Making a Murderer

[DogFace]

I keep giving you links with more information and you keep choosing to ignore them. The facts presented by the show, by many accounts, are very one sided. I'm not swayed by documentaries that don't provide both sides and let me decide.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

Updated: Here's some additional damning evidence against both Avery and Dassey either not presented in the series, or not presented in its entirety.
-- The reporter from the doc who had all the great reaction shots, added this:

@winklmann @sportstao @mjguff Not sure about most glaring. But Teresa's camera and palm pilot were found in Avery's burn barrel.

— Angenette Levy (@Angenette5) December 28, 2015
-- In this phone conversation (transcript in link) with his mother (which is not entirely included in the docuseries), Brendan told his mother that he did it, that Steven made him do it, and that Steven had touched him (and others) inappropriately in the past.

Mom: What all happened, what are you talking about?
Brendan: About what Me & Steven did that day,
Mom: What about it?
Brendan: Well, Mike & Mark & Matt came up one day and took another interview with me and said because they think I was lying but so, they said if I come out with it that I would have to go to jail for 90 years.
Mom: What?
Brendan: Ya. But if came out with itT would probably get I dunno about like 20 or less. After the interview they told me if I wanted to say something to her family and said that I was sorry for what I did.
Mom: Then Steven did do it.
Brendan: Ya
Mom: (Mom Crying) Why diddn't you tell me about this?
Brendan. Ya, but they came out wi.th something that was untrue with me
Mom:. What's that?
Brendan: They said that I sold crack

...

Mom: So did you talk to her family?
Brendan: No
M: Huh
Brendan: They just asked me if I wanted to say something to them, on the tape.
Mom: Did you?
Brendan: .lust that I was sorry for what I did.

...

Mom: Did he make you do this?
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Then why didn't you tell him that.
Brendan: Tell him what
Mom: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
Brendan: Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
Mom: What do you mean touching you?
Brendan: He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.
Mom: Brendan I am your mother.
Brendan. Ya.
Mom: Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?
Brendan: What do you mean?
Mom: All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.
Brendan: Ya ..
Mom: Yes, and you would still be here with me.
Brendan: Yes, Well you know I did it.
Mom: Huh
Brendan. You know he always touched us and that.
Mom: I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
Brendan: Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.
Mom: What do you mean.
Brendan: Well he would like fake pumping him
Mom: Goofing around
Brendan: Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name Jessica .. sister. Mom: Teresa?
Brendan: Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.

-- There's no denying that it was unethical as hell for the investigator of Dassey's own attorney to elicit a confession out of Brendan, but the documentary suggests that the investigator peppered Brendan with leading questions and basically fed him the answers. From the full transcript, that is not the case at all. Brendan not only confessed, he gave a very detailed account of what happened. They had sex with Teresa on the bed, then they carried her out to the garage, where they cut her throat, and that's where Steven shot her five times with the .22 Brendan said he pulled from above his bed. Then they threw her in the fire. She begged for her life through the entire ordeal. Brendan even cut off some of her hair. Then they cleaned up with bleach and burned all the clothes in the bonfire.



If you want to argue about police misconduct I would listen and probably agree with some of it. If you want me to believe that police shot the body, moved it to the fire pit, started the fire and burned the body along with some of the victim's possessions as well as planting other evidence....I just think that's silly for various reasons but you obviously believe this and then you think I'm ignorant. That's priceless.

In addition, Avery's prior case and any police misconduct committed by the police doesn't mean that they did the same in the second case. But I can absolutely see how that could taint his second case. This, to many anyway, is the same across the board no matter the crime. Once an officer or prosecutor is found to have engaged in any misconduct in an investigation, that opens the door for their prior convictions to be challenged and either those defendants get a second trial or they are released if the State doesn't want to present their main witness who lacks credibility.

Do you believe a policeman has ever broke the law? J walking? Shop lifting? Murder? Hate to ruin your day but policeman have been convicted of these crimes.

