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

01-04-2016 , 11:02 AM
In an alternate reality the Netflix series Making a Rapist was made for Gregory Allen and everyone thinks Steven Avery planted the pube.
01-04-2016 , 12:52 PM
You also have the accounts of 33+ people from the first case about SA's whereabouts. The first case there is no question SA didn't do it. With that being said there is a chance he did commit the murder, the problem is the evidence and investigation are so f'ed up there should have been an instant mistrial.

SA has a history of admitting to wrongdoings and he stood his ground on the first case and has stood his ground again. It's why I still believe there is a chance he was framed. Alternatively he is a great actor and liar but based on what we know about him that is highly doubtful.
01-04-2016 , 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
Yeah, I don't know how you come out not knowing that. Yeah, you never know 100%, but close enough.

Besides the bad and leading investigation, you have the DNA from a previously convicted sex offender who had opportunity and totally fits the description.
Plus the sex offender confessed
01-04-2016 , 02:21 PM
From SNF

01-04-2016 , 02:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capone0 Making a Murderer
SA has a history of admitting to wrongdoings and he stood his ground on the first case and has stood his ground again. It's why I still believe there is a chance he was framed. Alternatively he is a great actor and liar but based on what we know about him that is highly doubtful.
This is one of the most compelling things the jury didn't see. I believe Strang said in one of the interviews linked earlier itt that people like Avery typically don't have the mental fortitude to hold up against continued police interrogation and eventually end up confessing. I'm only 4? episodes in, but if Avery is guilty, he is an exceptional liar.
01-04-2016 , 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PayoffWiz Making a Murderer
This is one of the most compelling things the jury didn't see. I believe Strang said in one of the interviews linked earlier itt that people like Avery typically don't have the mental fortitude to hold up against continued police interrogation and eventually end up confessing. I'm only 4? episodes in, but if Avery is guilty, he is an exceptional liar.
Yeah, and they make a big deal about how BD is not the brightest bulb on the christmas tree, but neither is SA. He's older and not so easily manipulated, but he's really likely not up for complicated plans and deception.

Quite a display of disparate intelligence levels on this show and it's impact. I think several of the non-Averys are quite dumb as well, with just a little better environment/education/expectations.

SA's attorneys are basically head and shoulders above everyone else except maybe BD's replacement attorneys who seem pretty decent.

I'm pretty sure it would have been painful to be on that jury. They mentioned 7 people voted to acquit in the first vote and that there were 3 stubborn people set on guilty. I imagine if you pick 12 people you're almost always going to have some who will never ever accept the possibility that a cop would plant evidence.
01-04-2016 , 03:39 PM
That omitted interview transcript linked to on the last page was pretty revealing. Dassey seemed to be giving lots of detail without being led at all. Doesn't seem anywhere near smart enough to fabricate it. Pretty damning, and I was leaning innocent.
01-04-2016 , 04:02 PM
I had a dream that there was a hidden message in the TH video. As others mentioned itt, the video definitely seemed very odd.
01-04-2016 , 04:27 PM
I have no idea what I think. On one hand the evidence in the doc point to him being innocent. On the other hand the evidence I have read about point to him being guilty. On the other hand why would a guilty man spend all that time getting files, and basically becoming a lawyer if he was guilty of murder. So, I have no idea where I stand.
01-04-2016 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn Warren Making a Murderer
That omitted interview transcript linked to on the last page was pretty revealing. Dassey seemed to be giving lots of detail without being led at all. Doesn't seem anywhere near smart enough to fabricate it. Pretty damning, and I was leaning innocent.
I don't know. I just read it and some parts don't even really make sense. I'd want to see the actual video of the questioning.

Quote:
WIEGERT: Ok. Tell us about that day when you came home from school, ok? Let's start with when you came home from school. How did you get home from school?

BRENDAN: I got off the bus at 3:45 and I walked, I seen a jeep down by our house and I went into my house and I played Playstation 2 for two hour, three hours. I ate at 8:00 and I got a phone from Steven, a phone call from Steven and he asked me if I wanted ta go to the bonfire next to Dassey's garage and I said yeah and then he told me to brind the golf cart over so I did and then he drove us, drove me around to find some stuff and I got the can seat and some wood and I seen her toe when I, when we dropped the, the seat off and late on, I seend her forehead and her belly.

