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

04-03-2016 , 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
I love how bones, blood, DNA, the car, the key, etc. were all obviously planted by corrupt police, and should be ignored... But a guy still being friends with his ex-gf? That's some shady s*** right there.
I don't think anyone is arguing if it was planted or not. More if it was collected in an appropriate manner and remained uncontaminated before, during and after investigation.

The odds of an ex-boyfriend committing this type of crime is much higher than anybody else His taking the lead of a search party is highly unorthodox behavior as well as being allowed on the property where the victim is believed to have been murdered.

Dismissing him so quickly as a suspect is indicative of a poor investigation. He should have been interrogated just like SA and BD.

The odds of a single offender/single victim is also much higher than dual offenders/single victim.

The FBI compiles statistics like this for a reason.

An ex-boyfriend who remains in contact with a victim of homicide is a high-target suspect. ANYWHERE. It absolutely does not mean he did it.

Stranger rape/murder is, fortunately, exceedingly rare in America. It does happen and we all have to remain vigilant. It is much more likely that the victim knows their perpetrator very well though.
04-03-2016 , 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Coroner who signs report:

A) He must be old. His license # is 00008.

A "medical" doctor would sign their name --- John Smith, MD.

His name does not appear in the Wisconsin Physician Look-Up.
source/Links?

Thanks.
04-03-2016 , 10:32 PM
Mr D.Strang.......
How I wish that on March 2, 2006, the State had thought it as inappropriate to pair Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery in the commission of these crimes as it thinks it today. And the 11 months of prejudicial publicity that we have had, perhaps we would have been spared, if the State thought then that it was inappropriate to link these two together as co-actors, accomplices in the death of Teresa Halbach.
Today is too late to do that. To now insert the ambiguous term "another", which potentially includes the whole world, is to invite the very speculation about who an accomplice may have been or who a third party culprit may have been, that the State successfully opposed when we made a fairly elaborate proffer on possible third party actors.
Up through that motion, it was the State's position that Brendan Dassey, and Brendan Dassey only, was the possible third party or accomplice in this crime. And now, on no showing at all of the potential culpability of another, the State proposes to throw open the field of possible accomplice liability to the entire world. That's not fair. It's not consistent with the positions the State has taken to date and it leaves Mr. Avery, on the one hand, unable to suggest directly the liability of a third person; and yet, on the other hand, defending a potentially shifting or unstated theory on who his accomplice or accessory may have been.
Source: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...-2007Feb12.pdf

The Judge denied The motion & allowed KK to put SA accomplice as Another.
04-03-2016 , 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckproof Making a Murderer
These are important points but once they find SA's blood in her car, why would they be concerned with anyone else? Especially someone SA has never met afaik.
all these things were on the table before they knew the blood was S.A.'s
04-03-2016 , 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
source/Links?

Thanks.
99.9% sure he isn't a medical doctor. He is a nurse with a "doctor" degree perhaps in theology, political science or video games. If he was a physician, his name would appear in the Wisconsin Physician Database Look-Up.

I have never seen a Medical School listed as: Other. Even if he went to a FGM (foreign graduate medical school) he would be required to disclose that information to CMS as well as his application for his NPI.

http://www.topnpi.com/wi1548209182/dr-michael-klaeser

***Dr. Michael F Klaeser, CNA has a medical practice at 614 Memorial Dr, Chilton WI. Dr. Michael F Klaeser specializes in certified registered nurse anesthetist, and has over 41 years of experience in the field of medicine. He graduated from Other with his medical degree in 1975***

http://www.medicarelocations.com/wi/...548209182.html
MICHAEL F KLAESER, CNA

Specializes in Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist

***Dr. Michael F Klaeser, is a male doctor, is a specialist in certified registered nurse anesthetist in Chilton WI. He studied medicine at the Other, 1975. His hospital/clinic affiliations include Calumet Medical Center Inc and more. He accepts Medicare assignment.

Specialty and License Information
Dr. Michael F Klaeser has been identified as specializing in Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist and has over 41 years of experience
He received medical licensing as follows:
Nurse Anesthetist, Certified Registered
Taxonomy code: 367500000X, with the licence number: 62948030, issued in the state of Wisconsin***
04-03-2016 , 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
I don't think anyone is arguing if it was planted or not. More if it was collected in an appropriate manner and remained uncontaminated before, during and after investigation.

The odds of an ex-boyfriend committing this type of crime is much higher than anybody else His taking the lead of a search party is highly unorthodox behavior as well as being allowed on the property where the victim is believed to have been murdered.

Dismissing him so quickly as a suspect is indicative of a poor investigation. He should have been interrogated just like SA and BD.

The odds of a single offender/single victim is also much higher than dual offenders/single victim.

The FBI compiles statistics like this for a reason.

An ex-boyfriend who remains in contact with a victim of homicide is a high-target suspect. ANYWHERE. It absolutely does not mean he did it.

Stranger rape/murder is, fortunately, exceedingly rare in America. It does happen and we all have to remain vigilant. It is much more likely that the victim knows their perpetrator very well though.
I understand that you believe that there is a strong likelihood that the police in this case were corrupt and planted the car, the blood in the car, the victim's bones, and the car keys.

