Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Uncharted

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..

Ok. Iv given you 4 separate occasions of the benefit of the doubt. Iv encouraged you to actually watch the show that you are speculating on.
It beggars belief that you could be so aggressively and doggedly ignorant whilst admittedly not having seen the evidence.

I can assure you that anyone with a modicum of a brain cell would have their eyes opened by series 2.
I'm certain your eyes will remain closed.

Please go troll somewhere else,you are boring and obviously have zero interest in the case.

RocketRaccoon

Uncharted wrote: »

Ok. Iv given you 4 separate occasions of the benefit of the doubt. Iv encouraged you to actually watch the show that you are speculating on.
It beggars belief that you could be so aggressively and doggedly ignorant whilst admittedly not having seen the evidence.

I can assure you that anyone with a modicum of a brain cell would have their eyes opened by series 2.
I'm certain your eyes will remain closed.

Please go troll somewhere else,you are boring and obviously have zero interest in the case.

As I said, afraid to backtrack when he sees the new evidence.

Commanchie

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..

But there was evidence planting. Tell me this and ill leave it be.

In season 1 on the initial arrest why when Calumet who were searching didnt find the key in the trailer and it didnt show in crime scene photos.

BUT THEN Colbourn who was ordered off the case went to the trailer NOT to search but found it at side of a locker which had been photographed.

Why did Calumet officers not find it or was it not visible in CSI photos that clearly show spot it was found.

Answer that and ill walk away

Mountainsandh

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..

Just watch season 2, and maybe if you really want to take a skeptical stance, have a little notebook beside you.

Every time a scientific experiment or an expert refutes some piece of evidence, note on the side what it is and whether you can counter-argue on their conclusions.

For example, you could start with the fact that there was no other DNA than SA's on the key that TH was supposed to have used earlier in the afternoon to come along in her Rav4.

I guess you could maybe argue that she had disposable sterile gloves, and she only ever handled her Rav4 key with them. Maybe she had OCD or something. That could be argued, maybe that's the sort of arguments the prosecution would like to present in a counter-program on Netflix. Maybe you could argue that SA wiped the key clean with a solution for some reason. (and then rubbed it under his armpits) (sorry, sarcasm taking hold here, wipe this off the record your honour)

Or that she was a non-shedder, like the DNA woman in court (the one who contaminated the samples) argued. This shedder/non-shedder theory dates back from previous decades (and has been rubbished since), whether it applies to someone who would handle a key daily is a different matter, but yeah, that would maybe allow for space to be skeptical.

retro:electro

Commanchie wrote: »

But there was evidence planting. Tell me this and ill leave it be.

In season 1 on the initial arrest why when Calumet who were searching didnt find the key in the trailer and it didnt show in crime scene photos.

BUT THEN Colbourn who was ordered off the case went to the trailer NOT to search but found it at side of a locker which had been photographed.

Why did Calumet officers not find it or was it not visible in CSI photos that clearly show spot it was found.

Answer that and ill walk away

Something something sheep..

Open your eyes...

They have their men..

I haven’t watched it but I know more than you..

Mary had a little lamb..

Commanchie

retro:electro wrote: »

Something something sheep..

Open your eyes...

They have their men..

I haven’t watched it but I know more than you..

Mary had a little lamb..

You havent watched it but you know more then me hahahaha

RocketRaccoon

retro:electro wrote: »

Something something sheep..

Open your eyes...

They have their men..

I haven’t watched it but I know more than you..

Mary had a little lamb..

Its uncanny to how Walshb sounds right now.

Commanchie

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Its uncanny to how Walshb sounds right now.

Hahaha ive never in my life met 2 more closed minded fools.

retro:electro

Commanchie wrote: »

Hahaha ive never in my life met 2 more closed minded fools.

Eh.. I was being sarcastic..

enfant terrible

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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

That's great now that they are established facts he should be out in no time.

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.

Or Avery Put her in the pit did you ever consider that?

Where was he anyway while this body was been planted and burned for hours? did the series show him praying in church at this exact time?

Commanchie

retro:electro wrote: »

Eh.. I was being sarcastic..

Sorry i thought that was WalshB replying.

retro:electro

Commanchie wrote: »

Sorry i thought that was WalshB replying.

