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

12-30-2015 , 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
The odds that he had anything to do with this murder given the scope of the evidence to the contrary and extremely unusual circumstances are so low that I'm having trouble understanding how anyone could doubt that he's innocent of this crime.

What about the facts not even brought up in the documentary?

There was non-blood DNA, belonging to Avery, found under the hood (on the latch) of the victim's car? A car he swore he never touched. Not even mentioned in the show.

And that the victim's palm pilot and camera were also found in the burn pile?

That the victim complained to her bosses that she no longer wanted to go out to his property as he met her at the door only wearing a towel?

That the kid, Brendan, had made prior allegations of Steven touching him in a sexual way?

There are dozens and dozens of things like this. I've said it before, I don't know if it amounts to a conviction, but to say there is nothing, no evidence, is disingenuous.
12-30-2015 , 07:40 PM
Quote:
What is fact is that his blood was in her car and neither the tests nor any other evidence showed it was planted from the vial.
Consider the circumstances though. This is extremely damning evidence if it's true. However, the people that would most stand to gain (or not lose) from him being convicted also happen to be running the investigation, also happen to be present or actually performing the actual discovery of evidence DESPITE being ordered NOT to be there to avoid this very situation...yeah these same people also happen to have access to a vile of blood taken from when these same people wrongly accused him in the first case. Oh and then that vile of blood which should be locked up and sealed as evidence also happens to have the sealed evidence tape clearly cut AND RESEALED with scotch tape. EDTA test? Sure...but now we have 2 more bits of info to go along with the circumstances. Why does the judge deny the defense the ability to have a 2nd test done by an independent party? How is the FBI able to obtain the test results so quickly?
12-30-2015 , 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
The odds that he had anything to do with this murder given the scope of the evidence to the contrary and extremely unusual circumstances are so low that I'm having trouble understanding how anyone could doubt that he's innocent of this crime.
Those statements ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Apparently you are incapable of understanding that simple fact.

The graph is ridiculous. Nobody rational, not even his defense attorney in the video linked earlier, is claiming iron-clad proof that he WASN'T involved somehow. We simply don't know.

What's your agenda here? Who REALLY cares if he was involved somehow or not? The important takeaway is that the state has to make a compelling case, and they didn't, and he got convicted anyway. The criminal justice system failed. THAT'S what the documentary is about.
12-30-2015 , 08:05 PM
just remembered a great part, ol boy that did the facial composite of the "suspect" which was basically avery's mugshot, had his sketch framed and put it in his office. he was so proud of that sketch
12-30-2015 , 08:11 PM
Quote:
What about the facts not even brought up in the documentary?

There was non-blood DNA, belonging to Avery, found under the hood (on the latch) of the victim's car? A car he swore he never touched. Not even mentioned in the show.

And that the victim's palm pilot and camera were also found in the burn pile?

That the victim complained to her bosses that she no longer wanted to go out to his property as he met her at the door only wearing a towel?

That the kid, Brendan, had made prior allegations of Steven touching him in a sexual way?

There are dozens and dozens of things like this. I've said it before, I don't know if it amounts to a conviction, but to say there is nothing, no evidence, is disingenuous.
I have a bit of an advantage here because my source of info is the main point of this thread, the documentary itself.

I've mentioned it earlier in the thread that these little nuggets of "things the doc did not show" thrown in here should definitely come with a source.

I've read the same things you have but found they mostly came from journalists in Manitowoc area or Wisconsin itself and were not substantiated nor was he ever convicted of these things.

Palm Pilot in burn pile? I mean, they got her bones into the burn pile, a palm pilot doesn't seem that much more difficult.

DNA on the latch? Oh man, this one is good. So here's the link to the coerced confession by Brendon in March of 2006: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9ow4lwzec...16_07.pdf?dl=0

Here's the Columet County officer's statements:

Kratz: "Was Teresa's car hood opened up by Uncle Steve as Brendan says? Well, on Aprll 3, again, as a result of Brendan's statements, law enforcement swabs -- they take a Q-tip and -- and they swab the hood latch, reaching up underneath the hood, just to see if we can get a a DNA profile. Sherry Culhane does. She gets a full profile that's Steven Avery's sweat. Steven Avery's sweat is found on the hood latch, just like should happen if Brendan is to believed that Uncle Steve went under the hood."
SOURCE: Brendan Dassey's Trial, Day 1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9ow4lwzec...16_07.pdf?dl=0

Again, this evidence is so obviously tainted. The recorded interview is so ridiculously coerced its unreal. They very obviously get Brendon to say "yeah" as they suggest that his uncle opened the hood. This is after Brendon attempts to guess what they want him to say twice and he gets it wrong. Again this is MARCH. Then Fassbender and Weigert instruct Columet officers where to look for the DNA? DNA discovery is done in APRIL. I mean, come on....Besides, they knew the battery cable was disconnected from day 1. Yet 6 months after the car has been on the police compound as evidence, they decide to check the latch for DNA after a clearly coerced statement? 6 months? Really?

