Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

02-05-2016 , 03:23 PM
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.
02-05-2016 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capone0 Making a Murderer
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?
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.
02-05-2016 , 03:27 PM
Oh wait, I am sure BD mom "coerced" him into admitting SA molested him.
02-05-2016 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.

Accusations = fact now apparently.

Also, wasn't that alleged incident with his cousin like ~20years prior to the TH case?
02-05-2016 , 03:35 PM
The incident with his cousin was. The other relative was around the time of the murder
02-05-2016 , 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The incident with his cousin was. The other relative was around the time of the murder

The other alleged incident you mean?
02-05-2016 , 03:36 PM
Wasn't alleged with his cousin either. he admitted to it.
02-05-2016 , 03:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
The other alleged incident you mean?
You are a real pos for calling a 15yo a liar here btw. i hop no young lady close to you gets molested.
02-05-2016 , 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
Sure anything is possible, which is why you have all the dumb "the brother did it"/"the ex-bf did it"/"the police did it"/"random nearby serial killer did it" theories floating around. Are any of those things possible? Sure. Is there a shred of proof that any of those things happened? No.

If you are going to argue that the police planted evidence, then you need some proof. Otherwise you're just talking out of your a**. The fact that it is POSSIBLE for police to plant evidence, is not proof that police planted evidence. Any more than saying it's POSSIBLE the ex-bf killed TH, is proof that he killed her.

As an example, had the test on the blood in the car found EDTA, then that would be PROOF that the blood was planted. Then, the claims of police planting evidence are no longer just random speculation based on nothing. There is now proof. But absent that, all you have are conspiracy theories based on nothing.
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.
02-05-2016 , 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
You are a real pos for calling a 15yo a liar here btw. i hop no young lady close to you gets molested.

I'm not calling anyone a liar.

You fail to understand how the criminal justice system works.
02-05-2016 , 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Ok. I don't really have a problem with them assisting in an active missing persons investigation to be honest.

Why do they continue to be involved once they deem it a homicide investigation?

Why would they be the ones executing a search warrant on SA's trailer when there were other qualified law enforcement officers on scene from CC?
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):

Quote:
Q. Mr. Buting asked you if knowing that Mr. Lenk and
5 Mr. Colborn was involved in a deposition, whether
6 or not you would assign them to search
7 responsibilities; do you remember that question?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Do you remember answering yes to that question?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you have an explanation for that answer?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What is that explanation?
14 A. My explanation is, if they told me that, I would
15 have asked them what the circumstances
16 surrounding that were. Upon them telling me, and
17 what I know now of those circumstances to be, I
18 know there was no direct conflict of
19 interest with those two individuals.
20 They weren't working when he was charged
21 and convicted on the original charge. And when
22 they got deposed, Mr. Colborn was a jailer in
23 that jail and he received a call from another
24 jail that an anonymous person said something
25 about them having the wrong person in jail and
217
1 they have the right one. Didn't identify who it
2 was, what it was about.
3 Mr. Colborn did the right thing and
4 forwarded that phone call to the Detective's
5 Bureau. Mr. Colborn was not even a sworn
6 officer. Mr. Lenk wasn't even a detective at the
7 time. He was working the road. That call went
8 up to the Detective Bureau and was handled by
9 whoever was up there at that time. And, then,
10 when Mr. Avery was exonerated, Mr. Colborn made a
11 comment to Mr. Lenk, something to the effect
12 that, boy, I wonder if that call they took way
13 back when was Mr. Avery. They had nothing to do
14 with this.
15 Q. So that, as far as you know, was Lenk and
16 Colborn's connection, this mysterious connection
17 to this civil lawsuit; is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Knowing that, as you sit here today, as the lead
20 investigator in the case, have any problems at
21 all with Lenk or Colborn's involvement in this
22 case?
23 A. Absolutely not.
24 Q. Do you know how many law enforcement officers,
25 how many citizens, and how many other witnesses
218
1 were deposed as part of that lawsuit?
2 A. No, I don't.
3 Q. Finally, Agent Fassbender, whenever a Manitowoc
4 County Sheriff's deputy was asked to assist in
5 this entire investigation, that is, when any
6 search was done out at the scene, were they
7 accompanied by a Calumet County or State DCI
8 agent?
9 A. Yes.
02-05-2016 , 03:48 PM
You realize he has a vested interested in the jury believing that there was nothing improper with his investigation right?
02-05-2016 , 03:50 PM
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.
02-05-2016 , 03:51 PM
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.
02-05-2016 , 03:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I'm not calling anyone a liar.

