Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

timthumbni

Having watched this 10 part documentary on Netflix regarding the trial of Steven Avery in some hick state (Wisconsin) in America I'm interested in other boardsies thoughts on the case/outcome.

I really don't know what to think. If I was on that jury after a local girl was murdered would I have also found him guilty?? Possibly...

His nephews interrogations were very hard to watch. Painful. His legal advisor/solicitor Len kazinsky was dodgy as feck. He appeared to me to be like a character from Fargo.

In summary I am not sure if Avery is innocent. But equally I'm not sure he is guilty. And considering that the law is supposed to presume innocent until proven guilty then should Avery be in jail?

Mr.Crinklewood

Best put up a poll for this.

Two choices :-

1) Guilty

2) Not innocent.

* Poll provided by Manitowoc County Police.

manster

For the sake of the man's sanity alone, I sincerely hope he is guilty.

SEPT 23 1989

He was guilty the other bloke was innocent

timthumbni

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Best put up a poll for this.

Two choices :-

1) Guilty

2) Not innocent.

* Poll provided by Manitowoc County Police.

Like the humour. But seriously I'm amazed by this case. I actually resorted to googling it half way through as thought it wasn't real. That Len kazinsky fella just seemed too fake to me. It was weird. Very weird.

I feel very sorry for that Brendan fella (the nephew). You just knew whenever the cop asked him if he had any weapons on his person and he replied"well I have got a cd" that he was going to be stitched up like a kipper.

Drumpot

There was more then enough evidence to suggest he was a top suspect but the prosecutions story of events wasn't remotely plausible.

There was also enough reasonable doubt to not convict. It looks like most jurors were actually in the innocent camp before three of them changed everybody else's minds.

There was so much wrong with the way this case was conducted and ultimately concluded that Avery and the widowed family deserve another day in court.

Was he guilty? He most definitely was not guilty of murdering Theresa the way the prosecution framed it. But I don't for sure know if he wasn't involved in some way.

At a guess I think he had so much to gain by not committing a crime so his motive to get in trouble couldn't of been lower. I'd be more interested to see a harder look at brother , boyfriend and other Avery family members.

John_D80

Documentary was the most lopsided and biased piece I have ever seen. When you look at all the evidence that was left out of the doc, it's obvious they are both guilty as well.

Avery is one sick puppy.

timthumbni

Drumpot wrote: »

There was more then enough evidence to suggest he was a top suspect but the prosecutions story of events wasn't remotely plausible.

There was also enough reasonable doubt to not convict. It looks like most jurors were actually in the innocent camp before three of them changed everybody else's minds.

There was so much wrong with the way this case was conducted and ultimately concluded that Avery and the widowed family deserve another day in court.

Was he guilty? He most definitely was not guilty of murdering Theresa the way the prosecution framed it. But I don't for sure know if he wasn't involved in some way.

At a guess I think he had so much to gain by not committing a crime so his motive to get in trouble couldn't of been lower. I'd be more interested to see a harder look at brother , boyfriend and other Avery family members.

Yeah the ex boyfriend was strange. He looked very like lance Armstrong and his behaviour seemed strange. In saying that the documentary was obviously slanted towards Avery being innocent so don't know how much you can read into it.

That investigator o'kelly on Brendan's defense team was ridiculous too. With supposed friends like that who needs enemies. That kazinsky fella should have been struck off the bar.

We won't know. He might be guilty, but we shouldn't base our assumptions on the documentary because 1) what you're seeing has been unbelievably heavily edited to purposefully push an agenda and 2) the makers have come out to admit that they left out a substantial amount of evidence from the finished series.

They did some absolutely horrible things and the prosecution was guilty of a lot, but he definitely deserves a fairer retrial.

it should be noted that even the highest levels of justice refused to hear his trial, despite everything being laid out, so there's obviously something going on there

John_D80

What do people think of the extra DNA evidence found in the car?? Or the fact that the bullet that killed her came from a gun owned by Avery.