TLDR: March - Detectives use blatant coercing tactics to get Brendon to agree to their suggestion that SA opened the hood.
April - Same detective instruct the Columet County officers where to look for DNA.
Conclusion: Even more proof of planted evidence.



Gotta come stronger than that.

Last edited by lostinthesaus; 12-30-2015 at 08:27 PM.
12-30-2015 , 08:15 PM
^ Second this

Pokeraz making a true az of himself there
12-30-2015 , 08:36 PM
"Do we have Steven Avery in custody though?"
12-30-2015 , 08:38 PM
This nugget tho.

Here's something you didn't see in the documentary:

It was also Sherry Culhane [DNA Technician] who linked Avery to the Beernsten case in 1985 (a serologist who had been at the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory in Madison for a year and a half at the time) stating that Avery's hair sample was similar to a hair sample found on the victim.

20 years later...the exact same serologist, now Supervisor, DNA Unit at the same Madison Crime Lab...is the one to do the blood test on the bullet.
12-30-2015 , 08:42 PM
Watching her on the stand she visibly looked like she was lying. It was tough, pathetic and embarrassing to watch all at the same time.
12-30-2015 , 08:50 PM
Good to see the alternate theory with the german back up. It was apparently only deleted for administrative reasons, that the original post had used a shortened link to cite one of its sources, which is against site rules.
12-30-2015 , 08:54 PM
Quote:
What's your agenda here? Who REALLY cares if he was involved somehow or not?
LOL, its fun to talk about. Nothing further your honor.
12-30-2015 , 08:57 PM
Quote:
Who REALLY cares
Sad face.

No one, or so the Manitowoc County hoped.

Thankfully, SA's lawyers did.
12-30-2015 , 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by b4dger1 Making a Murderer
Really interesting stuff in this one. A bit off the wall in spots, but certainly something to think about.

Spoiler:
The Dassey brother and Tadych were suspicious in the doc to the point where a "twist" I was expecting in regards to who actually did it were those 2 when I was watching. And reading that article makes me think its a lot more possible
12-30-2015 , 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I have a bit of an advantage here because my source of info is the main point of this thread, the documentary itself.

I've mentioned it earlier in the thread that these little nuggets of "things the doc did not show" thrown in here should definitely come with a source.

I've read the same things you have but found they mostly came from journalists in Manitowoc area or Wisconsin itself and were not substantiated nor was he ever convicted of these things.

Palm Pilot in burn pile? I mean, they got her bones into the burn pile, a palm pilot doesn't seem that much more difficult.

DNA on the latch? Oh man, this one is good. So here's the link to the coerced confession by Brendon in March of 2006: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9ow4lwzec...16_07.pdf?dl=0

Here's the Columet County officer's statements:

Kratz: "Was Teresa's car hood opened up by Uncle Steve as Brendan says? Well, on Aprll 3, again, as a result of Brendan's statements, law enforcement swabs -- they take a Q-tip and -- and they swab the hood latch, reaching up underneath the hood, just to see if we can get a a DNA profile. Sherry Culhane does. She gets a full profile that's Steven Avery's sweat. Steven Avery's sweat is found on the hood latch, just like should happen if Brendan is to believed that Uncle Steve went under the hood."
SOURCE: Brendan Dassey's Trial, Day 1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9ow4lwzec...16_07.pdf?dl=0

Again, this evidence is so obviously tainted. The recorded interview is so ridiculously coerced its unreal. They very obviously get Brendon to say "yeah" as they suggest that his uncle opened the hood. This is after Brendon attempts to guess what they want him to say twice and he gets it wrong. Again this is MARCH. Then Fassbender and Weigert instruct Columet officers where to look for the DNA? DNA discovery is done in APRIL. I mean, come on....Besides, they knew the battery cable was disconnected from day 1. Yet 6 months after the car has been on the police compound as evidence, they decide to check the latch for DNA after a clearly coerced statement? 6 months? Really?