WEIGERT: Ok. I'm just going to stop you there. You said when you got home, you saw her jeep. Whose jeep was that do you think?

Last edited by EfromPegTown; 01-04-2016 at 04:37 PM.
01-04-2016 , 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinn Warren Making a Murderer
That omitted interview transcript linked to on the last page was pretty revealing. Dassey seemed to be giving lots of detail without being led at all. Doesn't seem anywhere near smart enough to fabricate it. Pretty damning, and I was leaning innocent.
He could have been coached a lot by that point. Not only by the cops, but by his own attorney and investigator.

But, if that wasn't coached and the cops believed it, man, just eff them for going along with the BD trial where they say BD participated in the killing and rape.

This still all just goes to "do you think SA might have done it" not whether it proves anything. BD's various versions of events certainly can't be given too much credence.
01-04-2016 , 04:41 PM
I can't see Brendan Dassey doing anything to a woman whatsoever tbh. Obv he could be a witness to the scene but him actively participating seems insane. Not like any of the interrogations should stand anyway obviously.
01-04-2016 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by imjosh Making a Murderer
I had a dream that there was a hidden message in the TH video. As others mentioned itt, the video definitely seemed very odd.
Is this the short clip of her talking about death? Or do they show more (like more context) in a later episode?

It was another moment from the filmmakers that made me turn this off and dismiss it as too tabloid.

Reading this thread I also see that the THE BROTHER DID IT assessment has gained a following among this series cult:

Quote:
It's funny that a lot of the same people who scream "where is the blood, where is the evidence" are the first ones to point a finger at the brother because he "acted strange"
The filmmakers must be proud! Imagine if he had also burned a cat alive! As I was watching I was definitely experiencing him portrayed, shown, edited, whatever is the documenting business here in a negative light. Even if it's almost an automatic mechanism since he is helplessly a rare opposite to the constant and dominating narrative by Avery's lawyers and family. Overall it was another turnoff added to the various misgivings I was rambling about in my earlier post.

Also, about Avery being convincing or not. I read one review where they held it against the show that he was never interviewed (like he never witnessed? Related?) which I think is fair.

Similar to how Robert Durst was interviewed is likely too much to ask for but at least in some kind of journalistic context. In my book it would have given the series a chance to redeem itself somewhat but actually actively judging whether he is trustworthy, or him, or anyone really, as a human being person based on how they were portrayed in this series, and arguably making any sounding judgments on anything based on this piece at all, I have to say strikes me as naive.

Last edited by Bjørn; 01-04-2016 at 04:54 PM.
01-04-2016 , 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66 Making a Murderer
I have no idea what I think. On one hand the evidence in the doc point to him being innocent. On the other hand the evidence I have read about point to him being guilty. On the other hand why would a guilty man spend all that time getting files, and basically becoming a lawyer if he was guilty of murder. So, I have no idea where I stand.
Let's rewind a bit on the idea of him being guilty of murder. He's stupid, but we know he's been working on that salvage yard his whole life. He's in the middle of a civil suit to the tune of 36m max damages, and he's got a girlfriend he's madly in love with who will soon be out of jail. As we've seen throughout the movie, all the man wants is a girl, his family, and a place to be himself. He's also just done an 18 year bit. Are we supposed to believe that:

-He tells everyone he's about to meet with Teresa, the girl he then kills
-That he's totally willing to jeopardize the 36m on the line in that very moment
-that rather than use the smelter on the property that he knows how to use, he just burns the body in the back yard
-that rather than crush the car beyond a trace, he's going to just hide it with branches, with blood still inside
-that in all the instances of recorded phone calls with him right after all this butchery takes place, the dude sounds super chill and madly in love with his girl who is currently serving her DUI time
-he lives on a compound with something like 3 homes side by side and like 10 people around at all times. That's the spot you kill someone? lol no.
-this is the guy you think is clever enough to sanitize a garage so completely as to not leave 1 godamn trace of brain/blood/bone anywhere in that garage? How? Not a drop? He leaves the car full of blood, but the garage full of hoarder stuff is bone dry?