Personally myself I thought it was weird that he specifically requested it was her that came out from the magazine to take the pics. Even more alarming was the fact that he gave his sister's name because he knew Teresa had told her magazine editor that Avery ''weirded her out'' the time he tried to expose himself to her.

And the rape-room stuff??

Guilty guilty guilty.

eviltwin

Watched the documentary and thought that he was innocent but having listened to shows where other information is available I think he did it.

Bacchus

The show most definitely tried to show Avery in the best possible light as the victim of police corruption and personal vendetta. Unfortunately, that's not the whole truth and once you realize the bias of the documentary, the credibility of everything they present comes into question. Through dramatic license they dangle massive moments in front of you to make you gasp at the scale of the conspiracy but then they never really back it up or follow through in a meaningful way.

For example, the blood tube. Apparently that hole is how you get the blood IN to the tube and the seal was broken from back in the original rape case. The show never digs into this though and after that "red letter day for the defense" statement on finding it, it barely features in the court case. A lot of Brendan's statements seem to have been edited for the show to emphasis that he was manipulated. There are other statements he gave though that match up perfectly with the evidence too, but the show skips over that inconvenient tidbit.

So, in the end I think the show has backfired on itself a bit. There are most certainly shades of gray here and some elements of planting evidence but the show has zero credibility and can't be taken at face value. IMO, I think he did it, and I think Brendan was a witness to the aftermath. How exactly he did it, I don't know and due to the inconsistency of Brendan's statements, we'll probably never know. That's on the investigators for pressuring a story that they thought was true.

The biggest question for me is where it happened. I don't believe it was in the house. Maybe the garage, maybe somewhere else. The lack of blood makes it the biggest mystery of the show.

As for the jury changing their mind. Well they had 20 hours to go over the evidence and clearly at the end, they felt the evidence pointed to Avery committing the murder. Remember too, these people saw and heard ALL of the evidence.

timthumbni

John_D80 wrote: »

What do people think of the extra DNA evidence found in the car?? Or the fact that the bullet that killed her came from a gun owned by Avery.

Personally myself I thought it was weird that he specifically requested it was her that came out from the magazine to take the pics. Even more alarming was the fact that he gave his sister's name because he knew Teresa had told her magazine editor that Avery ''weirded her out'' the time he tried to expose himself to her.

And the rape-room stuff??

Guilty guilty guilty.

What rape room stuff????

BMJD

innocent

eviltwin

Brendan is innocent imo and should not be in prison.

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

What do people think of the extra DNA evidence found in the car?? Or the fact that the bullet that killed her came from a gun owned by Avery.

planted.

Personally myself I thought it was weird that he specifically requested it was her that came out from the magazine to take the pics. Even more alarming was the fact that he gave his sister's name because he knew Teresa had told her magazine editor that Avery ''weirded her out'' the time he tried to expose himself to her.

That was hearsay. Not even in evidence at the trial.

And the rape-room stuff??

Irrelevant.

Guilty guilty guilty.

Innocent. X4

RiderOnTheStorm

Bacchus wrote: »

...The lack of blood makes it the biggest mystery of the show....

Me too. If she was killed in the bedroom there should blood all over the place. Same to with garage (they dug up the floor to look for blood in the cracks) and found nothing.

And that bullet 'found' in the garage, days after the first search, by the guys that framed him for the first crime? come on ...... they wanted him guilty.

I am 100% convinced there is more going on than we see ..... so many people have said that Avery is the most evil man they have ever seen, and the number of courts that wont re-opn or re-try the case is amazing.

He might well be a sick puppy from a poor-white-trash family, but I am sure he didnt kill that lady in the fashion we was convicted for.

timthumbni

eviltwin wrote: »

Brendan is innocent imo and should not be in prison.

I genuinely was shouting at the tv during his "interrogations" it was obvious that he was educationally well below par and that he would have admitted to murdering Lord Lucan on the surface of the moon if that's what the detectives wanted to hear.

The whole documentary paints small town American in a bad light. Full of inbreds and idiots... And that's just the sheriffs department.

