Ikasign why was S.A. place not ripped apart including the Drains/pipes etc to look for blood?

Ikasigh why was everything photographed but not the burn pit/area.
Clue..

Ikasign
Why do you think that only 1 piece of metal was found in the burn pit (daisy rivets) & no bullets or rings, bracelets or chains of T.H.

And why was the Halbach family never asked about these personal items that T.H. wore?

You mean the phone call to his mom that the investigators said over and over that he better call her. They knew it was recorded. It wasn't BD's idea to call his mom and confess. That was part of "we are here to help you and the truth shall set you free".

Until BD's fictional narrative, the investigators had no idea what happened. Once they heard that AND went on television and pretended it was fact, they were screwed. There was no going back. Any evidence that didn't back that narrative was dismissed. She was most likely killed far away from the trailer, but the state couldn't change what they believe happened without completely looking foolish.

KK was a fool for going on tv like that without confirmatory evidence. And that is why there is doubt.

Just signed up to this forum to be able to participate in MaM thread.

I can't say I'm much of a poker player!

Am going to review the three hundred pages or so to get a sense of the general drift of the discussion.

don't waste your time

And if you had no semen at all, no defensive wounds on your client, but your client was friends with the victim and has been pointed to by the victim as the perp, it would be very hard to get a conviction.

This is the level of evidence against Dassey.

Sure, BD may have had some involvement in whatever happened. (He may not just as well.)

But if you are talking about being able to prove what he was charged with beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, there is virtually no chance that that could happen once his confession is thrown out. At least given what we know (and don't know) at this point.

You are still talking about a jury. They can (and do) convict people just because they feel like they did a crime. There are many citizens who believe if you are arrested, you must be guilty of something.

There is no guarantee that without the confession that BD will be found not guilty. And good luck finding a juror in the state of Wisconsin who has not heard something about the case.

I don't think he is getting out for a long time anyway. State will just appeal the federal ruling that they do not have authority to vacate a state case. They can tie this up in state and federal court for years.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Even with confession removed, he could easily be found guilty.

There are other people that can place him at the scene and he doesn't have a complete alibi.

I think a lot of people in Wisconsin still view him and especially SA as guilty and are offended by the documentary that even broaches the topic that a police officer would ever tamper evidence.

+1


Don't worry, I think everyone agrees with this.

Foreword and 1st chapter from Michael Griesbach's new book, Indefensible: The Missing Truth about Steven Avery, Teresa Halbach, and Making a Murderer:

https://www.facebook.com/michael.gri...26684307391616

Sorry, I'm not really following you. Did he admit to his Mom that he helped clean up blood or not? What difference does it make that someone encouraged him to call his Mom?

What does the press conference have to do with what we're talking about? Okay, the murder probably did not go down according to the scenario described at the press conference, but it's a big stretch to go from that to concluding that Dassey wasn't involved in the murder at all.

Except, they convicted him based on that same narrative, pretty much solely based on his confession

Yes, a narrative shaped by Dassey's interrogators and peppered with facts supplied to him by police.

There's no forensic reason to think Dassey had anything to do with this.

Did Avery commit any crime against Teresa?

One more Griesbach quote taken from the Reelz flick, presumably the same claim he will make in the book:
when they were in there searching Colborn had put back some pornography magazines basically into the bookcase and he was doing it kind of roughly -- throwing it in there -- when the backing of the bookcase apparently came out of the rear of a particle board. Steven Avery had tucked the key behind in between the particle board and the bookcase and that’s when it fell out. That explanation was never even shown on Making a Murderer.

Deputy Dan Kucharski
Back at the command post, we were given the assignment by Lt. BOWE to go to the residence at 12932 Avery Rd. and conduct a thorough search of the residence.We were instructed to take into evidence any pornographic material, the computer in the living room, any computer related storage devices, and to take sample swabs of suspected blood spots in the bathroom of the residence. We were also instructed to thoroughly search the residence for any other types of evidence.