You fail to understand how the criminal justice system works.
never once did I suggest he should be convicted of the crime with his kid relative.
02-05-2016 , 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx702 Making a Murderer
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.
That isn't exactly what I think happened but no, with this family that would not be unusual.
02-05-2016 , 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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.

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?
02-05-2016 , 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Nope, but crushing a car takes a lot of time and crushing a new car would probably create questions from other members of his family.. Also, he didn't really know how to use the crusher. This is according to himself and earl. Did you read the link I just posted laying all this out for you?
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!
02-05-2016 , 04:00 PM
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.
02-05-2016 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
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!
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.
02-05-2016 , 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melkerson Making a Murderer
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.
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.
02-05-2016 , 04:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
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?
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
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!
Here's a good post from reddit on hiding the car:

Quote:
I agree with your post. It would be ridiculous for LE to risk planting the vehicle on Avery's property if they had both the vehicle and the blood. That's all they need for a warrant no matter where the RAV4 is located.
I posted this elsewhere, but it's related:
If someone was planting the vehicle, woudn't they have made it even more obvious? Did they take the time while trespassing to search the property for a piece of plywood and a loose car hood to make it look more hidden?
Many people keep pointing out how ridiculous the hiding of the RAV4 appeared to be. They seem to be basing this opinion on the close-up photos. If someone decided to hide the car on the property temporarily, the location chosen seems like a very good spot. Clearly this is not a good permanent hiding spot, anyone that went up on the ridge can see it easily. Nobody is going to walk past the RAV4 and not notice it. I am suggesting that the vehicle was well hidden because it is highly unlikely to be noticed from the main yard, and the ridge appears to be a very low traffic area.
It's far away from the residences and customers.
It's in a part of the lot that probably doesn't see any traffic, away from the main yard.
It's hidden from both North and South sides by clumps of trees.
It's hidden from the North by another vehicle and the plywood+hood
It's hidden from the South by a berm
It's hidden from the East by the turn in the road
It's hidden from the West by the vehicle partially in front of it, the branches, and possibly the slope
It's got a couple of branches on top to half-ass conceal it from the air.
Some pictures:
Here's the aerial view: https://i.imgur.com/xt02JdC.jpg
Another aerial view, the RAV4 was double-parked with the red car on the left. http://i.imgur.com/H6CTCH8.jpg
Berm: http://imgur.com/HbkCO9z
The view from on the ridge looking West. You can see the RAV4 cargo door behind the cop (color adjusted). http://i.imgur.com/seBpwi6.jpg
Close-Up view from the yard: https://i.imgur.com/6VqmkA9.jpg
If you weren't specifically looking for it, would you see the RAV4 in that last picture? How about from a distance? Pam and her niece were specifically looking for that particular vehicle and she didn't see it until she was right on top of it.
Whether Avery put it there or the framers put it there, it doesn't appear to me to be a ridiculous place to try and hide a vehicle, and it clearly wouldn't be obvious to anyone from any kind of distance.
It took Pam approx 35 minutes to find the car. 9:50 to 10:25 (pg 230)
I think Pam finding it in 35 minutes was because she took the most logical route, and ended up right at the RAV4. I agree it looks suspicious, but I estimate she looked at about 70 cars in 35 minutes, so 30 seconds to look in each vehicle and move to the next. Doesn't seem so unreasonable to me. They started in the NE, and followed the most Easterly line of cars (ignoring the crushed cars) until they got the end, then she went up on the ridge. It's the most logical route, it's the route I'd take and probably most people would take, but it looks suspicious because it ends up right at the RAV4. Take a look at the map of the yard. If you're in the NE corner you have two choices, go West or go South. They decided to go South towards the treeline and that happened to be straight towards the RAV4. That they found the vehicle quickly is not proof of a conspiracy.
http://imgur.com/56nOsop
http://imgur.com/QkXVYsw
02-05-2016 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.

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.
02-05-2016 , 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
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?
02-05-2016 , 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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.

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?

      
m