John_D80

Eugene Norman wrote: »

planted.



That was hearsay. Not even in evidence at the trial.



Irrelevant.



Innocent. X4

How did they plant his sweat exactly?? The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

jimmytwotimes 2013

I think he is possibly guilty, however there is very much a 'reasonable doubt'. The initial position of the jury was not-guilty until the dominant jurors got their way, which shows the flaw of the jury system.

Brendan Dassey should not have stood trial as an adult as he is obviously of very low IQ. His initial legal representation was a disgrace as was the way he was coached to confess.

For those who say innocent people don't confess, Gerry Conlon

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

How did they plant his sweat exactly??

I don't know. They could have got some sweat of him in interrogation. They clearly planted lots of stuff.

The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

I don't think you know how the trial went on that evidence. You didn't see it.

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

So do I. I just said it was planted. Like the key. there was no other DNA evidence in that garage. As you know.

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Which isn't what you originally said. The bit about the towel wasn't in evidence. Also she could be mistaken as to how exactly called.

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

Nobody is doubting she was killed and was burned.

Senna

If you read all reports, interviews and statements, you would never think either of them are innocent.
But everyone watches a one sided documentary and believes what the documentary markers want you to believe.

timthumbni

Conspiracy theory notion I know but one of my Google returns on the case was about how a known serial killer was potentially filmed in the background at the courthouse.

My better half also commented that for someone who is never out of jail Avery seems to have a fair few chicks after him. Lol.

John_D80

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I don't know. They could have got some sweat of him in interrogation. They clearly planted lots of stuff.




I don't think you know how the trial went on that evidence. You didn't see it.



So do I. I just said it was planted. Like the key. there was no other DNA evidence in that garage. As you know.



Which isn't what you originally said. The bit about the towel wasn't in evidence. Also she could be mistaken as to how exactly called.



Nobody is doubting she was killed and was burned.

Lol every point you just made is pure speculation!!!! Sorry mate. Facts win every time.

One sided documentary blatantly and purposely left out damning and irrefutable evidence. People across the world would do better to argue the cause of genuinely innocent people than champion these two.

And painting Dassey's confessions to look coerced is the biggest piece of editing tomfoolery of all. Transcripts are freely available.

But of course they absolutely must be falsified too right??

RustyNut

jimmytwotimes 2013 wrote: »

I think he is possibly guilty, however there is very much a 'reasonable doubt'. The initial position of the jury was not-guilty until the dominant jurors got their way, which shows the flaw of the jury system.

Brendan Dassey should not have stood trial as an adult as he is obviously of very low IQ. His initial legal representation was a disgrace as was the way he was coached to confess.

For those who say innocent people don't confess, Gerry Conlon

The Innocence Project. Worth a read.

John_D80

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I don't know. They could have got some sweat of him in interrogation. They clearly planted lots of stuff.




I don't think you know how the trial went on that evidence. You didn't see it.



So do I. I just said it was planted. Like the key. there was no other DNA evidence in that garage. As you know.



Which isn't what you originally said. The bit about the towel wasn't in evidence. Also she could be mistaken as to how exactly called.



Nobody is doubting she was killed and was burned.

Lol every point you just made is pure speculation!!!! Sorry mate. Facts win every time.

One sided documentary blatantly and purposely left out damning and irrefutable evidence. People across the world would do better to argue the cause of genuinely innocent people than champion these two.

And painting Dassey's confessions to look coerced is the biggest piece of editing tomfoolery of all. Transcripts are freely available.

But of course they absolutely must be falsified too right??

Kev1nDonn

From what I saw in the documentary they were both framed. The defence really fecked up the 'key planting' - why didn't they make more of it?
That alone would have been enough for me to believe the cops were corrupt and hence find the accused innocent.
However, I do believe there is much more to come out of this case.

Rabo Karabekian

John_D80 wrote: »

One sided documentary blatantly and purposely left out damning and irrefutable evidence. People across the world would do better to argue the cause of genuinely innocent people than champion these two.