But just humour me for a second and assume that they were conscientious and honestly making their best effort to locate a missing person. Just put yourself in their shoes - a person is reported missing - her last known whereabouts are at the home of Mr. X around 3:30 on Oct. 31. You canvass all her friends and family and no one has heard from her since around that time, and there is no activity on her phone, credit cards, or banking account since shortly after this time. At this point, it's just a missing person case - for all you know she might have ran away on her own, she might have had an accident or suffered a medical emergency on a remote stretch of road. She might have been kidnapped and still be alive or be in danger. At this stage you are not going to start interrogating every person in her life looking for suspects, your priority is to find her, and you will most likely work from the last people known to have been in contact with her. In this case, Mr. X, among a couple of others.

Okay.. several days after she goes missing her car is discovered on the property of the same Mr. X. Bloodstains are found in the car. Testing reveals that they match Mr. X's DNA. You search Mr. X's trailer and find the victim's car keys. You find human bones in a burn pit next to Mr. X's house.

Again, imagining that you are a conscientious investigator looking to find out what happened to a missing person, at what point in this process do you bring her ex-boyfriends down to the station for interrogation? What would be the point? Once the blood tests come back to the last person known to have been with the victim, you have your man. Statistics on murder rates don't come into it at all. Would you really suggest that the cops should have said "The DNA matches Mr. X, but he's a stranger to the victim, and most murder victims are killed by someone they know, so we'd better keep searching?"
04-03-2016 , 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
source/Links?

Thanks.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...ertificate.pdf

I would love to be proved wrong here. Please show me that he is a medical doctor, he performed an autopsy and determined, in his medical opinion, that it was a homicide.

https://www.medicare.gov/physicianco...rNum=0%7C1%7C1

Government website. He is a nurse.
04-03-2016 , 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer

Again, imagining that you are a conscientious investigator looking to find out what happened to a missing person, at what point in this process do you bring her ex-boyfriends down to the station for interrogation? What would be the point? Once the blood tests come back to the last person known to have been with the victim, you have your man. Statistics on murder rates don't come into it at all. Would you really suggest that the cops should have said "The DNA matches Mr. X, but he's a stranger to the victim, and most murder victims are killed by someone they know, so we'd better keep searching?"
Not ex-boyfriends. One ex-boyfriend who accessed her voicemail and cannot remember if it was morning, day or night when he visited her house.

There were 150 law-enforcement personnel deployed to SA. SA was in custody so the community danger was reduced.

Redeploying 2 of those officers to examine other much more likely suspects would not have damaged the investigation. They should have sent Colburn and Lenk over to investigate ex-BF and kept all three away from SAs property.
04-04-2016 , 01:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
How do you know RH didn't know she was going to be at SAs place? Because he said so?
There are several who are witnesses to their relationship. He was not that involved in her life to know this, but not so distant that he didn't care greatly about her. She was one of his best friends but he wouldn't know day by day where she was going. Think about a friend you are close to that has a job that requires them to go to a bunch of addresses in any given day.. Pizza driver, cop, fireman etc... How would you know where they are going at any given time? Further more, do you think the amount of time it would take to pursue any POSSIBLE suspect would outweigh pursuing the people who actually committed the crime?

I will go one further, RH was helping with the investigation, he was providing information to police that him and his group obtained, he along with a handful of other people were leading a group of 150 people that were combing the entire area (not just averys but the entire area) looking for signs of TH.. What point is there to waste resources on him when he is so close to the case to begin with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
The information that RH presented should not remove him in anyway as a suspect.
I am not saying to take everything based on his word. His actions should clearly rule him out as well as the opportunity for him to even kill her. She was kidnapped/killed in a very small window of time. Police knew this almost immediately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
An ex-boyfriend that remained in contact with the victim and accesses her voicemail and deletes messages is a person who engaged in highly suspicious behavior. And, statistically, much more likely to have committed a crime of this nature. He should have not been allowed near the crime scene.
HE DIDN'T ACCESS HER VOICEMAIL, HE ACCESSED HER PHONE RECORDS WITH A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE THAT WERE HELPING HIM.

It was him, her roommate and a few of her friends that collectively started checking her computer for any information as to where she might be. They went to the website to pull her phone records. This was a group of people that did this. why would they all lie for ryan? Or were they all involved?