I see nothing even close to a motive, in fact just the opposite. He's got all the motive in the world to NOT kill her. But in a moment of temporary insanity IF he does kill her, he's got so many better ways to hide his track, even as a red neck. Smelt the body, crush the car. And if you've somehow got that body into your car (blood etc...), you damn well don't toss the bones in some piddly burn pit behind your house like an idiot. There's forest all over the county to do that in.

It's all horse****.
01-04-2016 , 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rafiki Making a Murderer
Let's rewind a bit on the idea of him being guilty of murder. He's stupid, but we know he's been working on that salvage yard his whole life. He's in the middle of a civil suit to the tune of 36m max damages, and he's got a girlfriend he's madly in love with who will soon be out of jail. As we've seen throughout the movie, all the man wants is a girl, his family, and a place to be himself. He's also just done an 18 year bit. Are we supposed to believe that:

-He tells everyone he's about to meet with Teresa, the girl he then kills
-That he's totally willing to jeopardize the 36m on the line in that very moment
-that rather than use the smelter on the property that he knows how to use, he just burns the body in the back yard
-that rather than crush the car beyond a trace, he's going to just hide it with branches, with blood still inside
-that in all the instances of recorded phone calls with him right after all this butchery takes place, the dude sounds super chill and madly in love with his girl who is currently serving her DUI time
-he lives on a compound with something like 3 homes side by side and like 10 people around at all times. That's the spot you kill someone? lol no.
-this is the guy you think is clever enough to sanitize a garage so completely as to not leave 1 godamn trace of brain/blood/bone anywhere in that garage? How? Not a drop? He leaves the car full of blood, but the garage full of hoarder stuff is bone dry?


I see nothing even close to a motive, in fact just the opposite. He's got all the motive in the world to NOT kill her. But in a moment of temporary insanity IF he does kill her, he's got so many better ways to hide his track, even as a red neck. Smelt the body, crush the car. And if you've somehow got that body into your car (blood etc...), you damn well don't toss the bones in some piddly burn pit behind your house like an idiot. There's forest all over the county to do that in.

It's all horse****.
Exactly. He's either a super genius or a super idiot, he can't be one when it comes to cleaning up stuff and not one when it comes to everything else. Nothing fits in the case.
01-04-2016 , 05:39 PM
It's just impossible that she was killed in the garage or the trailer.

If SA killed her, it was somewhere else.
01-04-2016 , 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjørn Making a Murderer
Is this the short clip of her talking about death? Or do they show more (like more context) in a later episode?

It was another moment from the filmmakers that made me turn this off and dismiss it as too tabloid.

Reading this thread I also see that the THE BROTHER DID IT assessment has gained a following among this series cult:
That's the clip. It isn't very long. Would be interesting to see the entire video.
01-04-2016 , 05:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rafiki Making a Murderer
Let's rewind a bit on the idea of him being guilty of murder. He's stupid, but we know he's been working on that salvage yard his whole life. He's in the middle of a civil suit to the tune of 36m max damages, and he's got a girlfriend he's madly in love with who will soon be out of jail. As we've seen throughout the movie, all the man wants is a girl, his family, and a place to be himself. He's also just done an 18 year bit. Are we supposed to believe that:

-He tells everyone he's about to meet with Teresa, the girl he then kills
-That he's totally willing to jeopardize the 36m on the line in that very moment
-that rather than use the smelter on the property that he knows how to use, he just burns the body in the back yard
-that rather than crush the car beyond a trace, he's going to just hide it with branches, with blood still inside
-that in all the instances of recorded phone calls with him right after all this butchery takes place, the dude sounds super chill and madly in love with his girl who is currently serving her DUI time
-he lives on a compound with something like 3 homes side by side and like 10 people around at all times. That's the spot you kill someone? lol no.
-this is the guy you think is clever enough to sanitize a garage so completely as to not leave 1 godamn trace of brain/blood/bone anywhere in that garage? How? Not a drop? He leaves the car full of blood, but the garage full of hoarder stuff is bone dry?