It might be helpful for those of us who are unaware of this 'damning and irrefutable evidence' that you could provide us with it?

As for the OP, the point is not whether Avery is guilty or innocent but whether there was enough reasonable doubt highlighted in the case. I think that that is absolutely the case.

dark crystal

I don't know if he was guilty or not, but what I do believe is that there was nowhere near enough evidence to convict him of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. There was lashings of reasonable doubt, imo.

I'd be almost 100% sure the car key was planted by Lenk, who should never have been allowed anywhere near the crime scene in the first place.

I also don't believe the murder happened the way the prosecution led Brendan to 'confess' it was. Not one shred of evidence pointed to Theresa having been in Avery's bedroom at all. No DNA evidence in the garage either. An army of professional cleaners would have been hard pressed to remove all traces of blood and bodily fluid from both locations, let alone two men, one of whom was an educationally challenged kid.

I don't know what happened to Theresa Halbeck, perhaps no one ever will, but both Avery and Dassey should never have been convicted on the strength (or lack thereof) of the prosecution's evidence. I'd go so far as to say Brendan Dassey's case should have been thrown out as soon as it emerged that his confession was not only largely coerced, but took place without his highly inept first lawyer in the room.

strandroad

I believe that he was wrongly convicted, but guilty.

He probably killed her in a much simpler way, most likely on the grounds of their property somewhere. The kid did witness something later, maybe the burning of the body or perhaps helped to hide the car.

The police and prosecution wanted to put him away so bad that they came up with an alternative story to anchor the murder in his house and set them up for it so they should answer for that and they should both be retried in another state. But he can still be guilty.

Classic Rock Man

The point of the documentary was to highlight the corruption and nepotism that happens within the justice system.
From the very first episode Steven Avery is painted as a very morally grey person, (throwing cats into bonfires wtf) with a violent record.

People tend to focus at this dramatized part and nobody seems to notice the underlying subtext of the justice system in place being extremely morally bankrupt. What other country in the world would coerce a mentally retarded child into confession and then put him behind bars? Watch the documentary again and listen to how the 'interrogation' went. 'What did they do to her head, Brendan?' 'Uhhhh..They cut her hair...' 'What else Brendan?' 'Uhhhhh...they took her teeth?...' 'Ok im just gonna outright say it, who shot her in the head?' 'Uhhh...Steven?'. The kid even asked if he's gonna be able to watch Wrestlemania after just confession to being an accessory to murder!

Brendan Dassey is no doubt innocent and the way he was treated by Manitowoc county is disgraceful.

Classic Rock Man

The point of the documentary was to highlight the corruption and nepotism that happens within the justice system.
From the very first episode Steven Avery is painted as a very morally grey person, (throwing cats into bonfires wtf) with a violent record.

People tend to focus at this dramatized part and nobody seems to notice the underlying subtext of the justice system in place being extremely morally bankrupt. What other country in the world would coerce a mentally retarded child into confession and then put him behind bars? Watch the documentary again and listen to how the 'interrogation' went. 'What did they do to her head, Brendan?' 'Uhhhh..They cut her hair...' 'What else Brendan?' 'Uhhhhh...they took her teeth?...' 'Ok im just gonna outright say it, who shot her in the head?' 'Uhhh...Steven?'. The kid even asked if he's gonna be able to watch Wrestlemania after just confession to being an accessory to murder!

Brendan Dassey is no doubt innocent and the way he was treated by Manitowoc county is disgraceful.

Banjo String

I watched it shortly before Christmas, I reckon he's innocent, the ineptness of the cops was damming in the documentary.

If you enjoyed that series, watch "the jinx" which is even better (imo)

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

Lol every point you just made is pure speculation!!!! Sorry mate. Facts win every time.

One sided documentary blatantly and purposely left out damning and irrefutable evidence. People across the world would do better to argue the cause of genuinely innocent people than champion these two.

And painting Dassey's confessions to look coerced is the biggest piece of editing tomfoolery of all. Transcripts are freely available.

But of course they absolutely must be falsified too right??

