Making a Murderer
02-17-2016
, 06:17 AM
02-17-2016
, 12:27 PM
02-17-2016
, 01:41 PM
02-17-2016
, 02:49 PM
A lot of these aren't really questions that anyone can answer, except for speculation, so I'm not really sure what you're looking for... but I'll try my best 
:
Who knows - maybe he didn't notice he left the blood, maybe he figured he was going to destroy it anyway - as if it's found on his property, he's already sort of ****ed, blood or no blood.
He most likely didn't find the bullets. One fragment was hidden in a crack in the concrete. One was hidden under a piece of machinery by the wall. This explains why they didn't find these bullets on the initial searches while it was a missing person investigation, when they didn't know it was the crime scene and didn't move any items and do a thorough search.
You're basically asking, "Why do dumb people make mistakes?"
It wasn't near the entrance - if you look at the map, and the photos of how the car was hidden, it was probably the ideal hiding spot on short notice. Here's a
post explaining further: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...orking/czp3ls7
I'll let you read from Kratz's closing statement:
.
I don't know of anybody, myself included, that thought they could convict Steven after only watching the documentary.
IMO: in documentary filmmaking (at least mainstream documentary filmmaking) there is an implicit trust granted by the viewer that the documentary will attempt to present an accurate portrayal of events. In Making a Murderer, the filmmakers blatantly violated this trust in order to better serve their narrative of examining a corrupt justice system. It was the filmmakers who framed the cops!
If you are truly interested in reading up on the case, some things you can read:
Stuff left out of the documentary - http://stevenaverycase.com/what-maki...idnt-tell-you/
A breakdown on if evidence was actually planted - http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/
A layperson's explanation of the EDTA test - http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained
Trial transcripts - http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-av...l-transcripts/
:
Quote:
2. If SA was able to meticulously clean the crime scene, why was he not able to wipe away plain view blood in the car, or clean blood off the bullets?
He most likely didn't find the bullets. One fragment was hidden in a crack in the concrete. One was hidden under a piece of machinery by the wall. This explains why they didn't find these bullets on the initial searches while it was a missing person investigation, when they didn't know it was the crime scene and didn't move any items and do a thorough search.
You're basically asking, "Why do dumb people make mistakes?"
Quote:
4. Would SA be dumb enough to hide the car near the entrance of his salvage yard and allow a police search?
post explaining further: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...orking/czp3ls7
Quote:
5. What was the prosecutions "story" of how the murder took place, and motive?
1. Why was there no trace of her blood anywhere in his house or garage?
3. Why was her blood in the car to begin with?
1. Why was there no trace of her blood anywhere in his house or garage?
3. Why was her blood in the car to begin with?
Quote:
We know sometime later, that is, we know sometime in the future, a bullet is found in this exact area, has Teresa Halbach's DNA on it. All right. The inference, and this is an inference that I'm asking you to draw, is that Teresa Halbach was killed in the garage. She was killed in Steven Avery's garage.
Now, we have heard testimony about luminal finding blood, that is a reagent, a chemical that is used by the Crime Lab is spread out. There's two things that are most reactive with luminal, one is human blood and the other is bleach. Bleach coincidentally is the one thing that eats up or destroys DNA.
We have heard about just to the left and just to the back of this tractor, about a three to 4 foot area, large area that lit up or glowed very brightly. Mr. Ertl testified about that. He was the person who processed that area. I'm asking you to infer that Mr. Avery cleaned up this area with bleach.
Now, you knew that inference, or that suggestion from the State, I think, was coming. We have put in the bleach. We have talked about the luminal. We have gotten expert testimony from Mr. Ertl that the two things that light up, it wasn't blood, but it was, in fact, bleach.
You heard from Blaine Dassey, importantly, that the garage, other than the junk on the surrounding edges of this garage, looked pretty much like this, from the sense of the Suzuki and the snowmobile, which were in there later on that week, were on the side of the garage at the time. So Teresa Halbach's vehicle is backed in, backed into the garage.
Teresa Halbach is killed. She's laying down. She's shot twice, once in the left side of her head, once in the back of her head, or I guess I should more accurately say she's shot at least twice. Because two bullet's were found two entrance wounds were found to her head. We do have the 11 shell casings on the 6th that were recovered. How many times Mr. Avery actually shot this poor girl, you probably aren't going to be able to determine, but it's at least twice, and it's at least twice to the head.
What does he do though, later, with Teresa Halbach. It's the State's theory in this case, and we're entitled to a theory, just like the defense, that after backing in the SUV, into the garage, which was, again, empty at the time, after closing the garage door, which Mr. Fabian testified is how he saw it at around dusk, Mr. Avery does a couple of things.
