Making a Murderer

[DogFace]

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.

I'm talking about our justice system and reasonable doubt. The film is too.

Yes. Another take will be welcomed.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

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.

This was the sheriff's response to that:

"One crucial scene in the documentary implies one of the Manitowoc officers who had previous involvement in Avery's first case may have discovered Halbach's vehicle before it was reported days later. The defense played a tape at the trial in which the officer calls in a license plate number and names the car type, leaving viewers wondering: was he standing in front of the car, and if so, why was it reported found on Avery's property days later?
Hermann strongly refutes the implication.

"He did not have the vehicle in front of him. He had a plate number that was given to him by the Calumet County Sheriff's office," he told CNNMoney.

Why did the officer also have the car type?

"That's common practice, to run the plate and have that information on a teletype. A lot of times, it's attached to a report if there's a report on it," Hermann said. "The other thing is that Calumet county ... also knew that one of her last stops was in Manitowoc county." "

I have a police scanner myself and I can tell you I hear that kind of thing all the time.

 

[Dodger12]

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.

I just think it's simply that he's a sick individual and those type of people don't really consider the consequences but I's bet his prior case only empowered him even more.

 

[Dodger12]

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.

You can do the hammer and nail thing all you want. You've posted nothing but gibberish and can't reconcile the fact that you claim blood was planted yet that blood lacked the chemical found in all blood vials. You also can't reconcile the fact that for all this corruption and evidence planting, the police failed to plant the evidence in the very area and places that best proved their case. You can't have it both ways.

I get it....you hate the system and you hate the Man. But you using this perverted and sick animal as your savior is down right stupid. There are far better examples to use.

 

[NeonNinja]

I watched it and found the series to be very interesting and disturbing to a degree. I won't get into whether Avery really committed the crime (I flip if I'm being honest) but would rather focus on a few things that I really question the validity of. I don't think both received a fair trial, especially the nephew.

First is this EDTA detection test that allowed the agent to talk about. I believe it would have taken much longer (test results completed well before said due time) to scientifically validate the test sample. In addition, the small vials of blood don't contain a lot to begin with and it was quite obvious this sample had been tampered with.

Just a question for anyone to share their thoughts: since when do scientists draw such conclusions on contaminated and invalid tests?

PS: I also think the police planted some of the evidence.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You also can't reconcile the fact that for all this corruption and evidence planting, the police failed to plant the evidence in the very area and places that best proved their case. You can't have it both ways.

That's a VERY valid point.

IF you're going to plant evidence why the heck wouldn't you do it in the bedroom and the garage... i.e. spread some blood around?

The other problem I have is with the two gals that put this together.

They had a vested interest in creating a questionable outcome. I mean if they gave a perspective of "Hey, he looks guilty" they wouldn't have had a show.

 

[Dodger12]

First is this EDTA detection test that allowed the agent to talk about. I believe it would have taken much longer (test results completed well before said due time) to scientifically validate the test sample. In addition, the small vials of blood don't contain a lot to begin with and it was quite obvious this sample had been tampered with.

Is it really out of the realm of possibility that a lab improved their testing method(s)? Even the DNA testing today is probably more advanced than what it was a few short years ago. In addition, the tests were done by the FBI from what I read. I'm not saying tests are infallible but are we now looking at another independent agency that was involved in the conspiracy? I guess what I'm saying is that in order to believe this story we'd have to invalidate every piece of evidence gathered from some agencies like the FBI that had nothing to gain.

 

[Denim Chicken]

IOnce 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.

My name is James Michel, and I'm the president of the National Crime Scene Cleanup Association ( www.crimescenecleanup.com )I rebut against the prosecutor of the state of Wisconsin in the case against Steven Avery. I've seen thousands of crime scenes over the past decade. After reviewing the crime scene photos and evidence, it is a physical and statistical impossibility to have cleaned this crime scene. As an expert witness in lawsuits and being subpoenaed as many times as I have, gives me the authority to say their is NO way this man and his nephew did such a clean up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...hysically_impossible_for_steve_avery_to_have/


It's not that difficult to expect. They did not search any of the many warehouses at Avery salvage. They did not search the multitude of cars on the lot. They did not search Charles Avery's residence (nor Allen and Delores Avery's for that matter though hard to believe they had anything to do with it).
Charles Avery's house is right along the main drag so what's to say he didn't stop Teresa on her way off the property and say "While you are here there is another car I'd like you to photograph". Leads her down one of the MANY rows of cars and proceeds to try and rape her, she resists, he knocks her out, goes back to his place, grabs a gun ... fill in the rest. It's not impossible to believe and even more plausible when you find out that Charles Avery has a recorded history of assaulting women and harassing women that have done business at the Salvage.
All that said Charles was never a suspect. Nor was Earl, Scott, Bobby, Allen, or Delores. From the second they found the RAV-4, Steven was put in custody and that was before they found the body, key, bullet, tested the blood/DNA, or coerced a confession out of Brendan