Nothing is speculation. The cops clearly planted evidence (like the key). Once you accept that then all the other stuff they find is suspect. Particularly the stuff found months after the initial searches.

Therefore they don't have the kind of DNA evidence you would expect in this case (lots of blood, or other DNA, in trailer or garage) but you do have a bullet found months later in an otherwise clean garage. And the sweat DNA on the car is no more convincing than the blood on the car.

John_D80

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

It might be helpful for those of us who are unaware of this 'damning and irrefutable evidence' that you could provide us with it?

As for the OP, the point is not whether Avery is guilty or innocent but whether there was enough reasonable doubt highlighted in the case. I think that that is absolutely the case.

Mate it's all out there in the public domain for anyone with a computer. Some of the evidence I cited already in my second and subsequent posts in this thread.

When I saw the doc first i was convinced along with the rest of the world that a grave miscarriage of justice had taken place. Within half an hour of further reading I was absolutely convinced of their guilt.

mikeym

Manitowoc county has robbed Brendan Dassey of his teenage years.

He had no legal representation or Legal Guardian when he was interviewed and the poor young lad would have confessed to 9/11 because he is intellectually disabled.

There is no physical evidence linking him to the scene of the crime and he shouldnt be in Prison.

And he has missed several Wrestlemania events since then.

John_D80

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Nothing is speculation. The cops clearly planted evidence (like the key). Once you accept that then all the other stuff they find is suspect. Particularly the stuff found months after the initial searches.

Therefore they don't have the kind of DNA evidence you would expect in this case (lots of blood, or other DNA, in trailer or garage) but you do have a bullet found months later in an otherwise clean garage. And the sweat DNA on the car is no more convincing than the blood on the car.

Eh right, cheers for that. Call me old fashioned but I'm sticking with the facts
.

Ray Palmer

John_D80 wrote: »

How did they plant his sweat exactly?? The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

The sweat has been stated by experts could have gotten there without any physical contact. It is also not actually identified as sweat but a likely source.

I have heard no such thing about the bullet being found that killed her. A bullet fragment was found in his garage with her DNA on it. There were multiple bullet fragment all over the property form his gun. If he shot her in the garage there should have been a lot of her blood. He would have had to have been an expert to clean up the blood so no traces were left behind.

The statement form her boss was not that he wanted to see her alone just he requested her.

Her personal belongings in the barrel is not really any more damning than the fact her body and car were on his property. It wasn't like it was difficult to get on the property.

Your claims really are a bit odd because they don't match with the details I have heard in and out of the documentary.

I don't know how anybody could watch the interviews with the nephew and take them as confessions or believe he actually knew anything. US interview techniques are notorious for their unreliability and I think the videos are a perfect illustration to how somebody can be manipulated

Rabo Karabekian

John_D80 wrote: »

Mate it's all out there in the public domain for anyone with a computer. Some of the evidence I cited already in my second and subsequent posts in this thread.

When I saw the doc first i was convinced along with the rest of the world that a grave miscarriage of justice had taken place. Within half an hour of further reading I was absolutely convinced of their guilt.

Yeah, I read your posts and don't find anything that would amount to irrefutable evidence that Avery is guilty. Hence my asking the question. Maybe you're referring to Kratz' recent comments on why Avery is guilty?

http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-steven-avery-9-reasons-guilty/

That's just a whole list of conjecture and in no way proves Avery's guilt.

I think a key to this is that you were so ready to believe the documentary makers and then as soon as you read something else, you were equally eager to believe that. The question isn't (or shouldn't be) whether Avery is guilty or innocent, but whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty. When you have a police department clearly involved in planting evidence, it seems that they don't even believe the proof is beyond all reasonable doubt.

And that's not even getting into the whole two burn sites, the lack of a sequential timeline that makes sense in the prosecution's case, the exemplary clean up job that Avery did in the bedroom and garage (but missing all those conveniently placed pieces of evidence), the constant changing of story from (I think) Avery's brother and Dassey's father, and probably a hell of a lot that I'm forgetting.