Yeah that’s the angle I was going for :pac:

Commanchie

enfant terrible wrote: »

That's great now that they are established facts he should be out in no time.



Or Avery Put her in the pit did you ever consider that?

Where was he anyway while this body was been planted and burned for hours? did the series show him praying in church at this exact time?

The issue is nobody can match the same time. Bobbys lied whole way through his statement.

2 men got 8 months in prison here for lying in the brian rattigan murder trial. Why didnt they follow it up with Bobby?

enfant terrible

Mountainsandh wrote: »

J
Every time a scientific experiment or an expert refutes some piece of evidence, note on the side what it is and whether you can counter-argue on their conclusions.

For example, you could start with the fact that there was no other DNA than SA's on the key that TH was supposed to have used earlier in the afternoon to come along in her Rav4.

I guess you could maybe argue that she had disposable sterile gloves, and she only ever handled her Rav4 key with them. Maybe she had OCD or something. That could be argued, maybe that's the sort of arguments the prosecution would like to present in a counter-program on Netflix. Maybe you could argue that SA wiped the key clean with a solution for some reason. (and then rubbed it under his armpits) (sorry, sarcasm taking hold here, wipe this off the record your honour)

Or that she was a non-shedder, like the DNA woman in court (the one who contaminated the samples) argued. This shedder/non-shedder theory dates back from previous decades (and has been rubbished since), whether it applies to someone who would handle a key daily is a different matter, but yeah, that would maybe allow for space to be skeptical.

Good job you just shot down the ridiculous no DNA on the key before I had too.

And just so you know, you can pay "experts" to make any argument you want or come up with stupid experiments to try make Avery look innocent.

Like how they made a dummy to to show how TH's blood wouldn't have made the pattern inside the back door that was found. So stupid, they have to idea how the body was moved or thrown around, yet this is supposed to throw doubt on prosecution.

Blood spatter expert says "selective blood deposition". Is it possible Avery cleaned the obvious places he might have touched but missed the less obvious ones, i know crazy thought.

Nick Curran the best one, placing blood on finger and seeing if he got blood on dashboard, I won't even comment on that experiment

Mountainsandh

enfant terrible wrote: »

Good job you just shot down the ridiculous no DNA on the key before I had too.

And just so you know, you can pay "experts" to make any argument you want or come up with stupid experiments to try make Avery look innocent.

Like how they made a dummy to to show how TH's blood wouldn't have made the pattern inside the back door that was found. So stupid, they have to idea how the body was moved or thrown around, yet this is supposed to throw doubt on prosecution.

Blood spatter expert says "selective blood deposition". Is it possible Avery cleaned the obvious places he might have touched but missed the less obvious ones, i know crazy thought.

Nick Curran the best one, placing blood on finger and seeing if he got blood on dashboard, I won't even comment on that experiment

See the problem here is that all the above, including my own skeptical suggestions need to be addressed for there to be no reasonable doubt.

qED.

enfant terrible

Mountainsandh wrote: »

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.

And why do you not suspect Avery? its his fire pit.

Where do you think he was while Elizabeth was been murdered, transported and put into his fire pit?

retro:electro

enfant terrible wrote: »

And why do you not suspect Avery? its his fire pit.

Where do you think he was while Elizabeth was been murdered, transported and put into his fire pit?

Who’s Elizabeth?

Commanchie

enfant terrible wrote: »

And why do you not suspect Avery? its his fire pit.

Where do you think he was while Elizabeth was been murdered, transported and put into his fire pit?

In custody. His pit was searched nothing was found he wss then in custody and 5 days later bone fragment is found.

Any reason it wasnt first time?

RocketRaccoon

Commanchie wrote: »

In custody. His pit was searched nothing was found he wss then in custody and 5 days later bone fragment is found.

Any reason it wasnt first time?

Same reason the key wasn't found the first time despite that exact position being searched and photographed?

Commanchie

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Same reason the key wasn't found the first time despite that exact position being searched and photographed?

Ahhh dont spoil it RR flip sakes

RocketRaccoon

Commanchie wrote: »

Ahhh dont spoil it RR flip sakes

I would love to see those 2 posters explain the appearance of Teresas car key in that exact spot. What was the official story again? It fell out from behind a locker?