What isn't explained by Griesbach here is how a bookshelf can be tipped to its side, twisted, shook and pulled away from the wall yet leave all the loose coins and the paper receipt atop completely stationary along with the shelf retaining its exact position before and after.

M.G
Still employed as an assistant district attorney in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, where these events occurred, but not directly involved in prosecuting either of Avery’s cases...
...
But at the same time, except for drafting the initial search warrant, I was not involved in the murder investigation or its lengthy trial.

I knew the documentary’s producers were biased in favor of Avery. They had interviewed me for the project, and they even tried to get me to come around to their way of thinking...
...
I tried to be as careful and unbiased as possible when I conducted my research for this book, but in the end perfect objectivity is only something we can strive for.
...
I’m not “pro prosecution” by any means.

CLAIM: When Carla [aka Jodi] came home a little after eleven that night, she and Steve got into an argument. She told him "to pack his **** up and move out," at which point he pushed her, causing her to fall into a chair and hit her head. Avery got on top of her and started hitting her, telling her he should kill her. Carla was able to get up to call 911, but before she could talk to the dispatcher, Steve ripped the phone out of the wall and began choking her to the point where she lost consciousness. When she came to, he dragged her out to the car by her arms and said, "I should get the gun and kill you."

FACT: The official police report http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...c-Violence.pdf (page 4) indicates that there was no physical evidence to support her claims of any physical assault. There were no marks around her neck, no redness or markings where she says she was struck. She was unwilling to complete any domestic violence paperwork, and had been drinking alcohol.

From Nexious, TTM Reddit

Yeah, pretty disgusting PoorShillz is heavy peddling this dudes book. I think we pretty much annihilated this douche bag back in January, but this is a thorough spanking. Dikembe fingerwag worthy IMO.

They convicted him. They don't have to give a reason why although they are able to talk to the media post-trial.

BD isn't, imho, getting out for a very long time. His "confession" sadly is legal and he can waive his right to an attorney or parent to be present.

The so-called 'confession' has been thrown out.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-and-Order.pdf

As of now, no case against Brendan.

Uh, as it stands right now, the details are the exact opposite of what you just wrote.

No, the confession is/was legal. A Federal judge just ruled that it seemed very coerced.

I think the State will appeal the Federal ruling and BD will remain in jail for a very long time.

No, the court has ruled the confession was improper. Of course it can be appealed but as it stands right now, the confession cannot be used against him.

The only thing that led police to interview Dassey in the first place was him telling his cousin he was involved.

The cousin then told her school counselor, and then the police. The police had no interest in BD until the cousin told them that he was acting very weird, was losing a lot of weight quickly, and said stuff to her about the terrible things he saw at his uncle's house.

It is patently obvious that BD was involved. The idea that he suddenly started losing weight, crying for no reason, and saying bizarre things about seeing body parts in the fire - coincidentally right at the time after the murder - and it was all just girlfriend trouble or teenage hormones, is just ridiculous. It is a textbook case of a person being wracked by guilt.

The idea that Kayla made it all up for no reason is also patently ridiculous, and the jury could plainly see she was lying on the stand when she tried to claim she did.

The fact that BD was involved was not created by police. It came from BD's own mouth, both to his cousin and later to investigators.

His many different versions of the story are more reflective of his evasiveness and internal conflict that any diabolical manipulation by the police. He was scared but the truth was eating him up inside. He wanted to confess but was trying to minimize his involvement, until he gave in and confessed to what he did.

During his first interview he lied and said he was home playing video games all night. He claimed he never even saw a bonfire or his uncle that night. This was before the bones were even found so if he had nothing to do with it, he'd have no reason to lie about the bonfire since there would be nothing suspicious about it. His story gradually changed from outright lie to a semi-version of the truth, to the truth.

Police first interrogated Brendan on November 6, 2005.

Kayla supposedly was telling her story in December, and wasn't interviewed until February 2006.

Your timeline is all messed up - unless you involve time travel.