.

However, I can't accept that Ryan Hillegas helped cover up Bobby Dasseys crime.

For me, Hillegas is just as much of a suspect.

RocketRaccoon

enfant terrible wrote: »

Out of interest what Avery's fans explanation for the deceased bones being in Avery's fire pit?

What are the explanations for human bones being discovered in a quarry near Tadychs house and being discovered by cadaver dogs and never getting a mention in the trial or by the defence?

Mountainsandh

Field east wrote: »

I have watched both seasons. In one of the interviews ,by the prosecutor side, of Brendan and he was finlally telling the two interviewers re what apparently happened with regards to Theresa being tied to the bed , raped, and other gory actions. He was then asked a question like something along the lines of where did he get the idea of carrying out those actions and he said that he READ IT IN A BOOKand he actually gave the title of the book.
I thought that revelation to be extremely significant BUT that was the first and last time it was aired. None of the court cases ,submissions made ,opinions expressed - especially be Kathleen , etc, referred to it.
Did anyonee else notice that or am I missing something.?

No, I remember it too.
It makes a lot of sense. The name of the book was Kiss The Girls. Haven't read it myself.

I deal with youngsters with similar IQs in my career occasionally. (Like, probably 1 or 2 minimum yearly, follow these kids for 6 years)
That a young fellow in distress, who can understand that something's wanted from him, but can't understand the consequences, can possibly take stuff from a book and feed them that, makes total sense.
I watched a bit of the interview today, they were trying to get him to use bad language, to say that Steven Avery spoke certain words, like "p/ssy", "****"... he couldn't understand what they wanted from him at first, but then when they reacted positively to him sticking in the word "p/ssy" (he didn't first time around, he said "stuff" or something but they asked again), then he went on to the f word...

The world is a strange place if you can't read exactly what the situation is.

RocketRaccoon

Commanchie wrote: »

When will you watch it

He won't because he's getting a reaction here. He'd hate to have to backtrack on all the stuff he has spouted so far.

walshb

enfant terrible wrote: »

Out of interest what Avery's fans explanation for the deceased bones being in Avery's fire pit?

No worries there. The film makers (defense) will explain all that..

bazermc

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Bobby Dassey said he saw Teresas vehicle outside Averys trailer at about 2.40/2.45 but no sign of Teresa. How is this possible if her phone pinged a tower at 2.41?

He's as guilty as sin, there's no doubt about it in my mind.

I thought I was interesting in season 1, when the jury was deliberating in SA trial, they asked for all of Bobby Dassey testimony to be read back to them. I think they judge refused and only allowed certain pieces or parts. I’m surprised KZ did not reference that in Season 2.

Also as I type this it feels like I’m commenting on a piece of fiction like Law and Order, hard to believe this is very much real, I guess thats what TV does to you.

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

He won't because he's getting a reaction here. He'd hate to have to backtrack on all the stuff he has spouted so far.

Season 1 didn’t see me backtrack..

Is season 2 the real show? Season 1 was very biased. Is this even more biased?

Mountainsandh

walshb wrote: »

Season 1 didn’t see me backtrack..

Is season 2 the real show? Season 1 was very biased. Is this even more biased?

No, it's more grounded in pragmatism.

enfant terrible

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

What are the explanations for human bones being discovered in a quarry near Tadychs house and being discovered by cadaver dogs and never getting a mention in the trial or by the defence?

What's that got to do with what I asked?

I asked what's the explanation for the deceased bones being in Avery's fire pit?

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Season 1 didn’t see me backtrack..

Is season 2 the real show? Season 1 was very biased. Is this even more biased?

And as you've been told, there were plenty of people, myself included, who weren't sure of his innocence who have now got no doubt in their mind about him being the wrong man in prison AGAIN. So how about you just watch it and then come back and discuss it, even if your opinion doesn't change you'd get a lot more respect if you have all the evidence everyone else here has seen.

RocketRaccoon

enfant terrible wrote: »

What's that got to do with what I asked?

I asked what's the explanation for the deceased bones being in Avery's fire pit?

Very simple thing to plant. Just like the blood which makes no sense and is just downright impossible to be in certain positions of the car, the dna on the key which again makes no sense, the dna on the hood latch which makes no sense.

enfant terrible

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Very simple thing to plant. Just like the blood which makes no sense and is just downright impossible to be in certain positions of the car, the dna on the key which again makes no sense, the dna on the hood latch which makes no sense.

Just to be clear you think someone planted the deceased bones in Avery's fire pit?

Someone planted blood?

Someone planted DNA?

Someone planted DNA on a hood latch?

And Avery is innocent?

Commanchie

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Very simple thing to plant. Just like the blood which makes no sense and is just downright impossible to be in certain positions of the car, the dna on the key which again makes no sense, the dna on the hood latch which makes no sense.

How can anyone explain how such a diluted copy number of dna on hoodlatch and only SAs DNA was on it.

Did nobody ever open the hood on that car? Not even TH? How was it diluted found so close after the report of missing persons.

RocketRaccoon

enfant terrible wrote: »

Just to be clear you think someone planted the deceased bones in Avery's fire pit?

Someone planted blood?

Someone planted DNA?