TLDR: March - Detectives use blatant coercing tactics to get Brendon to agree to their suggestion that SA opened the hood.
April - Same detective instruct the Columet County officers where to look for DNA.
Conclusion: Even more proof of planted evidence.



Gotta come stronger than that.
I've already addressed the same issue previously itt, but apparently peeps can't read so yea.....what ^^^^ said.

Going forward please don't bring up DNA on the hood latch as if it further incriminates SA. At BEST it lacks crediblity; at worst it points to furtherance of a conspiracy.
12-30-2015 , 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BustoPro Making a Murderer
Who REALLY cares if he was involved somehow or not?
I agreed with pretty much everything u wrote in this topic, except this. I DO care!


One thing I forgot, wasn't it the prosecutor that sent the blood to the FBI lab for EDTA testing? Why wouldn't the defendant do this, as it was basically their piece of evidence?

I also wish they sent like 5 samples instead, 3 of the actual blood in the car and 2 directly from the tube. If no EDTA was found in any sample, it wouldve made things a lot more interesting.
12-30-2015 , 09:42 PM
Quote:
One thing I forgot, wasn't it the prosecutor that sent the blood to the FBI lab for EDTA testing? Why wouldn't the defendant do this, as it was basically their piece of evidence?
This is a good question. Maybe because the swabs, car and vile were already in the possession of police? No idea....

Quote:
I also wish they sent like 5 samples instead, 3 of the actual blood in the car and 2 directly from the tube. If no EDTA was found in any sample, it wouldve made things a lot more interesting.
Defense tried to get more samples tested but it was denied by Judge.
12-30-2015 , 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I have a bit of an advantage here because my source of info is the main point of this thread, the documentary itself.

I've mentioned it earlier in the thread that these little nuggets of "things the doc did not show" thrown in here should definitely come with a source.

I've read the same things you have but found they mostly came from journalists in Manitowoc area or Wisconsin itself and were not substantiated nor was he ever convicted of these things.

Palm Pilot in burn pile? I mean, they got her bones into the burn pile, a palm pilot doesn't seem that much more difficult.

DNA on the latch? Oh man, this one is good. So here's the link to the coerced confession by Brendon in March of 2006: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9ow4lwzec...16_07.pdf?dl=0

Here's the Columet County officer's statements:

Kratz: "Was Teresa's car hood opened up by Uncle Steve as Brendan says? Well, on Aprll 3, again, as a result of Brendan's statements, law enforcement swabs -- they take a Q-tip and -- and they swab the hood latch, reaching up underneath the hood, just to see if we can get a a DNA profile. Sherry Culhane does. She gets a full profile that's Steven Avery's sweat. Steven Avery's sweat is found on the hood latch, just like should happen if Brendan is to believed that Uncle Steve went under the hood."
SOURCE: Brendan Dassey's Trial, Day 1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/c9ow4lwzec...16_07.pdf?dl=0

Again, this evidence is so obviously tainted. The recorded interview is so ridiculously coerced its unreal. They very obviously get Brendon to say "yeah" as they suggest that his uncle opened the hood. This is after Brendon attempts to guess what they want him to say twice and he gets it wrong. Again this is MARCH. Then Fassbender and Weigert instruct Columet officers where to look for the DNA? DNA discovery is done in APRIL. I mean, come on....Besides, they knew the battery cable was disconnected from day 1. Yet 6 months after the car has been on the police compound as evidence, they decide to check the latch for DNA after a clearly coerced statement? 6 months? Really?

TLDR: March - Detectives use blatant coercing tactics to get Brendon to agree to their suggestion that SA opened the hood.
April - Same detective instruct the Columet County officers where to look for DNA.
Conclusion: Even more proof of planted evidence.



Gotta come stronger than that.
The point is, every time evidence is brought up, the answer is planted.

Multiple cops, prosecutors, the fbi, judges etc are involved in a conspiracy and the framing of an innocent man. At some point, it becomes very hard to believe. One, two, three pieces of evidence. We're up to dozens of things that were supposedly fabricated.

I'm not an expert in this case and I've already admitted there are things I don't know. And there some purported facts that I flat out don't believe. And that I would most likely would not have voted to convict.