I don't know if he's guilty. I KNOW wasn't proven even close to beyond a reasonable doubt. I gave you 5 specific items to explain. Can you explain any of them?

All these present reasonable doubt. There is some doubt in his defense. Some holes in it. But the defense doesn't have to prove their innocence. That would be impossible in most murder case without an alibi. They have to show a resonable doubt. Here's some doubt:

1. Her keys found on the 8th day of searching a tiny trailer by one of the cops who, for ethical reasons, was not supposed to be there and mysteriously didn't sign in and lied under oath about what time he arrived. Her keys had 0 of her own Dna on them despite being years old.

2. No blood was found in the trailer or the garage this bloody murder supposedly happened there.

3. The bullett was found several months after the initial investigation started, again, by one of the two super sleuths.

4. Most of the case was based on the testimony that was clearly coeherced. Enabled by a defense that interrogated their own witness themselves and provided a written confession. This if you didn't know is frowned upon.

5. His blood evidence from the previous false conviction was found in the evidence room and was clearly tampered with.

 

[DogFace]

This coming from the guy that thinks the police shot the body and moved it.

From the guy that thinks the badgered testimony of a kid a few IQ points above intellectually disabled is to be believed. Can't believe I'm really arguing with someone who hasn't even actually listened to it. The transcript doesn't show the inconsistency and stammering and back and forth to one story to another.

He didn't realize that if he did admit to helping that he couldn't go back to school that day or watch wrestle mania later.

Unfortunately Some people have so little empathy only experiencing a horror like this themselves would help them understand.

 

[Dodger12]

Do you believe a policeman has ever broke the law? J walking? Shop lifting? Murder? Hate to ruin your day but policeman have been convicted of these crimes.

I don't know if he's guilty. I KNOW wasn't proven even close to beyond a reasonable doubt. I gave you 5 specific items to explain. Can you explain any of them?

All these present reasonable doubt. There is some doubt in his defense. Some holes in it. But the defense doesn't have to prove their innocence. That would be impossible in most murder case without an alibi. They have to show a resonable doubt. Here's some doubt:

1. Her keys found on the 8th day of searching a tiny trailer by one of the cops who, for ethical reasons, was not supposed to be there and mysteriously didn't sign in and lied under oath about what time he arrived. Her keys had 0 of her own Dna on them despite being years old.

I don't find it odd that evidence wasn't found on Day 1. It's a murder investigation and sometimes evidence is uncovered that leads you back to the crime scene multiple times. And what's the point of of you pointing out that her keys didn't have her DNA on them? Are you trying to say they were not her keys or that the police tampered with that evidence as well by wiping away or removing her DNA from evidence that was helping their case? On the contrary. If the police did plant evidence int his case then why would they not plant evidence on the victim's key? If it makes no sense, it's probably because it's not true.

2. No blood was found in the trailer or the garage this bloody murder supposedly happened there.

Once again, you claim the police planted evidence in this case, including blood, yet they didn't plant any evidence in an area (trailer/garage) that would undoubtedly make their case fool proof. How couold that be? And Dassey claimed they cleaned out the garage with bleach and the police seized his bleach stained jeans. I will admit I'm no expert and I can't say that bleach would remove DNA from today's testing back back then maybe it would. In any case, I just find it odd that folks like you claim police tampering, planting and misconduct but you point to something that really helps your case (ie: no blood in the garage/trailer) and you still turn that into a positive point of your tampering theory.

3. The bullett was found several months after the initial investigation started, again, by one of the two super sleuths.

And the gun was seized in November which begs the question if the gun was seized then how could the bullet have been fired after the gun was seized?

4. Most of the case was based on the testimony that was clearly coeherced. Enabled by a defense that interrogated their own witness themselves and provided a written confession. This if you didn't know is frowned upon.

No, the case was based on far more than that and Dassey's statements were made to his defense investigator. While I think it proves to me that Avery was guilty as hell, I agree that there could/should be a question as to whether those statements should have been admissible. BUt even without those statements, there was plenty of other evidence that could well have convicted Avery.