Someone planted DNA on a hood latch?

And Avery is innocent?

These FACTS were all discussed in great details in series 2. Yes, FACTS.

Mountainsandh

enfant terrible wrote: »

What's that got to do with what I asked?

I asked what's the explanation for the deceased bones being in Avery's fire pit?

Unfortunately, there were no pictures taken of the fire pit when they discovered the bones. There was no grid installed, and the exact layout of the bones when discovered was not recorded. The detective there collected the bones with a shovel and placed them in a box.

So a lot of information on how these bones ended up there, whether they were burned on the spot or not, was lost.

My explanation of the above question would be that someone brought over the bones from another location.

This could be the police, trying to incriminate Avery, or the killer himself, trying to achieve the same.

Kitty6277

Commanchie wrote: »

At the time of Halbach’s murder, the mustachioed Tadych was dating Barb Janda, the sister of Steven Avery who lived next door to him (they’re now married). Janda is the mother of Bobby, Blaine, Bryan, and Brendan Dassey. In the series, Tadych delivers a strange statement to the press the day after Avery’s conviction, saying, “What happened yesterday is the best thing in the world,” adding, “He got what he got comin’ to him.”

According to Avery’s court filing, Tadych’s “previous experiences with the court system show him to be a violent and impulsive person, particularly towards women.” In 1994, Manitowoc County charged him with criminal trespass and battery, with the complaint alleging that Tadych visited the home of Constance Welnetz at 3 a.m., knocking on her bedroom window. Welnetz was asleep with a man named Martin LeClair, and as she called the police, Tadych is alleged to have walked into her home and told her, “You will die for this, bitch.” Then, LeClair went outside to confront Tadych and Tadych struck him, knocking him briefly unconscious.

It didn’t end there. In 2001, Welnetz filed a temporary restraining order against Tadych, alleging he’d call her “repeatedly at work within short periods of time,” threatened to “kick her ass,” followed her, and once pushed his way into her home. Then, in 2002, Tadych was arrested for assaulting Welnetz. After she allegedly tried to kick him out of her home for yelling at her son, Tadych “shoved Welnetz against the wall, took her phone and threw it on the floor so she could not call the police,” and “twice punched Welnetz in the shoulder with a closed fist,” according to Avery’s court filing.

Taken from online

Jesus, he seems dodgy enough alright. Cheers for that

Commanchie

enfant terrible wrote: »

Just to be clear you think someone planted the deceased bones in Avery's fire pit?

Someone planted blood?

Someone planted DNA?

Someone planted DNA on a hood latch?

And Avery is innocent?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uncharted

enfant terrible wrote: »

Just to be clear you think someone planted the deceased bones in Avery's fire pit?

Someone planted blood?

Someone planted DNA?

Someone planted DNA on a hood latch?

And Avery is innocent?

Have you actually watched both series???

You seem shocked, these points you're referencing are constantly mentioned in the case.

It makes me think you haven't followed this closely....

Commanchie

Kitty6277 wrote: »

Jesus, he seems dodgy enough alright. Cheers for that

Thats only a section of it. Did you never see the footage of him laughing when SA is convicted. Then realises he might be seen

RocketRaccoon

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Unfortunately, there were no pictures taken of the fire pit when they discovered the bones. There was no grid installed, and the exact layout of the bones when discovered was not recorded. The detective there collected the bones with a shovel and placed them in a box.

So a lot of information on how these bones ended up there, whether they were burned on the spot or not, was lost.

My explanation of the above question would be that someone brought over the bones from another location.

This could be the police, trying to incriminate Avery, or the killer himself, trying to achieve the same.

The FACT they didn't allow the pathologist near the site just goes to backup that something was seriously out of place.

Mam of 4

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

The FACT they didn't allow the pathologist near the site just goes to backup that something was seriously out of place.

100% agree .

Why wasn't she allowed do her job?

Why did the "professional judge" as walshb put it , rule that she couldn't?
Why was the judge even having an opinion on a Coroner carrying out their duties at that early point in the whole murder inquiry?

Because she could quite possibly have found there was nothing to prove that TH had been murdered and her body burnt on the Averys property at all .

walshb

Uncharted wrote: »

Have you actually watched both series???

You seem shocked, these points you're referencing are constantly mentioned in the case.

It makes me think you haven't followed this closely....

This is unreal...

So, watching the show where all this is presented as a big frame job is all we need to know? And accept as fact?

No chance that a frame didn’t occur? No chance that there was no evidence planting?

This nonsense belongs in the conspiracy forum..

retro:electro

enfant terrible wrote: »

Just to be clear you think someone planted the deceased bones in Avery's fire pit?

Someone planted blood?

Someone planted DNA?

Someone planted DNA on a hood latch?

And Avery is innocent?

And yet no fingerprints. Anywhere. At all.
Funny that. The only method of indentificaion that you cannot manipulate nor reproduce missing from the crime scene.

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

This is unreal...

So, watching the show where all this is presented as a big frame job is all we need to know? And accept as fact?

No chance that a frame didn’t occur? No chance that there was no evidence planting?

This nonsense belongs in the conspiracy forum..

Are you going to watch it or just continue to spout nonsense and call us all sheep?