Commanchie

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I would love to see those 2 posters explain the appearance of Teresas car key in that exact spot. What was the official story again? It fell out from behind a locker?

Yes or was in a shoe and stumbled out while Colbourn was standing supporting another agebt who was stood down from the case. Absolute tripe he should of been destroyed in the box. But hey why would he do that he was onky thr same man 21 years previous to this who filed the rape charges against SA.

bazermc

Jeeze I cant keep up with this thread. I’m out!

Although I was thinking if Dassey accepted the plea bargain he be out in a couple of years. 2 or 3 by my calculation.

enfant terrible

Commanchie wrote: »

In custody. His pit was searched nothing was found he wss then in custody and 5 days later bone fragment is found.

Any reason it wasnt first time?

That's handy he was in custody the day she was murdered, again he should be released soon.

I thought he was the one who used a false name to sell his mother's car which she didn't want to sell, just to get Elisabeth up there.

Was the last person to see her alive, lied constantly when questioned.

Anyone got a list of all the lies Avery told the police and his changing story, would be funny to see.

On meeting Elisabeth I found
I met her at the van to pay her while she was taking the pics (Marinette LE).

I watched her through the wondow and never spoke to her (to AC).

I took her to taken pics of a couple of cars behind the office garage (to DB).

She never showed up (his brother and RF).

I met her half way between my house and the van (2017).

Didn't he also lie about not starting any fires the week she went missing, but they had to concede lighting one on 31st?

Must be hundreds more anyone got a list?

retro:electro

Her name isn’t Elizabeth.

Uncharted

enfant terrible wrote: »

That's handy he was in custody the day she was murdered, again he should be released soon.

I thought he was the one who used a false name to sell his mother's car which she didn't want to sell, just to get Elisabeth up there.

Was the last person to see her alive, lied constantly when questioned.

Anyone got a list of all the lies Avery told the police and his changing story, would be funny to see.

On meeting Elisabeth I found
I met her at the van to pay her while she was taking the pics (Marinette LE).

I watched her through the wondow and never spoke to her (to AC).

I took her to taken pics of a couple of cars behind the office garage (to DB).

She never showed up (his brother and RF).

I met her half way between my house and the van (2017).

Didn't he also lie about not starting any fires the week she went missing, but they had to concede lighting one on 31st?

Must be hundreds more anyone got a list?

Who's Elizabeth??

enfant terrible

Commanchie wrote: »

Yes or was in a shoe and stumbled out while Colbourn was standing supporting another agebt who was stood down from the case. Absolute tripe he should of been destroyed in the box. But hey why would he do that he was onky thr same man 21 years previous to this who filed the rape charges against SA.

What's hilarious is you find that unbelievable.

Yet buy into a outlandish conspiracy of bones been planted in a fire pit, DNA been planted around a car, planted key with Avery DNA attached.

What is your crazy conspiracy anyway?

Commanchie

enfant terrible wrote: »

That's handy he was in custody the day she was murdered, again he should be released soon.

I thought he was the one who used a false name to sell his mother's car which she didn't want to sell, just to get Elisabeth up there.

Was the last person to see her alive, lied constantly when questioned.

Anyone got a list of all the lies Avery told the police and his changing story, would be funny to see.

On meeting Elisabeth I found
I met her at the van to pay her while she was taking the pics (Marinette LE).

I watched her through the wondow and never spoke to her (to AC).

I took her to taken pics of a couple of cars behind the office garage (to DB).

She never showed up (his brother and RF).

I met her half way between my house and the van (2017).

Didn't he also lie about not starting any fires the week she went missing, but they had to concede lighting one on 31st?

Must be hundreds more anyone got a list?

False name he used barb Janda? Barb is his sister she owned the car. Usually thats how you sell a car

enfant terrible

retro:electro wrote: »

Her name isn’t Elizabeth.

Uncharted wrote: »

Who's Elizabeth??

Sorry Teresa

Pelvis

Guys they're defo guilty, sure yer man brendan admitted it. I know people have had confessions coerced, but err, he admitted it. He admitted to all these details that have zero evidence to support his story, but he admitted it.

The jury saw all the evidence but they didn't see ALL the evidence, they're definitely guilty.

I've only seen half the show but I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong, you're still idiots who don't know things, except twice what I know because I've only seen half the show. But that doesn't matter because I'm right and they're guilty.