 

[Tabascocat]

My name is James Michel, and I'm the president of the National Crime Scene Cleanup Association ( www.crimescenecleanup.com )I rebut against the prosecutor of the state of Wisconsin in the case against Steven Avery. I've seen thousands of crime scenes over the past decade. After reviewing the crime scene photos and evidence, it is a physical and statistical impossibility to have cleaned this crime scene. As an expert witness in lawsuits and being subpoenaed as many times as I have, gives me the authority to say their is NO way this man and his nephew did such a clean up.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...hysically_impossible_for_steve_avery_to_have/


It's not that difficult to expect. They did not search any of the many warehouses at Avery salvage. They did not search the multitude of cars on the lot. They did not search Charles Avery's residence (nor Allen and Delores Avery's for that matter though hard to believe they had anything to do with it).
Charles Avery's house is right along the main drag so what's to say he didn't stop Teresa on her way off the property and say "While you are here there is another car I'd like you to photograph". Leads her down one of the MANY rows of cars and proceeds to try and rape her, she resists, he knocks her out, goes back to his place, grabs a gun ... fill in the rest. It's not impossible to believe and even more plausible when you find out that Charles Avery has a recorded history of assaulting women and harassing women that have done business at the Salvage.
All that said Charles was never a suspect. Nor was Earl, Scott, Bobby, Allen, or Delores. From the second they found the RAV-4, Steven was put in custody and that was before they found the body, key, bullet, tested the blood/DNA, or coerced a confession out of Brendan

Kind of what I was getting at. Her murder did not take place in the bedroom or the garage. Impossible to clean all of that up especially knowing that those two areas were the main focus.

Very possible that Charles had something to do with this, he fits the profile for sure. Very perplexing.................

 

[DogFace]

This was the sheriff's response to that:

"One crucial scene in the documentary implies one of the Manitowoc officers who had previous involvement in Avery's first case may have discovered Halbach's vehicle before it was reported days later. The defense played a tape at the trial in which the officer calls in a license plate number and names the car type, leaving viewers wondering: was he standing in front of the car, and if so, why was it reported found on Avery's property days later?
Hermann strongly refutes the implication.

"He did not have the vehicle in front of him. He had a plate number that was given to him by the Calumet County Sheriff's office," he told CNNMoney.

Why did the officer also have the car type?

"That's common practice, to run the plate and have that information on a teletype. A lot of times, it's attached to a report if there's a report on it," Hermann said. "The other thing is that Calumet county ... also knew that one of her last stops was in Manitowoc county." "

I have a police scanner myself and I can tell you I hear that kind of thing all the time.

Why'd he call it in if he had it? He seems very untrustworthy and his stunned reaction on the stand was telling in my opinion. His deposition was very poor too. He let a man sit in jail for years after he was told they had another man claiming the crime. That's hard for me to overlook and give him any benefit of doubt.

 

[DogFace]

You can do the hammer and nail thing all you want. You've posted nothing but gibberish and can't reconcile the fact that you claim blood was planted yet that blood lacked the chemical found in all blood vials. You also can't reconcile the fact that for all this corruption and evidence planting, the police failed to plant the evidence in the very area and places that best proved their case. You can't have it both ways.

I get it....you hate the system and you hate the Man. But you using this perverted and sick animal as your savior is down right stupid. There are far better examples to use.

I'll explain again.-- imagine a slow speaking voice
They couldn't plant it in the house or garage because another police department was In charge and was observing them. Wasn't until day 8 he bypassed sign in and "found" keys.
I knew you couldn't respond to any of my responses. You do the typical jerk move and say I'm using gibberish. Give me one example of gibberish. And I'll explain it again.
Can't do that either?

I get it. You hate those that try to challenge the prestigious authority figures and establishment that you blindly follow.

 

[DogFace]

Is it really out of the realm of possibility that a lab improved their testing method(s)? Even the DNA testing today is probably more advanced than what it was a few short years ago. In addition, the tests were done by the FBI from what I read. I'm not saying tests are infallible but are we now looking at another independent agency that was involved in the conspiracy? I guess what I'm saying is that in order to believe this story we'd have to invalidate every piece of evidence gathered from some agencies like the FBI that had nothing to gain.

It's possible. However, It's only been used one time EVER in America before and never since.
It was used in the oj trial after both sides agreed.

If you watched it or had any information on it you'd know the defense was very untrusting of the fbl and their testing. Saying they routinely come up with tests to help the prosecution. Other defense attorneys have echoed this. They miraculously came up with a reliable test that hadn't existed for 10 years. In like two weeks. And witness for the defense who was a chemical analyst said it wasn't reliable.
You'd also know the weird fact the sample was accidentally contaminated by the dna tester for the state.