5. His blood evidence from the previous false conviction was found in the evidence room and was clearly tampered with.

Yes, of course, back to the blood evidence that was tampered with but the police, who put together this grand conspiracy, didn't plant the blood evidence in places that would have been the most beneficial to their case. Do you know how stupid that sounds? And 2 other things; Avery's DNA found under the hood of the victims car was not blood based. How exactly would the police lift non-blood DNA and plant it? It makes no sense and if it doesn't make sense once again it's probably because it's not true. And second, the blood DNA was tested for EDTA to see if the blood stains came from stored blood (EDTA is contained in blood vials) and the result was negative. This test was done by the FBI who may very well be another co-conspirator in your world. I'm guessing the DA's office wanted the test for EDTA anticipating the defense's claim of tampered and planted evidence. So saying that the blood from his previous case was planted when there was no EDTA detected is completely falset.

 

[Dodger12]

From the guy that thinks the badgered testimony of a kid a few IQ points above intellectually disabled is to be believed. Can't believe I'm really arguing with someone who hasn't even actually listened to it. The transcript doesn't show the inconsistency and stammering and back and forth to one story to another.

He didn't realize that if he did admit to helping that he couldn't go back to school that day or watch wrestle mania later.

Unfortunately Some people have so little empathy only experiencing a horror like this themselves would help them understand.

I mentioned in my post that the nephew's interview should probably have not been admissible at the trial but I also feel that there was enough evidence without his statement. And while the nephew's testimony may not be completely reliable, it can certainly be used as a lead by police to look in areas they may have missed in an effort to corroborate evidence.

And you really don't know me or what I have experienced. I have seen the "system" hang someone near and dear to me who is sitting in prison for an absolute non-violent offense and will serve more time than drug dealers, rapists, aggravated assault, folks who commit gun crimes, etc. The sentence, which was imposed by a hanging judge, was mind boggling even to independent observers and there's really no recourse. I am very well aware of the system and it's flaws and I'm pretty pissed about it. But I don't paint the whole system with a broad brush or believe the system fails at every level. Show me the real facts and I'll base my opinions on all the evidence.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

No doubt, but I've given no one a reason to question my integrity as a citizen so I believe I deserve the benefit of a doubt.

You dont deserve the benefit of the doubt any more than Steven Avery...whom you wouldnt give it to even though the evidence demands it.

Military members who deserve extras over Americans peeve me. My family members who were military never pulled that.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

I keep giving you links with more information and you keep choosing to ignore them. The facts presented by the show, by many accounts, are very one sided. I'm not swayed by documentaries that don't provide both sides and let me decide.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

Updated: Here's some additional damning evidence against both Avery and Dassey either not presented in the series, or not presented in its entirety.
-- The reporter from the doc who had all the great reaction shots, added this:

@winklmann @sportstao @mjguff Not sure about most glaring. But Teresa's camera and palm pilot were found in Avery's burn barrel.

— Angenette Levy (@Angenette5) December 28, 2015
-- In this phone conversation (transcript in link) with his mother (which is not entirely included in the docuseries), Brendan told his mother that he did it, that Steven made him do it, and that Steven had touched him (and others) inappropriately in the past.

Mom: What all happened, what are you talking about?
Brendan: About what Me & Steven did that day,
Mom: What about it?
Brendan: Well, Mike & Mark & Matt came up one day and took another interview with me and said because they think I was lying but so, they said if I come out with it that I would have to go to jail for 90 years.
Mom: What?
Brendan: Ya. But if came out with itT would probably get I dunno about like 20 or less. After the interview they told me if I wanted to say something to her family and said that I was sorry for what I did.
Mom: Then Steven did do it.
Brendan: Ya
Mom: (Mom Crying) Why diddn't you tell me about this?
Brendan. Ya, but they came out wi.th something that was untrue with me
Mom:. What's that?
Brendan: They said that I sold crack

...