Am I doing this right?

retro:electro

enfant terrible wrote: »

What's hilarious is you find that unbelievable.

Yet buy into a outlandish conspiracy of bones been planted in a fire pit, DNA been planted around a car, planted key with Avery DNA attached.

What is your crazy conspiracy anyway?

Yep Kathleen’s theory is a little out there, that’s for sure. But when you remind yourself that these are the same force who not only spoon fed a mentally stunted teen a fabricated turn of events, but also prevented a coroner from doing her job (and those are facts) well, can’t anything be possible?
You’re acting like corruption and state interference is implausible. It happens.
Can you explain why Steven’s fingerprints are nowhere to be found either in the car or on the key?

enfant terrible

Commanchie wrote: »

False name he used barb Janda? Barb is his sister she owned the car. Usually thats how you sell a car

He had already sold five cars and couldn't sell anymore without getting a licence.

Barb when interviewed said she didn't even want to sell the car but he did it anyway and specifically asked for Teresa, I wonder why?

At 8:12 a.m. on Oct. 31, the day Halbach was killed, Kratz says Avery called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send "that same girl who was here last time."

He also rang using *67 to hide his number, his phone records show he only did this with Teresa number, no other numbers.

"Phone records show three calls from Avery to Teresa's cell phone on Oct. 31," says Kratz. "One at 2:24 [p.m.], and one at 2:35 – both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn't know it him...both placed before she arrives.

The first two calls, one lasting only seven seconds and the other apparently hung up before it was answered, were placed around 2:30 p.m. used the blocking feature."

"Then one last call at 4:35 p.m., without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up…so tries to establish the alibi call after she's already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn't need the *67 feature for that last call."]

The phone is no longer showing up on the network after 2:41.

enfant terrible

Pelvis wrote: »

Guys they're defo guilty, sure yer man brendan admitted it. I know people have had confessions coerced, but err, he admitted it. He admitted to all these details that have zero evidence to support his story, but he admitted it.

The jury saw all the evidence but they didn't see ALL the evidence, they're definitely guilty.

I've only seen half the show but I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong, you're still idiots who don't know things, except twice what I know because I've only seen half the show. But that doesn't matter because I'm right and they're guilty.

Am I doing this right?

No man your crazy they're deffo totally innocent the Netflix show full of very competent experts said so, and they lady did experiments and everything, free Steven Avery.

Commanchie

enfant terrible wrote: »

He had already sold five cars and couldn't sell anymore without getting a licence.

Barb when interviewed said she didn't even want to sell the car but he did it anyway and specifically asked for Teresa, I wonder why?

At 8:12 a.m. on Oct. 31, the day Halbach was killed, Kratz says Avery called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send "that same girl who was here last time."

He also rang using *67 to hide his number, his phone records show he only did this with Teresa number, no other numbers.

"Phone records show three calls from Avery to Teresa's cell phone on Oct. 31," says Kratz. "One at 2:24 [p.m.], and one at 2:35 – both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn't know it him...both placed before she arrives.

The first two calls, one lasting only seven seconds and the other apparently hung up before it was answered, were placed around 2:30 p.m. used the blocking feature."

"Then one last call at 4:35 p.m., without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up…so tries to establish the alibi call after she's already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn't need the *67 feature for that last call."]

The phone is no longer showing up on the network after 2:41.

Yet when asked to produce the phone records they werent produced and struxk from transcripts

Tipsy McSwagger

Avery reminded me of Ian Huntley when he was talking to the news crew on the day Theresa went missing. From the first question he refers to her in the past tense ‘she used to come round here’. She was only missing a few hours and Avery admits she was on his land and then left, but somehow he refers to her in the past tense. Hold on Steven nobody is saying she’s dead she’s just missing.

marklazarcovic

walshb wrote: »

Yes. Watched season 1.....

And was amazed at how OTT biased and selective it was...

Decided to reason it out objectively and without bias...anyone who thinks that these men are innocent based off a one sided show.....silly beyond silly!

How could you possibly know how OTT biased and selective it was as you were watching it? That makes zero sense, you couldn't have known that just watching it unfold, you made your mind up afterwards , something made it change?

Mountainsandh

enfant terrible wrote: »

And why do you not suspect Avery? its his fire pit.