I see nothing even close to a motive, in fact just the opposite. He's got all the motive in the world to NOT kill her. But in a moment of temporary insanity IF he does kill her, he's got so many better ways to hide his track, even as a red neck. Smelt the body, crush the car. And if you've somehow got that body into your car (blood etc...), you damn well don't toss the bones in some piddly burn pit behind your house like an idiot. There's forest all over the county to do that in.

It's all horse****.

If I wanted to counter these points;

- He specifically requested her, even using a different name to get her to go out there.
- He doesn't have the money yet, and so what. OJ killed somebody, rich people do dumb things, and dumb people with money do dumb things too
- He told an inmate that burning the body gets rid of the DNA, maybe the reason the car was so close to the crusher was because he was preparing to crush it. Perhaps the crusher needed to be cleaned out first, or something in order to crush the car.
- Probably felt comfortable with the car on the property because you need a search warrant to be executed, and wouldn't think that somebody would let people onto his property
- Well if he killed her in the garage, there wouldn't be that much blood in her car, only when he was moving it up to the back. All the blood would be easily removed once it was bleached etc, and as somebody mentioned if it was only a gun shot wound, it's not like it would be gushing blood.
01-04-2016 , 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
I don't know. I just read it and some parts don't even really make sense. I'd want to see the actual video of the questioning.
Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/user/imAbNorMalsometime/videos
01-04-2016 , 05:48 PM
Except they didn't clean the garage.

And I'll have to look it up, but I read that the crusher was used between Oct 31st and Nov 5th
01-04-2016 , 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66 Making a Murderer
- Well if he killed her in the garage, there wouldn't be that much blood in her car, only when he was moving it up to the back. All the blood would be easily removed once it was bleached etc, and as somebody mentioned if it was only a gun shot wound, it's not like it would be gushing blood.
So he cleaned up every tiny drip of blood or other DNA - leaving a lot of his DNA behind - and didn't get the bullet? And left a bunch of shells lying around?

Ok, say the cops planted the bullet and shells just where she happened to be killed - despite the fact that they had absolutely no evidence pointing there.

Still, no way he gets all the blood/DNA/fibers/whatever - and leaves his own DNA all around too.
01-04-2016 , 06:24 PM
And that Denney transcript which I guess they used against SA that someone posted a while ago said that SA stabbed Teresa in her car and has no mention of a gun or shooting which was then used as evidence to convict SA.
01-04-2016 , 06:36 PM
Anyone else think that Strang and Buting should have done better?

As has been mentioned, they're "head and shoulders" above everyone else intelligence-wise, but I don't think they hammered their points well enough when it mattered.

Too many times, they tried to let the evidence speak for themselves. IMO they needed to match the story-telling and drama of the prosecution. Instead of just:

"There's no blood. That's all I have."

It needed to be:

"There's no blood! This alone gives reasonable doubt, etc. etc."

It seemed to me Strang and Buting lost their steam towards the end. They seemed to even forget what they were saying mid-speech, at times. I chalk this up to the intimidation of having to accuse authority figures of heinous crimes, but if they had been stronger and argued harder, things might've been different.

Another thing I think needs to be highlighted is that the audience of this show is having the evidence spoon-fed. That jury was tired and going off only what they hear in the courtroom. It's not surprising to me at all that a guilty verdict was given based on what happened in court.
01-04-2016 , 06:43 PM
Felt like they should have hammered things, but as long as 10 hours is, they still condensed a 10 week trial or something, so some parts had to be edited.
01-04-2016 , 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8rysh Making a Murderer
Anyone else think that Strang and Buting should have done better?
We have no idea how much of the proceedings we actually saw.

It's very likely they did hammer some points home that were simply edited out.

It's small town Wisconsin, dealing with a family that had the local reputation of being inbred low life scum -- good luck getting the average juror to acquit you, regardless of the obvious reasons for reasonable doubt.

It's tough for your typical above average intelligence and logical 2+2'er to really realize how dumb/irrational the average small town WI juror likely is...think about how enraging is must be for Strang/Buting to be making great point after point displaying the innumerable inconsistencies in the evidence/timeline, to only know that it likely isn't getting through the jurors' heads, whether due to stupidity or immense pre-trial bias.

That's an infuriating realization for smart/rational people, but also not hard to understand when you really think about the average juror in that case in terms of intelligence/bias/pre-trial media exposure, etc.

      
m