Mom: So did you talk to her family?
Brendan: No
M: Huh
Brendan: They just asked me if I wanted to say something to them, on the tape.
Mom: Did you?
Brendan: .lust that I was sorry for what I did.

...

Mom: Did he make you do this?
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Then why didn't you tell him that.
Brendan: Tell him what
Mom: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
Brendan: Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
Mom: What do you mean touching you?
Brendan: He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.
Mom: Brendan I am your mother.
Brendan. Ya.
Mom: Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?
Brendan: What do you mean?
Mom: All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.
Brendan: Ya ..
Mom: Yes, and you would still be here with me.
Brendan: Yes, Well you know I did it.
Mom: Huh
Brendan. You know he always touched us and that.
Mom: I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
Brendan: Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.
Mom: What do you mean.
Brendan: Well he would like fake pumping him
Mom: Goofing around
Brendan: Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name Jessica .. sister. Mom: Teresa?
Brendan: Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.

-- There's no denying that it was unethical as hell for the investigator of Dassey's own attorney to elicit a confession out of Brendan, but the documentary suggests that the investigator peppered Brendan with leading questions and basically fed him the answers. From the full transcript, that is not the case at all. Brendan not only confessed, he gave a very detailed account of what happened. They had sex with Teresa on the bed, then they carried her out to the garage, where they cut her throat, and that's where Steven shot her five times with the .22 Brendan said he pulled from above his bed. Then they threw her in the fire. She begged for her life through the entire ordeal. Brendan even cut off some of her hair. Then they cleaned up with bleach and burned all the clothes in the bonfire.



If you want to argue about police misconduct I would listen and probably agree with some of it. If you want me to believe that police shot the body, moved it to the fire pit, started the fire and burned the body along with some of the victim's possessions as well as planting other evidence....I just think that's silly for various reasons but you obviously believe this and then you think I'm ignorant. That's priceless.

In addition, Avery's prior case and any police misconduct committed by the police doesn't mean that they did the same in the second case. But I can absolutely see how that could taint his second case. This, to many anyway, is the same across the board no matter the crime. Once an officer or prosecutor is found to have engaged in any misconduct in an investigation, that opens the door for their prior convictions to be challenged and either those defendants get a second trial or they are released if the State doesn't want to present their main witness who lacks credibility.

They played quite a bit of that conversation in the documentary, but they also played/showed a good bit of the interrogation that supposedly took place right before that. He's literally just repeating what was told to him in the immediately proceeding interrogation a lot of the time.

And it's just agonizing that he's repeating damaging things to his mother on a monitored phone from the jail. Any halfway decent attorney would have immediately told him to shut his damn mouth. That's especially true when I don't know if he ever had an original thought through the entire process or was just parroting things. For the love of God, just stop talking.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Do you believe a policeman has ever broke the law? J walking? Shop lifting? Murder? Hate to ruin your day but policeman have been convicted of these crimes.

I don't know if he's guilty. I KNOW wasn't proven even close to beyond a reasonable doubt. I gave you 5 specific items to explain. Can you explain any of them?

All these present reasonable doubt. There is some doubt in his defense. Some holes in it. But the defense doesn't have to prove their innocence. That would be impossible in most murder case without an alibi. They have to show a resonable doubt. Here's some doubt:

1. Her keys found on the 8th day of searching a tiny trailer by one of the cops who, for ethical reasons, was not supposed to be there and mysteriously didn't sign in and lied under oath about what time he arrived. Her keys had 0 of her own Dna on them despite being years old.

2. No blood was found in the trailer or the garage this bloody murder supposedly happened there.

3. The bullett was found several months after the initial investigation started, again, by one of the two super sleuths.

4. Most of the case was based on the testimony that was clearly coeherced. Enabled by a defense that interrogated their own witness themselves and provided a written confession. This if you didn't know is frowned upon.