Where do you think he was while Elizabeth was been murdered, transported and put into his fire pit?

Oh I suspect Avery. And I also consider the opinion of experts who reckon the bones were moved, and I also take into account the fact that bones were located in the quarry right beside SA's premises.

There is strong support for these bones being cremated in a barrel rather than in an open air pit. They simply had reached a level of cremation that would be very difficult to achieve without a tank of fuel beside you, in the open air.

The barrel in which bones were found (just a few) had been searched a first time, and nothing had been found that first time. It was days later, after another search, that bones were found.
There was only one tooth found in the fire pit.
There was no goo, no residue typical of a human body being burned.

Avery stayed at home that evening, there were calls from the girl friend in prison coming in.

There was no need for anyone to put the body anywhere that very evening, as she was not even officially missing yet.

retro:electro

enfant terrible wrote: »

No man your crazy they're deffo totally innocent the Netflix show full of very competent experts said so, and they lady did experiments and everything, free Steven Avery.

You’re in no position to be making jokes when you can’t even get the name of the deceased right

Commanchie

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re in no position to be making jokes when you can’t even get the name of the deceased right

Go away you sheep

walshb

marklazarcovic wrote: »

How could you possibly know how OTT biased and selective it was as you were watching it? That makes zero sense, you couldn't have known that just watching it unfold, you made your mind up afterwards , something made it change?

Who said I knew it was so biased as I was watching it?

I watched season 1 and read up on the case. The show is very biased from a defense/acquittal point of view.

Tipsy McSwagger

Uncharted wrote: »

Ok. Iv given you 4 separate occasions of the benefit of the doubt. Iv encouraged you to actually watch the show that you are speculating on.
It beggars belief that you could be so aggressively and doggedly ignorant whilst admittedly not having seen the evidence.

I can assure you that anyone with a modicum of a brain cell would have their eyes opened by series 2.
I'm certain your eyes will remain closed.

Please go troll somewhere else,you are boring and obviously have zero interest in the case.

Troll? Someone has a different opinion than you and you resort to calling them a troll. There seems to be a gang mentality in this thread where you turn on someone, call them names and then all jerk each other off.

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Troll? Someone has a different opinion than you and you resort to calling them a troll. There seems to be a gang mentality in this thread where you turn on someone, call them names and then all jerk each other off.

Jerk each other off? Are we pretending we are from America now with terminology.

enfant terrible

Mountainsandh wrote: »

There is strong support for these bones being cremated in a barrel rather than in an open air pit. They simply had reached a level of cremation that would be very difficult to achieve without a tank of fuel beside you, in the open air.

The barrel in which bones were found (just a few) had been searched a first time, and nothing had been found that first time. It was days later, after another search, that bones were found.
There was only one tooth found in the fire pit.
There was no goo, no residue typical of a human body being burned.

Why couldn't it be done open air?

Who says there was no goo?

enfant terrible

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re in no position to be making jokes when you can’t even get the name of the deceased right

Yes its me who is been disrespectful to the deceased, not the people who think her rapist and murdered is innocent and are defending him.

Tipsy McSwagger

Commanchie wrote: »

Jerk each other off? Are we pretending we are from America now with terminology.

A lot of ye have anger issues like Avery

enfant terrible

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

A lot of ye have anger issues like Avery

Avery is a good guy, did you not hear the nice music they played when he was talking.

Ignore all this too
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Avery-Activity-Log_Manitowoc.pdf

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

A lot of ye have anger issues like Avery

Hahah what how am I angry? I asked why your saying we **** each other off

Mountainsandh

enfant terrible wrote: »

Why couldn't it be done open air?

Who says there was no goo?

How about you watch season 2 to get all these fascinating answers ?

Tipsy McSwagger

enfant terrible wrote: »

Avery is a good guy, did you not hear the nice music they played when he was talking.

Ignore all this too
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Avery-Activity-Log_Manitowoc.pdf

Jesus even if you think the guy is innocent he still took part in setting a cat on fire for Christ’s sake.

RocketRaccoon

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Jesus even if you think the guy is innocent he still took part in setting a cat on fire for Christ’s sake.

Has anyone in this thread said he is a good guy? By all accounts he seems like an awful **** tbh but I strongly believe he is innocent of this crime.