SA has a long history of raping people....oh wait. Did he learn about raping people during the case he was falsely imprisoned for or being in prison?

I think some of both Fraley and Poor's story could make some sense but much of it doesn't make any sense based on the evidence found.

There are accusations from a female relative and BD that he was sexually molesting them.

Also, he was exposing himself to his cousin and ran her off the road and threatened to kill her when she told people about him exposing himself to her.

Oh wait, I am sure BD mom "coerced" him into admitting SA molested him.

Accusations = fact now apparently.

Also, wasn't that alleged incident with his cousin like ~20years prior to the TH case?

The incident with his cousin was. The other relative was around the time of the murder

The other alleged incident you mean?

Wasn't alleged with his cousin either. he admitted to it.

You are a real pos for calling a 15yo a liar here btw. i hop no young lady close to you gets molested.

I never argued that the cops planted evidence. I was talking about suspicions of this within the context of Avery's relationship with the cops and his prior wrongful conviction, being less outlandish.

I'm not calling anyone a liar.

You fail to understand how the criminal justice system works.

I'm not sure when it became a homicide investigation, they may still have been involved a bit when it was. They started when it was a missing person investigation.

I'd like to show Agent Fassbender's testimony regarding their involvement (I won't bother making it look nice - if someone else wants to, they can do that or can just read the transcripts):

You realize he has a vested interested in the jury believing that there was nothing improper with his investigation right?

You realize he's sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, right?

I'm not saying he definitely is, but let's not just assume he's not because he has a "vested interested in the jury believing that there was nothing improper with his investigation".

It's testimony, and it's meant to be considered by the jury.

So SA kills TH at the trailer puts her in RAV, grabs his only rifle for some odd reason. Parks in the garage puts her on something and says to himself it wouldn't be unusual for the sound of a rifle shot to come from the garage and I need the target practice.

never once did I suggest he should be convicted of the crime with his kid relative.

That isn't exactly what I think happened but no, with this family that would not be unusual.

Well, BD's cousin's sworn testimony was that she made everything up.

And his testimony was that he didn't help and that he made up the details.

What's he doing in prison?

So, the next best method of hiding her car is to leave it on the lot and put some branches on top? With the license plate still affixed.

Has anybody given a time frame on how long it would take to successfully scrub a violent crime scene? And what various materials you would need to purchase to accomplish this task?

I actually believe that SA would admit to the crime if he did it. He had no problem admitting that he confronted his cousin with a gun. And even why he did it!

I think I've read most of this thread, but I've got a question that I never saw the answer to. Apologies if I missed it.

In Making a Murderer, there is the point in the trail where the Judge makes Avery stand up and make a statement about not wanting to testify. I can't recall every seeing or hearing of anything like that before. IANAL, but I'm sure I've watched hundreds of hours of courtroom dramas and parts of the occasional high publicity trial. I don't ever remember an exchange like this (real or fictional).

It seems when the defendant doesn't want to testify they just don't. There is no standing up and explaining that they are sure of their choice.

Is this just a standard thing that I was somehow unaware of, or was it something unconventional? In either case it seemed really weird.

The license plate was not affixed. It was detached and hidden somewhere else. And yes, I fully believe someone like SA would be criminally inept enough to think hiding it on that lot with all those cars covered in branches wouldn't be found. And I think his intention was to crush it later.. This is also what BD testified to. After the 31st he was busy for the next couple of days.

No, they usually ask if they want to testify. This is common. The judge has to hear from the defendant personally on record they do not wish to testify.

It's up to the jury to take in all the information and decide. When Kayla independently talked to a school counselor in private weeks before the detectives interviewed her, it makes her look a lot less credible when she says she made it all up.

BD's testimony is that he helped clean up a spot that "looked like blood" in the garage and that he helped put all that **** on the fire and tend it. He denies murdering Teresa in his testimony.

Again, it's ultimately up to the jury to decide.


Here's a good post from reddit on hiding the car:

And yet, you also think he's cunning enough to rape, cut a women's throat and cut off all her hair, and not leave a trace of DNA anywhere in his trailer. Oh, and tie/chain her to the bed. Oh, and shoot her 2-12 times.

I get it, he's not dexter, he's Jeckle and Hyde.

You seem to think it would be impossible to rape, cut someone on the neck, and strangle them without leaving dna evidence, especially when the sheets that were used were burned.

The garage has already been explained, they used bleach on the small spot that contained all the blood. There is a small 3x3 spot that has a reaction expected to see when bleach is used.

Why did they spot clean this one spot in that dirty garage? Why does it fit the evidence. Why is there a bullet from a gun only avery has access to that has TH dna on it in the same spot?

So it's possible that BD and his cousin lied on the stand. But definitely not possible that the police do because they "swore and oath".

Do you hear how inconsistent you are, or do you just not care?