5. His blood evidence from the previous false conviction was found in the evidence room and was clearly tampered with.

6. Her DNA found was not a full match and they couldnt verify the teeth found with dental records.

7. Blood tested from the SUV was contaminated.

 

[JoeKing]

You dont deserve the benefit of the doubt any more than Steven Avery...whom you wouldnt give it to even though the evidence demands it.

Military members who deserve extras over Americans peeve me. My family members who were military never pulled that.

Excuse me, where did you see me not giving Steve Avery the benefit of the doubt? You are making assumptions that you can not back up. I never expressed any opinion about Mr. Avery one way or the other. I have not expressed a contrary opinion to the one you have expressed yourself about the man.

My own blood, sweat and yes, tears has been shed in defense of this country so if you have a problem with the country owing me more than it gives you then you need to ante up by signing up. By making a blanket statement about military members as you did, you have revealed your own preconceived bias. You do not know me and other than my military serves you know nothing about me. Back off!

 

[Tabascocat]

Lots of goods points in this thread whether leading to guilty or not. It is just a puzzling case to me. I have researched quite a bit after watching the show leading to an altered opinion.

I do think that they murdered her but maybe not in the way we perceive it. I am still not sure how there is NO blood DNA in the trailer or garage after this supposed bloodbath occurred. Maybe she was killed out in the yard instead where searchers didn't look? These two uneducated guys could not cleanse those two areas up to 100%.......no way no how IMO.

At the same time, sure seems the DA's case did not prove to be beyond a reasonable doubt, way too many questions arose to me. OJ got off for having more evidence........money talks.

Avery was not an upstanding citizen, I knew that ever since his throwing a cat into a fire in the first episode. He looks the role of a typical movie psycho. I think he is a sick man who allured her to his home with bad intentions. But, again, was this all proven in court? I don't think so.

As for Dassey, he does not have the mental capacity to have his own thoughts. He was coerced to give an answer they wanted. His story changed every time and should have been inadmissible in court. He got railroaded the most here. It sounds like he will do anything anyone tells him to do........and Avery knew that, he took advantage of him. Nothing was premeditated from Dassey, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am not sure what to think about planting evidence. The key is weird since it is missing her own DNA and was found later after several searches, apparently out in the open. I don't buy the fact that it fell from behind the dresser sideways. The vial of blood was clearly tampered with but I don't think it was the same that was found in the car. It is possible that it was, but unlikely to me.

I will state that in no way do I think those local officers killed her to frame Avery. They may have helped "persuade" the evidence to bolster a stronger case. For those saying then why didn't they plant her DNA in the bedroom or garage.......because the police did not have her blood due to the fact that they did not kill her. If the officers did do this elaborate murder scheme, then assuredly they would have placed some blood in those two areas.

In the end, I think the two right guys are in prison but it is the way that came about is troubling. Nothing adds up to me. The DA/State should have made a stronger case, it was pretty weak but it sounds like the jurors went in with an already guilty verdict.

 

[TheBigEasy]

Guilty, or not guilty, I found myself enraged while watching this show. I have a strong desire to knock Kratz's head off. The guy just screams liar. When he was talking about the 'key', he said 'why would this man have a car key in his house if it's not for the vehicle that he drives?.' Hmmm...let's see. Dude only has a thousand freaking cars in his backyard. It's those little things that made me want to jump through the TV and go Tyson on his butt. And I thought my hate for Crapsburgh would never be topped. SMH

 

[jterrell]

He clearly was railroaded the first time because they knew he was a lowlife and made him pay for abusing a deputies' wife.
He also clearly had rage issues toward women.
The police planted evidence without a doubt; but perhaps only to present overwhelming proof in the second case; not to create guilt.
I have a really hard time seeing LE able to lure the woman there, kill her, then set a frame job.

In short I believe Avery is a criminal (duh he freely admits other crimes) but that the County and DA were even bigger criminals.