MadDog76

John_D80 wrote: »

How did they plant his sweat exactly?? The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

There is no such thing as "sweat" DNA, DNA is just DNA .......... there is no way of knowing how/where it was obtained or how/when it made it's way under the bonnet of Teresa Halbach's car.

John_D80 wrote: »

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

They conceded that the bullet "found" came from the same make & model rifle as that owned by Steven Avery and possibly from his actual rifle (the Avery's did a lot of shooting on their property) but they never conceded that the bullet actually killed Teresa.

John_D80 wrote: »

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Not entirely true ......... Steven asked for "the same girl who was here before", as she had done photographs for the entire Avery family in the past and he knew that the Avery property was in her territory work-wise.

He also didn't give a "false name" ........... he gave his Sister's name as it was his Sister's vehicle that was to photographed.
His Sister was selling her vehicle, she would be paying AutoTrader/Teresa Halbach for the photographs/advertisement ......... Steven was simply arranging the appointment.

John_D80 wrote: »

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

Proving what? That Teresa's body was burned and/or transported in the barrel?? Nobody is disputing that fact.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

Eh right, cheers for that. Call me old fashioned but I'm sticking with the facts
.

Try making a counter argument instead. I mean I did mention facts. There's no DNA evidence of the rape and murder in the trailer. There's no evidence of blood on the garage. There's obvious planting of evidence. Nothing I have read in the prosecutions rebuttals of the documentary changes anything.

John_D80

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I don't know how anybody could watch the interviews with the nephew and take them as confessions or believe he actually knew anything. US interview techniques are notorious for their unreliability and I think the videos are a perfect illustration to how somebody can be manipulated

Wait so you have seen the interviews? All of them. Or just the carefully edited parts that they used in the documentary? Myself personally I only read the transcripts but would love to see the interview tapes. Where did you see them?

eviltwin

If Steven is innocent, who do people think killed Theresa? How did they burn her body, in the Avery fire pit or elsewhere?

tomwaterford

Patww79 wrote: »

Guilty. Probably didn't go down as was 'proven' but I still reckon he did it. They just cemented the case with some tampering to make it stick better.

I've never seen this (don't have Netflix)...but no way should anyone anywhere be in jail if police tampered with evidence to make a case stick

John_D80

MadDog76 wrote: »

They conceded that the bullet "found" came from the same make & model rifle as that owned by Steven Avery and possibly from his actual rifle (the Avery's did a lot of shooting on their property) but they never conceded that the bullet actually killed Teresa.

Nope it was from his ACTUAL rifle. Not just the same make and model. It was from HIS rifle.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Proving what? That Teresa's body was burned and/or transported in the barrel?? Nobody is disputing that fact.

Eh pretty sure she was burned in the fire pit actually and not the barrell. The fire pit and barrell are both just a few yards from his back door.

John_D80

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Try making a counter argument instead.

Try stating facts rather than speculating :P :P :P :cool: :cool: :cool:

c montgomery

I would not have convicted him on the strength of the documentary, too much doubt.

After reading all of the evidence from the trial I hope he rots in jail. The film makers deliberately left out lots of incriminating evidence and the case would not be as controversial if all the facts were known.

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

Nope it was from his ACTUAL rifle. Not just the same make and model. It was from HIS rifle.

Nobody said it wasn't. The shell was found in his garage months after the investigation started. In a garage with no other DNA evidence of a shooting.
By the way this was definitely in the documentary. Did you stop after episode 6 and hit the Internet?

Eh pretty sure she was burned in the fire pit actually and not the barrell. The fire pit and barrell are both just a few yards from his back door.

You really haven't done that much research. the fire pit wouldn't have been hot enough.

Here's strang rebutting the rebuttals.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115

c montgomery

tomwaterford wrote: »

I've never seen this (don't have Netflix)...but no way should anyone anywhere be in jail if police tampered with evidence to make a case stick

Well done you.

Flint Fredstone

John_D80 wrote: »

How did they plant his sweat exactly?? The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

Did you see this yourself?