Remember he doesn't know if the cops or somebody is coming looking for Teresa. He has got lots to do. He has got lots of things in the next several hours to do in this case. He has to get rid of all of Teresa's stuff, her camera, her cell phone, her PDA, which very well may be in a purse or something, in the vehicle, which he burns. We know that those are in the burn barrel. We're going to talk about that in just a minute.
And he places Teresa Halbach in the back, or the cargo area of her own SUV. Now, in doing that, Mr. Avery does a couple of things. He doesn't do it very gently, because we know that there's motion involved. He throws, if you will, Teresa, in the back, because of the blood spatter across the back of the open gate. But Teresa is laying at rest; she is resting at peace, having been killed by Mr. Avery, kind of diagonally in the back of that SUV.
And because of her hair imprint, you are able to deduce that. You are able to know that. Again, remember my closing argument, those are more indications of Teresa telling you this is where I was. All right. This is where he put me. And those are inferences, again, that you should and can adopt. Why, because it's not dark yet, and he needs a big rip roaring fire before he can dispose of and mutilate this body.
Again, he has got to do all of this stuff quickly, because he doesn't know if the police are coming. So we hear then, at at least 7:30, perhaps before then, but at 7:30 there's already a fire, a big fire in the back. Although it's dark out, there's a big fire in the back of his garage. And we'll talk about some of the more details there. But as long as Mr. Buting asked about the theory of prosecution, again, which we are entitled, that is, in fact, the theory of the State's prosecution.
Now, we have heard testimony about luminal finding blood, that is a reagent, a chemical that is used by the Crime Lab is spread out. There's two things that are most reactive with luminal, one is human blood and the other is bleach. Bleach coincidentally is the one thing that eats up or destroys DNA.
We have heard about just to the left and just to the back of this tractor, about a three to 4 foot area, large area that lit up or glowed very brightly. Mr. Ertl testified about that. He was the person who processed that area. I'm asking you to infer that Mr. Avery cleaned up this area with bleach.
Now, you knew that inference, or that suggestion from the State, I think, was coming. We have put in the bleach. We have talked about the luminal. We have gotten expert testimony from Mr. Ertl that the two things that light up, it wasn't blood, but it was, in fact, bleach.
You heard from Blaine Dassey, importantly, that the garage, other than the junk on the surrounding edges of this garage, looked pretty much like this, from the sense of the Suzuki and the snowmobile, which were in there later on that week, were on the side of the garage at the time. So Teresa Halbach's vehicle is backed in, backed into the garage.
Teresa Halbach is killed. She's laying down. She's shot twice, once in the left side of her head, once in the back of her head, or I guess I should more accurately say she's shot at least twice. Because two bullet's were found two entrance wounds were found to her head. We do have the 11 shell casings on the 6th that were recovered. How many times Mr. Avery actually shot this poor girl, you probably aren't going to be able to determine, but it's at least twice, and it's at least twice to the head.
What does he do though, later, with Teresa Halbach. It's the State's theory in this case, and we're entitled to a theory, just like the defense, that after backing in the SUV, into the garage, which was, again, empty at the time, after closing the garage door, which Mr. Fabian testified is how he saw it at around dusk, Mr. Avery does a couple of things.
Remember he doesn't know if the cops or somebody is coming looking for Teresa. He has got lots to do. He has got lots of things in the next several hours to do in this case. He has to get rid of all of Teresa's stuff, her camera, her cell phone, her PDA, which very well may be in a purse or something, in the vehicle, which he burns. We know that those are in the burn barrel. We're going to talk about that in just a minute.
And he places Teresa Halbach in the back, or the cargo area of her own SUV. Now, in doing that, Mr. Avery does a couple of things. He doesn't do it very gently, because we know that there's motion involved. He throws, if you will, Teresa, in the back, because of the blood spatter across the back of the open gate. But Teresa is laying at rest; she is resting at peace, having been killed by Mr. Avery, kind of diagonally in the back of that SUV.
And because of her hair imprint, you are able to deduce that. You are able to know that. Again, remember my closing argument, those are more indications of Teresa telling you this is where I was. All right. This is where he put me. And those are inferences, again, that you should and can adopt. Why, because it's not dark yet, and he needs a big rip roaring fire before he can dispose of and mutilate this body.