I am left thinking that area of the world ought to be set to blazing.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Lots of goods points in this thread whether leading to guilty or not. It is just a puzzling case to me. I have researched quite a bit after watching the show leading to an altered opinion.

I do think that they murdered her but maybe not in the way we perceive it. I am still not sure how there is NO blood DNA in the trailer or garage after this supposed bloodbath occurred. Maybe she was killed out in the yard instead where searchers didn't look? These two uneducated guys could not cleanse those two areas up to 100%.......no way no how IMO.

At the same time, sure seems the DA's case did not prove to be beyond a reasonable doubt, way too many questions arose to me. OJ got off for having more evidence........money talks.

Avery was not an upstanding citizen, I knew that ever since his throwing a cat into a fire in the first episode. He looks the role of a typical movie psycho. I think he is a sick man who allured her to his home with bad intentions. But, again, was this all proven in court? I don't think so.

As for Dassey, he does not have the mental capacity to have his own thoughts. He was coerced to give an answer they wanted. His story changed every time and should have been inadmissible in court. He got railroaded the most here. It sounds like he will do anything anyone tells him to do........and Avery knew that, he took advantage of him. Nothing was premeditated from Dassey, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am not sure what to think about planting evidence. The key is weird since it is missing her own DNA and was found later after several searches, apparently out in the open. I don't buy the fact that it fell from behind the dresser sideways. The vial of blood was clearly tampered with but I don't think it was the same that was found in the car. It is possible that it was, but unlikely to me.

I will state that in no way do I think those local officers killed her to frame Avery. They may have helped "persuade" the evidence to bolster a stronger case. For those saying then why didn't they plant her DNA in the bedroom or garage.......because the police did not have her blood due to the fact that they did not kill her. If the officers did do this elaborate murder scheme, then assuredly they would have placed some blood in those two areas.

In the end, I think the two right guys are in prison but it is the way that came about is troubling. Nothing adds up to me. The DA/State should have made a stronger case, it was pretty weak but it sounds like the jurors went in with an already guilty verdict.

That's pretty much my spin on it.

Both Avery and the nephew are guilty... she just was not killed in the manner presented.

I think potentially some of the evidence was tampered with but there is good evidence, i.e. her car present on the property, burned human remains, her past experiences with Avery and him calling her out (repeatedly) to come to his property.

Anyone that thinks the authorities assassinated this young girl and planted ALL the evidence is ludicrous.

And really that's the sad part in all this... A young girl was murdered. She's the real victim here.

 

[Dallas_Cowboys50]

Guilty, or not guilty, I found myself enraged while watching this show. I have a strong desire to knock Kratz's head off. The guy just screams liar. When he was talking about the 'key', he said 'why would this man have a car key in his house if it's not for the vehicle that he drives?.' Hmmm...let's see. Dude only has a thousand freaking cars in his backyard. It's those little things that made me want to jump through the TV and go Tyson on his butt. And I thought my hate for Crapsburgh would never be topped. SMH

I was the same way, on top of his way too soft, almost effeminate voice....the Judges pissed me off to, seemed like they sided with the prosecution on pretty much everything.....How could you not dismiss Dassey's first lawyer when he requested it? if you think your own lawyer thinks your guilty, that should be reason enough to get a new one, regardless of what the judge thinks, it shouldnt even be up to a judge....obviously you shouldnt be allowed to just keep dismissing your lawyers in an attempt to delay, but that first guy had to go (before he was dismissed for other reasons)

 

[Dodger12]

I was the same way, on top of his way too soft, almost effeminate voice....the Judges pissed me off to, seemed like they sided with the prosecution on pretty much everything.....How could you not dismiss Dassey's first lawyer when he requested it? if you think your own lawyer thinks your guilty, that should be reason enough to get a new one, regardless of what the judge thinks, it shouldnt even be up to a judge....obviously you shouldnt be allowed to just keep dismissing your lawyers in an attempt to delay, but that first guy had to go (before he was dismissed for other reasons)

I'll bet most lawyers either know or have a good idea if their client is guilty but everyone deserves a defense and authorities need to be kept on their toes to ensure as much fairness as possible in the system. But I have no doubt that Avery's attorney sees dollar signs at the end of the tunnel which is a major motivation.