Btw, is there any shred of evidence she actually left the property? Cell phone activity, witness, anything?
12-30-2015 , 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisGunBGud Making a Murderer
^ Second this

Pokeraz making a true az of himself there
Very clever. I guess it does make me an ass to engage in a discussion with you. Shame on me.
12-30-2015 , 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggetje Making a Murderer
One thing I forgot, wasn't it the prosecutor that sent the blood to the FBI lab for EDTA testing? Why wouldn't the defendant do this, as it was basically their piece of evidence?
LOL? It's the government's evidence. "Oh hey man, I need my glock back, it's my piece of evidence."
12-30-2015 , 10:00 PM
Not sure why you got called an az, probably because you don't share his opinion :P

This is a good read btw, I really like the theory: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...ketchy_due_to/

It explains both brother/exbf's behavior and fits in really well with the deer-in-headlight look from Colborn during trial, since that pretty much made it obvious something was not right with that RAV4.
12-30-2015 , 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunDownHouse. Making a Murderer
LOL? It's the government's evidence. "Oh hey man, I need my glock back, it's my piece of evidence."
...

It's not their evidence as in they own it, it's their evidence as in: it's what they want to bring up at court to defend their case.

Defendant has nothing to gain from doing this test.
12-30-2015 , 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokeraz Making a Murderer

Multiple cops, prosecutors, the fbi, judges etc are involved in a conspiracy and the framing of an innocent man. At some point, it becomes very hard to believe. One, two, three pieces of evidence. We're up to dozens of things that were supposedly fabricated.
For me, its what makes this story so compelling.

Lawyers touched on this a bit but had the same feelings, that no one would believe it possible. Thats why they tried to avoid that strategy.

But given that there is a tremendous amount of motive in the financial and reputation aspects of Avery winning the civil suit, it adds a marked degree of possibility. Since insurance was not going to pay because of blatant and egregious methods used by the same officers in first wrongful conviction, they stood to lose their personal assets. Not to mention hits to their reputation. Furthermore I can't see the county having enough money to cover this. Surely anyone employed by the county had their job security at risk the closer Steve Avery got to winning his suit.

Is it hard to believe that that many people could conspire to put this man away? Yes. But can I also understand how the same group would agree to protect themselves and that the best outcome is that he end up in jail? Yes.
12-30-2015 , 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by master3004 Making a Murderer
Is there any indication he left a message? The prosecution paints it as though he called without *67 in order to set up an alibi, but maybe he just called that number by mistake while trying to reach his gf. Pulled up last number called and hit send and then whoops, wrong number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenewsavman Making a Murderer
We don't know. All we know is that the call lasted 13 seconds. What we do know is that someone deleted messages on Teresa's phone in the days following her visit to SA's house.

IMO a 13 second phone call either points to a message or a conversation. Coupled with the fact we know at least one message was deleted, it is extremely suspicious.
Mistake/butt dial is possible but unlikely. I don't think we know whether he left a voicemail, but it seems unlikely given that the people who deleted VMs appear to be brother / ex-bf who are not going to delete an incriminating VM from SA and if there was somehow something on the VM that exonerates SA he should've been able to recount what that was and have some kind of explanation for the call. No explanation for the call whatsoever wouldn't be enough for me to convict as a juror but seems circumstantially damning in my mind.

Blood test is a huge issue of course. In a case with so many moving parts & layers, ironclad blood test results that demonstrate zero EDTA in the samples would basically supersede everything and SA's involvement approaches 100%. It'd really help to have some kind of objective analysis of how accurate the EDTA test they used was:

-Defense argued that the test hadn't been used in 10 years... why?
-This study says EDTA can be detected in dried blood properly stored for >2 years
-But it looks like the FBI test looks for a minimum concentration of EDTA and comes back negative if it doesn't find it. That is, a positive test result confirms there IS EDTA in the sample but a negative result doesn't confirm there is NO EDTA. Was the minimum concentration level set appropriately? What is the likelihood they get a false negative? We are poker players and need these probabilities quantified.
-He's an FBI scientist they said. We can trust him they said. However redditors (undisputed best source in the globe) have pointed out that this same FBI guy had previously quickly devised a new test to "confirm" a defendant poisoned someone or something, and it turns out that the conviction was overturned after evidence later exonerated them? Also this.
12-30-2015 , 10:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokeraz Making a Murderer
The point is, every time evidence is brought up, the answer is planted.

Multiple cops, prosecutors, the fbi, judges etc are involved in a conspiracy and the framing of an innocent man. At some point, it becomes very hard to believe. One, two, three pieces of evidence. We're up to dozens of things that were supposedly fabricated.

I'm not an expert in this case and I've already admitted there are things I don't know. And there some purported facts that I flat out don't believe. And that I would most likely would not have voted to convict.

Btw, is there any shred of evidence she actually left the property? Cell phone activity, witness, anything?
Can't we say the same thing about the initial conviction? And yet it happened.

      
m