Here's science:
http://brobible.com/entertainment/a...ained-blood-evidence-making-murderer-garbage/

 

[Dodger12]

They couldn't plant it in the house or garage because another police department was In charge and was observing them. Wasn't until day 8 he bypassed sign in and "found" keys.

I see. So now the other police department that was complicit in this conspiracy and cover-up decided to be above board that day. It's real convenient that they only participated in the cover up in the instances that fit your theory and not on the occasions where they would benefit the cover up the most.

I knew you couldn't respond to any of my responses. You do the typical jerk move and say I'm using gibberish. Give me one example of gibberish. And I'll explain it again.

I responded to each of your points and you respond with conjecture. At some point, responding to outlandish assumptions is counter-productive. I say they found Avery's sweat DNA under the hood of her car and the response is that it was planted. You ask why there was no DNA on the keys (because they've been wiped clean) and the next logical question is that it the police planted blood and DNA evidence and later planted the victim's key in Avery's residence, then why didn't they also plant Avery's DNA on such a damning piece of evidence that they had they had in their possession and had the time to plant?

And your other silly point about not finding more blood evidence because it would have required the police to "steal more blood" is just dumb. So you want folks to believe that they stole blood to frame someone but didn't steal enough of it to do the (complete) job because, well, they'd have to steal more? So these people would be complicit in a conspiracy and cover-up where they tamper with evidence, plant evidence, steal evidence to later plant but the reason they don't want to steal something that they've already stolen is because they'd have to steal more of it. It's laughable.

You don't even see it; when there is DNA evidence, it was planted and not reliable but when there is no DNA evidence, you also think that makes your case....and why wouldn't it in your world? You would only argue that it was planted as well. Again, you want it both ways.

It's possible. However, It's only been used one time EVER in America before and never since.
It was used in the oj trial after both sides agreed.

Probably because when the FBI tests blood or DNA evidence they do it to identify the perpetrator. In this case, the police had suspect and it was a smart move by the prosecution because they probably knew or had an idea of the defense tactic(s). In an interview I saw, even Avery's own defense attorney stated he didn't do a good job explaining the lack of EDTA in the blood samples. But then again, how could he? Their whole case was based on planted evidence and tampering and the one piece of scientific evidence that would have proved his point didn't exist.

If you watched it or had any information on it you'd know the defense was very untrusting of the fbl and their testing. Saying they routinely come up with tests to help the prosecution. Other defense attorneys have echoed this. They miraculously came up with a reliable test that hadn't existed for 10 years. In like two weeks. And witness for the defense who was a chemical analyst said it wasn't reliable.

So now we don't trust the FBI testing? I mean, really? So now some geek sitting in some lab in Virginia will doctor a test for local police officers he's probably never met and for a case he has no interest in and knowing full well he may have to testify about his findings? Keep going. At this rate, the conspiracy may stretch to the highest level of government.......

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And your other silly point about not finding more blood evidence because it would have required the police to "steal more blood" is just dumb. So you want folks to believe that they stole blood to frame someone but didn't steal enough of it to do the (complete) job because, well, they'd have to steal more? So these people would be complicit in a conspiracy and cover-up where they tamper with evidence, plant evidence, steal evidence to later plant but the reason they don't want to steal something that they've already stolen is because they'd have to steal more of it. It's laughable.

That's it.

If we are led to believe the police "assassinated" this young girl, they would have had access to lots of blood that they could have spread here, there and everywhere.

I'm more likely to believe a relative of Avery's did the deed than I am the whole "Police killer her and set-up Avery" angle.

 

[DogFace]

I see. So now the other police department that was complicit in this conspiracy and cover-up decided to be above board that day. It's real convenient that they only participated in the cover up in the instances that fit your theory and not on the occasions where they would benefit the cover up the most.



I responded to each of your points and you respond with conjecture. At some point, responding to outlandish assumptions is counter-productive. I say they found Avery's sweat DNA under the hood of her car and the response is that it was planted. You ask why there was no DNA on the keys (because they've been wiped clean) and the next logical question is that it the police planted blood and DNA evidence and later planted the victim's key in Avery's residence, then why didn't they also plant Avery's DNA on such a damning piece of evidence that they had they had in their possession and had the time to plant?

And your other silly point about not finding more blood evidence because it would have required the police to "steal more blood" is just dumb. So you want folks to believe that they stole blood to frame someone but didn't steal enough of it to do the (complete) job because, well, they'd have to steal more? So these people would be complicit in a conspiracy and cover-up where they tamper with evidence, plant evidence, steal evidence to later plant but the reason they don't want to steal something that they've already stolen is because they'd have to steal more of it. It's laughable.