 

[Dodger12]

They played quite a bit of that conversation in the documentary, but they also played/showed a good bit of the interrogation that supposedly took place right before that. He's literally just repeating what was told to him in the immediately proceeding interrogation a lot of the time.

And it's just agonizing that he's repeating damaging things to his mother on a monitored phone from the jail. Any halfway decent attorney would have immediately told him to shut his damn mouth. That's especially true when I don't know if he ever had an original thought through the entire process or was just parroting things. For the love of God, just stop talking.

I haven't seen it but from everything I heard and read, this guys statements shouldn't have been admissible or at least not given the weight they were probably given. To a lesser extent, he's probably the second victim in all this and I'm not saying that to minimize what happened to that young lady. Avery molested and took advantage of this kid. He's an animal and is right where he belongs.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I haven't seen it but from everything I heard and read, this guys statements shouldn't have been admissible or at least not given the weight they were probably given. To a lesser extent, he's probably the second victim in all this and I'm not saying that to minimize what happened to that young lady. Avery molested and took advantage of this kid. He's an animal and is right where he belongs.

One of the things I wonder about with Avery and his mindset was, did he think he could get away with it because he had already been through in prison once and was found to be innocent vis-à-vis did he think he was untouchable?

It would surprise me if his prior false incarceration caused both parties to do things that triggered the 2005 case and corrupted the resulting investigation.

 

[DogFace]

I don't find it odd that evidence wasn't found on Day 1. It's a murder investigation and sometimes evidence is uncovered that leads you back to the crime scene multiple times. And what's the point of of you pointing out that her keys didn't have her DNA on them? Are you trying to say they were not her keys or that the police tampered with that evidence as well by wiping away or removing her DNA from evidence that was helping their case? On the contrary. If the police did plant evidence int his case then why would they not plant evidence on the victim's key? If it makes no sense, it's probably because it's not true.



Once again, you claim the police planted evidence in this case, including blood, yet they didn't plant any evidence in an area (trailer/garage) that would undoubtedly make their case fool proof. How couold that be? And Dassey claimed they cleaned out the garage with bleach and the police seized his bleach stained jeans. I will admit I'm no expert and I can't say that bleach would remove DNA from today's testing back back then maybe it would. In any case, I just find it odd that folks like you claim police tampering, planting and misconduct but you point to something that really helps your case (ie: no blood in the garage/trailer) and you still turn that into a positive point of your tampering theory.



And the gun was seized in November which begs the question if the gun was seized then how could the bullet have been fired after the gun was seized?



No, the case was based on far more than that and Dassey's statements were made to his defense investigator. While I think it proves to me that Avery was guilty as hell, I agree that there could/should be a question as to whether those statements should have been admissible. BUt even without those statements, there was plenty of other evidence that could well have convicted Avery.



Yes, of course, back to the blood evidence that was tampered with but the police, who put together this grand conspiracy, didn't plant the blood evidence in places that would have been the most beneficial to their case. Do you know how stupid that sounds? And 2 other things; Avery's DNA found under the hood of the victims car was not blood based. How exactly would the police lift non-blood DNA and plant it? It makes no sense and if it doesn't make sense once again it's probably because it's not true. And second, the blood DNA was tested for EDTA to see if the blood stains came from stored blood (EDTA is contained in blood vials) and the result was negative. This test was done by the FBI who may very well be another co-conspirator in your world. I'm guessing the DA's office wanted the test for EDTA anticipating the defense's claim of tampered and planted evidence. So saying that the blood from his previous case was planted when there was no EDTA detected is completely falset.