Again, he has got to do all of this stuff quickly, because he doesn't know if the police are coming. So we hear then, at at least 7:30, perhaps before then, but at 7:30 there's already a fire, a big fire in the back. Although it's dark out, there's a big fire in the back of his garage. And we'll talk about some of the more details there. But as long as Mr. Buting asked about the theory of prosecution, again, which we are entitled, that is, in fact, the theory of the State's prosecution.
Quote:
Not sure if he is guilty or not but does seem to be enough doubt for me to not convict at this point.
IMO: in documentary filmmaking (at least mainstream documentary filmmaking) there is an implicit trust granted by the viewer that the documentary will attempt to present an accurate portrayal of events. In Making a Murderer, the filmmakers blatantly violated this trust in order to better serve their narrative of examining a corrupt justice system. It was the filmmakers who framed the cops!
If you are truly interested in reading up on the case, some things you can read:
Stuff left out of the documentary - http://stevenaverycase.com/what-maki...idnt-tell-you/
A breakdown on if evidence was actually planted - http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/
A layperson's explanation of the EDTA test - http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained
Trial transcripts - http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-av...l-transcripts/
02-17-2016
, 02:54 PM
02-17-2016
, 03:20 PM
02-17-2016
, 03:25 PM
02-17-2016
, 03:41 PM
02-17-2016
, 03:49 PM
02-17-2016
, 04:03 PM
02-17-2016
, 04:11 PM
Quote:
A lot of these aren't really questions that anyone can answer, except for speculation, so I'm not really sure what you're looking for... but I'll try my best :
Who knows - maybe he didn't notice he left the blood, maybe he figured he was going to destroy it anyway - as if it's found on his property, he's already sort of ****ed, blood or no blood.
He most likely didn't find the bullets. One fragment was hidden in a crack in the concrete. One was hidden under a piece of machinery by the wall. This explains why they didn't find these bullets on the initial searches while it was a missing person investigation, when they didn't know it was the crime scene and didn't move any items and do a thorough search.
You're basically asking, "Why do dumb people make mistakes?"
It wasn't near the entrance - if you look at the map, and the photos of how the car was hidden, it was probably the ideal hiding spot on short notice. Here's a
post explaining further: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...orking/czp3ls7
I'll let you read from Kratz's closing statement:
.
I don't know of anybody, myself included, that thought they could convict Steven after only watching the documentary.
IMO: in documentary filmmaking (at least mainstream documentary filmmaking) there is an implicit trust granted by the viewer that the documentary will attempt to present an accurate portrayal of events. In Making a Murderer, the filmmakers blatantly violated this trust in order to better serve their narrative of examining a corrupt justice system. It was the filmmakers who framed the cops!
If you are truly interested in reading up on the case, some things you can read:
Stuff left out of the documentary - http://stevenaverycase.com/what-maki...idnt-tell-you/
A breakdown on if evidence was actually planted - http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/
A layperson's explanation of the EDTA test - http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained
Trial transcripts - http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-av...l-transcripts/
:Who knows - maybe he didn't notice he left the blood, maybe he figured he was going to destroy it anyway - as if it's found on his property, he's already sort of ****ed, blood or no blood.
He most likely didn't find the bullets. One fragment was hidden in a crack in the concrete. One was hidden under a piece of machinery by the wall. This explains why they didn't find these bullets on the initial searches while it was a missing person investigation, when they didn't know it was the crime scene and didn't move any items and do a thorough search.
You're basically asking, "Why do dumb people make mistakes?"
It wasn't near the entrance - if you look at the map, and the photos of how the car was hidden, it was probably the ideal hiding spot on short notice. Here's a
post explaining further: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...orking/czp3ls7
I'll let you read from Kratz's closing statement:
.
I don't know of anybody, myself included, that thought they could convict Steven after only watching the documentary.
IMO: in documentary filmmaking (at least mainstream documentary filmmaking) there is an implicit trust granted by the viewer that the documentary will attempt to present an accurate portrayal of events. In Making a Murderer, the filmmakers blatantly violated this trust in order to better serve their narrative of examining a corrupt justice system. It was the filmmakers who framed the cops!
If you are truly interested in reading up on the case, some things you can read:
Stuff left out of the documentary - http://stevenaverycase.com/what-maki...idnt-tell-you/
A breakdown on if evidence was actually planted - http://stevenaverycase.com/was-evidence-planted/
A layperson's explanation of the EDTA test - http://stevenaverycase.com/blood-edta-test-explained
Trial transcripts - http://stevenaverycase.com/steven-av...l-transcripts/
02-17-2016
, 04:18 PM
02-17-2016
, 04:34 PM
02-17-2016
, 04:41 PM
02-17-2016
, 05:49 PM
02-17-2016
, 06:15 PM