Conviction Against Brendan Dassey of ‘Making a Murderer’ Is Overturned

[65fastback2plus2]

We have become conditioned to expect twists and turns and often discard real evidence in the hopes of having the case explained step by step like CSI.....so many people are willing to believe the killer is Bobby Dassey or Scott the stepfather or even Teresa's brother because they were introduced early on like murder movies do..... all the evidence only points to Steve Avery and Brendan Dassey and they are the ones in jail...

I fully disagree with this part. Scott and Bobby dont really appear much until near the end during Bobby's case.

That being said, their timeline and alibi was proven wrong. A coworker admitted Scott tried to sell him a .22 just after the murder. Coworkers admitted Scott seemed abnormally high tensioned.

Scott didnt like Steven.

Scott had access to every same thing Steven did.

In 1994, Scott is charged with criminal trespass and battery as he broke into a woman's home and told her he was going to kill her, and the man she was with went to confront him and Scott knocked him out.

In 2001, Scott has a restraining order placed against him for stalking.

In 2002, Scott is arrested for assault.

Scott had the violent history, the stalking and assaulting women history, had access to the entire place, his alibi didnt check out, he tried to sell the murder weapon....the list goes on and on and on.

The evidence points way more to Scott than it does Steven.

 

[Tabascocat]

Throwing a cat over a fire isnt torturing animals, for one. People do all kinds of stuff with alcohol next to a fire. Theres videos online of people shooting themselves in the shoulder and a whole host of other stupid stuff.

What?? That is the definition of animal torture.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

What?? That is the definition of animal torture.

There is a difference in say, holding a torch to an animal...versus throwing it OVER a fire.

"Hey, I bet I can throw that cat over the fire and it wont get hurt"...or some stupid dare.

 

[Tabascocat]

There is a difference in say, holding a torch to an animal...versus throwing it OVER a fire.

"Hey, I bet I can throw that cat over the fire and it wont get hurt"...or some stupid dare.

Bit of a difference of saying you could throw over a fire versus dousing it in gasoline and throwing it over/in(intent to light it up) to watch it burn on purpose. It has been awhile since I watched this but if I remember correctly, they were not trying to throw it "over" the fire.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Bit of a difference of saying you could throw over a fire versus dousing it in gasoline and throwing it over/in(intent to light it up) to watch it burn on purpose. It has been awhile since I watched this but if I remember correctly, they were not trying to throw it "over" the fire.

I'm going off of this

"According to footage in the Netflix series, in 1982, he pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after he threw his family's cat over a bonfire, causing it to ignite."

Another interesting thing, since we're on the topic of his history.

Every bad thing he did and was charged for, he owned up to.

Every bad thing he was accused of doing but didnt, he denied.

Oddly, he has a 100% record on owning up to what he did or didnt do.

 

[Tabascocat]

I'm going off of this

"According to footage in the Netflix series, in 1982, he pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after he threw his family's cat over a bonfire, causing it to ignite."

Another interesting thing, since we're on the topic of his history.

Every bad thing he did and was charged for, he owned up to.

Every bad thing he was accused of doing but didnt, he denied.

Oddly, he has a 100% record on owning up to what he did or didnt do.

There is more to it, the cat was for sure doused in gas or oil. He was the family pet too, not some stray. Someone threw it at the fire intending to do harm but it is questionable as to who actually threw it. Some say Steven wasn't the instigator but took the rap.....who knows really.

 

[Nightman]

I'm going off of this

"According to footage in the Netflix series, in 1982, he pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after he threw his family's cat over a bonfire, causing it to ignite."

Another interesting thing, since we're on the topic of his history.

Every bad thing he did and was charged for, he owned up to.

Every bad thing he was accused of doing but didnt, he denied.

Oddly, he has a 100% record on owning up to what he did or didnt do.

I get it......nothing Avery did is bad.....you are either him or in his fan club...dousing a cat in gas and setting it on fire is for sociopaths.....I'm glad you don't make the laws......run a woman off the road and threaten to kill her with rifle is OK because she spread a rumor......psycho

You can respond and get the last word but I am done wasting time on you

 

[65fastback2plus2]

I get it......nothing Avery did is bad.....you are either him or in his fan club...dousing a cat in gas and setting it on fire is for sociopaths.....I'm glad you don't make the laws......run a woman off the road and threaten to kill her with rifle is OK because she spread a rumor......psycho

You can respond and get the last word but I am done wasting time on you

Good. Tired of explaining to you how he owned up to the bad things he actually did and admitted he made stupid mistakes.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

There is more to it, the cat was for sure doused in gas or oil. He was the family pet too, not some stray. Someone threw it at the fire intending to do harm but it is questionable as to who actually threw it. Some say Steven wasn't the instigator but took the rap.....who knows really.

Yup...no one is really going to know with that one.

You have multiple people and a cat on fire. Not like theres evidence to be had who doused, grabbed, threw, etc. the cat.

 

[Tabascocat]

Yup...no one is really going to know with that one.

You have multiple people and a cat on fire. Not like theres evidence to be had who doused, grabbed, threw, etc. the cat.

Whatever happened, it is still animal cruelty and anyone involved should have been charged.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Whatever happened, it is still animal cruelty and anyone involved should have been charged.

I dont disagree with that, and he was and even admitted he was around the wrong people and screwed up. He never denied it.

But also, esp country raised kids, have done stupid stuff to an animal. I know several. My point was, that doesnt automatically make you a psycho.