1. So you find it odd it was in day 2-7 either and it was found by the same detective involved? Keep in mind this trailer is small. Not much to search. The keys would've been wiped clean to avoid the real perpetrators Dna being found. Just please explain how 10 year old keys have O(zero) of her Dna.

2. Because that would've likely required then to steal more blood. You didn't address why this evidence was tampered with. Including cut seal, retape with scotch(not the official seal), and syringe needle hole in the top. Nope not weird at all because they're cops and cops never to bad.

3. First, in sure the gun was completely secure unlike his previous blood sample. So next point it could've been recovered anywhere on property and planted.

4. Your type of option of resonable doubt leads to innocent people being expected and jailed as thousands of cases have been proven.

5. No. It wouldn't sound stupid at all if you actually watched it. Now you don't have to I've told you everything. The trailer and garage were occupied by the police that were allowed/supposed to be investigating. They're the incompetent ones that couldn't find a set of keys clearly out in the open for 7 days. Only when the watching of the crime scene was relaxed with less people did the cop bypass the sign in and found it. He had to sign out because he "found" valuable evidence. He also lied by 4 hours on how long he was there.

 

[DogFace]

Lots of goods points in this thread whether leading to guilty or not. It is just a puzzling case to me. I have researched quite a bit after watching the show leading to an altered opinion.

I do think that they murdered her but maybe not in the way we perceive it. I am still not sure how there is NO blood DNA in the trailer or garage after this supposed bloodbath occurred. Maybe she was killed out in the yard instead where searchers didn't look? These two uneducated guys could not cleanse those two areas up to 100%.......no way no how IMO.

At the same time, sure seems the DA's case did not prove to be beyond a reasonable doubt, way too many questions arose to me. OJ got off for having more evidence........money talks.

Avery was not an upstanding citizen, I knew that ever since his throwing a cat into a fire in the first episode. He looks the role of a typical movie psycho. I think he is a sick man who allured her to his home with bad intentions. But, again, was this all proven in court? I don't think so.

As for Dassey, he does not have the mental capacity to have his own thoughts. He was coerced to give an answer they wanted. His story changed every time and should have been inadmissible in court. He got railroaded the most here. It sounds like he will do anything anyone tells him to do........and Avery knew that, he took advantage of him. Nothing was premeditated from Dassey, just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am not sure what to think about planting evidence. The key is weird since it is missing her own DNA and was found later after several searches, apparently out in the open. I don't buy the fact that it fell from behind the dresser sideways. The vial of blood was clearly tampered with but I don't think it was the same that was found in the car. It is possible that it was, but unlikely to me.

I will state that in no way do I think those local officers killed her to frame Avery. They may have helped "persuade" the evidence to bolster a stronger case. For those saying then why didn't they plant her DNA in the bedroom or garage.......because the police did not have her blood due to the fact that they did not kill her. If the officers did do this elaborate murder scheme, then assuredly they would have placed some blood in those two areas.

In the end, I think the two right guys are in prison but it is the way that came about is troubling. Nothing adds up to me. The DA/State should have made a stronger case, it was pretty weak but it sounds like the jurors went in with an already guilty verdict.

All resonable and good points. I don't think the cops killed her either. They possibly wanted Avery in jail for how offended they were to be humiliated in the deposistion and made the case fit.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The trouble with basing one's decision of guilt/innocence on this one docu-drama is that not all evidence was presented.

Supposedly a different take on the case is going to be presented shortly.

 

[DogFace]

That's pretty much my spin on it.

Both Avery and the nephew are guilty... she just was not killed in the manner presented.

I think potentially some of the evidence was tampered with but there is good evidence, i.e. her car present on the property, burned human remains, her past experiences with Avery and him calling her out (repeatedly) to come to his property.

Anyone that thinks the authorities assassinated this young girl and planted ALL the evidence is ludicrous.

And really that's the sad part in all this... A young girl was murdered. She's the real victim here.

I don't think anyone's asserting the cops murdered the girl. Reading the license plate before they had it leads me to believe they found her body and car elsewhere.