You don't even see it; when there is DNA evidence, it was planted and not reliable but when there is no DNA evidence, you also think that makes your case....and why wouldn't it in your world? You would only argue that it was planted as well. Again, you want it both ways.



Probably because when the FBI tests blood or DNA evidence they do it to identify the perpetrator. In this case, the police had suspect and it was a smart move by the prosecution because they probably knew or had an idea of the defense tactic(s). In an interview I saw, even Avery's own defense attorney stated he didn't do a good job explaining the lack of EDTA in the blood samples. But then again, how could he? Their whole case was based on planted evidence and tampering and the one piece of scientific evidence that would have proved his point didn't exist.



So now we don't trust the FBI testing? I mean, really? So now some geek sitting in some lab in Virginia will doctor a test for local police officers he's probably never met and for a case he has no interest in and knowing full well he may have to testify about his findings? Keep going. At this rate, the conspiracy may stretch to the highest level of government.......

I'm sorry. You lack basic understanding of this story about this man.

The other police department was never accused of participating. Basically two officers were.

The sweat DNA is a problem for the defense. No question. But luckily In this country you don't have to disprove every bit of evidence. There is enough reasonable doubt elsewhere. It's impossible to prove innocence without an alibi, which in many cases isn't possible.

The blood sample, since you didn't see, was a small vial and if they did steal it with a syringe, like someone did, it will only carry so much. They likely thought they had enough.

Also, don't forget to address the crime lab contaminating the sample and using all of it so the defense couldn't test it independently. That was odd.

Read the science on that type of DNA testing. And watch the agent develope a severe tick while being questioned.

 

[NeonNinja]

That's it.

If we are led to believe the police "assassinated" this young girl, they would have had access to lots of blood that they could have spread here, there and everywhere.

I'm more likely to believe a relative of Avery's did the deed than I am the whole "Police killer her and set-up Avery" angle.

I don't believe the police killed her but I do believe the police targeted and set-up Avery to a degree.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I don't believe the police killed her but I do believe the police targeted and set-up Avery to a degree.

I can agree with that.

I think they were corrupt and or inept.

But that doesn't mean Avery and the kid didn't off the young woman.

I think the police realized what a "gift" they were given with the disappearance and subsequent murder of the girl that they went up & beyond to make sure the charges stuck.

 

[Dodger12]

That's it.

If we are led to believe the police "assassinated" this young girl, they would have had access to lots of blood that they could have spread here, there and everywhere.

I'm more likely to believe a relative of Avery's did the deed than I am the whole "Police killer her and set-up Avery" angle.

I agree. There's no doubt there are some questions here but there are questions in any case, especially a homicide case (unless you have it recorded). People are trying very hard to find flaws that they invariably will find but choose to dismiss what evidence there is that really can't be reconciled without some conspiracy theory.

 

[Dodger12]

I'm sorry. You lack basic understanding of this story about this man.

The other police department was never accused of participating. Basically two officers were.

The sweat DNA is a problem for the defense. No question. But luckily In this country you don't have to disprove every bit of evidence. There is enough reasonable doubt elsewhere. It's impossible to prove innocence without an alibi, which in many cases isn't possible.

The blood sample, since you didn't see, was a small vial and if they did steal it with a syringe, like someone did, it will only carry so much. They likely thought they had enough.

Also, don't forget to address the crime lab contaminating the sample and using all of it so the defense couldn't test it independently. That was odd.

Read the science on that type of DNA testing. And watch the agent develope a severe tick while being questioned.

The sweat DNA is a problem as are multiple other facts in the case, not the least of which the lady's body was found in his fire pit. Unless you feel the police put it there, then that's a tough fact to make an excuse for. He had a motive. He was obsessed with her. He tried to cover up calling her the day she disappeared. He bought hand cuffs and he had the rifle.

And this idea of the police thinking they had "enough" blood is really stupid. I'm sorry, but it is. Because if they found out they didn't have enough, why not go back and get more? Your answer is they'd have to steal it....so what? They had to steal it to begin with.

There could very well be issues here with police misconduct. If so and they give this guy another trial, so be it. But every case has question marks and unless you were there you have to speculate some to put the pieces together and some of the evidence will be circumstantial. The burden is not beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. That fact that there were multiple agencies involved in this case, including the FBI, also adds to my doubt about this conspiracy to frame Avery.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I agree. There's no doubt there are some questions here but there are questions in any case, especially a homicide case (unless you have it recorded). People are trying very hard to find flaws that they invariably will find but choose to dismiss what evidence there is that really can't be reconciled without some conspiracy theory.

Post of the day there.

I read a lot of true-crime and the challenges with investigating homicides seems staggering. Jack-the-Ripper, Lizzie Borden, Mary Phagan, Martha Moxley, Jonbenet Ramsey... All those cases had issues within their investigations.