 

[Nightman]

Good. Tired of explaining to you how he owned up to the bad things he actually did and admitted he made stupid mistakes.

he owned everything he got caught for.....except rape and murder and beating Jodi and abusing Brendan and his cousin and everything else they don't tell you in the fan club newsletter...what a hero

 

[MichaelWinicki]

he owned everything he got caught for.....except rape and murder and beating Jodi and abusing Brendan and his cousin and everything else they don't tell you in the fan club newsletter...what a hero

That's exactly right.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

he owned everything he got caught for.....except rape and murder and beating Jodi and abusing Brendan and his cousin and everything else they don't tell you in the fan club newsletter...what a hero

And on top of everything you have the phone records and someone using Steve Avery's phone to try calling her with a *67 to avoid being identified on the afternoon of her disappearance.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Lol, smh.

First-off, the cat was drenched in gasoline and thrown into the fire. Whether you want to argue he was throwing it "over" the fire is irrelevant. Beyond that, you have to check-in your brain if you're really that naive to believe someone would bother to drench a cat in gasoline to just throw it over and away from a flame. Nope. The cat was drenched in gasoline knowing that thing would ignite in (or over) a flame, which it did.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Lol, smh.

First-off, the cat was drenched in gasoline and thrown into the fire. Whether you want to argue he was throwing it "over" the fire is irrelevant. Beyond that, you have to check-in your brain if you're really that naive to believe someone would bother to drench a cat in gasoline to just throw it over and away from a flame. Nope. The cat was drenched in gasoline knowing that thing would ignite in (or over) a flame, which it did.

I'd let Avery swing just for that.

 

[Sarge]

What?? That is the definition of animal torture.

Absolutely. It's scary, quite frankly that he DOESNT think it is.

 

[Dodger12]

Then the DA/LE should be charged with obstruction of justice. Did that happen? Figuring with time served for the intentional frame job by LE/DA, the massive lawsuit they would have to pay (the payout was determined to not come down on the county; instead solely on the cops, Sheriff, and DA and why the timing is so fishy = they'd all go broke) after being found guilty of framing him/destroying evidence to clear him purposefully for the prior rape to the tune of 18yrs in the joint; 7 more years to his sentence is fair even if guilty.

You reap what you sow Wisc LE/DA.

Lawyers don't take these civil cases to make a point or be good Samaritans. They do it for the money and the way to get money is through the insurance. The DA and LE would be covered and I'd like to see something that reports they're not. Lawyers know that even if they win these types of cases they'd never get a return on their "investment" unless the person being sued is a multi-millionaire. The cops/DA would file for bankruptcy and the odds of the lawyers or Avery seeing a dime would be slim.

And folks bring up the earlier case and blame the police. They had a victim who wrongfully identified Avery as her assailant. The police/DA have little choice but to proceed with the case. The alternative, which is to basically disregard the victim of a heinous crime, is not a good one. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[BigStar]

Lawyers don't take these civil cases to make a point or be good Samaritans. They do it for the money and the way to get money is through the insurance. The DA and LE would be covered and I'd like to see something that reports they're not. Lawyers know that even if they win these types of cases they'd never get a return on their "investment" unless the person being sued is a multi-millionaire. The cops/DA would file for bankruptcy and the odds of the lawyers or Avery seeing a dime would be slim.

And folks bring up the earlier case and blame the police. They had a victim who wrongfully identified Avery as her assailant. The police/DA have little choice but to proceed with the case. The alternative, which is to basically disregard the victim of a heinous crime, is not a good one. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't doubt the intention of the lawyers defending Avery in the suit as it was more of a statement of the wrongdoing than anything; pro bono gets your name out too, etc. You're correct that they really wouldn't benefit from winning unless insurance was involved bc it would come from only a handful of the wrongdoers, etc. If Avery won, they would have seen money from the insurance covering the LE/DA of the county. Maybe the show had that wrong because they stressed that element specifically; liability?

The false identification was also found to be improperly conducted as she was exposed to his picture before the line-up and by the female officer mentioning his name "sounds like Avery" in front of the witness via her testimony after the state investigation was conducted. Really what was damning and proved the initial claim was their efforts to hide the information regarding the suspect who confessed to her rape years before Avery's initial release. They were contacted, and they hid this confession via omission/destroying evidence. The officer acknowledged this to investigators that he reported it up the chain but nothing was done.

 

[Dodger12]

I don't doubt the intention of the lawyers defending Avery in the suit as it was more of a statement of the wrongdoing than anything; pro bono gets your name out too, etc. You're correct that they really wouldn't benefit from winning unless insurance was involved bc it would come from only a handful of the wrongdoers, etc. If Avery won, they would have seen money from the insurance covering the LE/DA of the county. Maybe the show had that wrong because they stressed that element specifically; liability?

The false identification was also found to be improperly conducted as she was exposed to his picture before the line-up and by the female officer mentioning his name "sounds like Avery" in front of the witness via her testimony after the state investigation was conducted. Really what was damning and proved the initial claim was their efforts to hide the information regarding the suspect who confessed to her rape years before Avery's initial release. They were contacted, and they hid this confession via omission/destroying evidence. The officer acknowledged this to investigators that he reported it up the chain but nothing was done.

There's a difference between omission and destroying evidence. They thought they had their man. The police can't go and investigate every "tip" when they have an eye-witness and the defendant was convicted in a jury trial. The police did their job. The jury did their job. The judge did his/her job. The witness/victim was wrong, not the police. I am very supportive of organizations such as the Innocence Project. What's ironic is that DNA was used to exonerate Avery and now that DNA was used to convict him, the excuse is that it was planted. Whatever.

Also, where did you get those details from his rape trial that I bolded?