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
There are profile of murderers compiled by the FBI. Murderers are much more likely to be a known relative, romantically involved, or friends with the victim.
Yes, but murderers are less likely to kill someone when they are not with them. Holy ****? Do you think Ryan is special ops or something? staking TH out to kill her. This is ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Of course, random murders occur. But given the overwhelming statistically nature, without any evidence, who most likely committed the crime, it would point to an ex-boyfriend. That does not mean he is guilty. And he still has the presumption of innocence that all are afforded.
He was helping police track down TH, he wasn't with her that day, he had no way of knowing her location, she made phone calls at 2:40, was with SA after 3, this isn't hard to figure out. The people she saw around that time should be looked at first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Given that he had no alibi, couldn't even recall if it was morning, day or night when he went to her house, accessed her voicemail, deleted messages, couldn't even recall what password he used. They behavior would all necessitate that he should have been investigated more thoroughly.
LOL.. HE DIDN'T ACCESS HER VOICEMAIL. HIM AND A GROUP OF FRIENDS ACCESSED HER CALL RECORDS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Random murders are incredibly rare. Murderer by two people with one victim are even more rare. Murder by a suspect with an underage accomplice is exceedingly rare. SA is the only person released by innocent project that has ever been charged with a homicide.
I doubt this is true, but there are a lot of things about SA that are unique. He is truly a one of a kind turd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
The statistical data is so overwhelmingly titled towards an ex-boyfriend being the likely perpetrator of the crime. Not in this particular case. Any case. The police should have search warrants on the ex-BF immediately since he admitted to continue having a 'relationship' with the victim of a homicide and illegally accessing her phone. There are very strict laws against that behavior.
A lot of what you guys say on here is just "tribal knowledge" you hear one person say something and just accept that its true. The only reason the RH voicemail thing came up is because buting asked him if he accessed her voicemail, he replied no. Now I agree we cannot take what he says and just assume he is telling the truth but that is the source of this accusation. Buting asking him if he checked the voicemail. Do you see how ridiculous that is? You guys are accepting a claim that wasn't even made by buting as fact. Think about that.
04-04-2016 , 01:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
So Fraley has admitted to......
A. Looking at 'Snuff movies'
B. Looking for facebook friends of the SA case & immersing himself into the discussion.
C. Joining a facebook group with TH friends after a request from them for being so supportive of the 'Guilty Verdict'
D. Making up complete Lies(or maybe not) about R.H. Movements before & after TH disappearance.
E. Knowing important info like 'R.H. Did not listen to or stalk TH Phone, Email or Personal living space.
F. That when we ask questions about the TH case that does not support his position he will try & fling MUD, by using 9/11 analogy's, Sandy Hook & Loose Change Doc's.( Disclaimer I do not know about Sandy Hook.)

Has been involved with THE LAW & may have served time.
What were you charge with again Fraley & what happened? ( I know you said so itt but forget).
Hmmm,
I really don't like what you are implying about me. but I will address all these points again.

A) yes, whether others want to admit it or not, a lot of people have seen ****ed up **** on the internet.
B)false, I never made this statement. This is you and others trying to misrepresent what I said. I have spoken to friends of TH but I didn't seek any of them out.
C)yes, I was asked to join a "guilty group" after posting in different groups on facebook, TH friends happened to be part of this group as well. That is how I talked to them was in that group.
D)wtf are you talking about here?
E) lol, oh ****.. Like wtf. you made the claim he accessed her voicemail and I understand the source of that claim. It is a mistake you made based on what he admitted to in court. There is no evidence to suggest anywhere that he accessed her voicemail and no one even tried to claim he did, accept you guys after watching the doc and misinterpreting the information.
F) I am sorry but it is what it is. You guys have striking similarities to 9-11 truthers and other conspiracy theorists.

I am not involved with law enforcement. I was charged with a class A felony and didn't do any time for it. It is off my record.
04-04-2016 , 02:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
all these things were on the table before they knew the blood was S.A.'s
This is true but a lot of what you said about the "the things on this table" are not true. Such as him checking her voicemails. Also, he was helping with the investigation. I am sure police had some level of suspicion about him but he was staying involved. Were they supposed to start pressuring him when it was very unlikely he committed the crime? Also, once the rav 4 was found it is pretty obvious someone on the avery property was involved.
04-04-2016 , 03:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
This is true but a lot of what you said about the "the things on this table" are not true. Such as him checking her voicemails. Also, he was helping with the investigation. I am sure police had some level of suspicion about him but he was staying involved. Were they supposed to start pressuring him when it was very unlikely he committed the crime? Also, once the rav 4 was found it is pretty obvious someone on the avery property was involved.
Great rebuttal: The issue is the competence and completeness of the investigation in that one particular person was not fully investigated. So, you response is: "Doesn't matter because he didn't do it, anyway."

Like I said before, just stop already. You are like a wind-up toy spewing the same stuff over and over again.

Honestly, I read your impassioned defense of R.H. and it made me feel really odd - like you are either him, a friend or a relative - or groupie. I don't know. Just strange.

Anyhow, you don't have the answers, so perhaps you should stop trying to provide answers. You admit all the things on my list were in play before anyone confirmed the blood was S.A.'s. You lose so much ground in this discussion by trying to paper over every crack of the crocked investigation. You would be much better off conceding reasonable points - such as the fact R.H. was not properly investigated. For whatever reason.
04-04-2016 , 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
There are several who are witnesses to their relationship. He was not that involved in her life to know this, but not so distant that he didn't care greatly about her.

I will go one further, RH was helping with the investigation, he was providing information to police that him and his group obtained, he along with a handful of other people were leading a group of 150 people that were combing the entire area (not just averys but the entire area) looking for signs of TH.. What point is there to waste resources on him when he is so close to the case to begin with?
A) Odd. An ex-boyfriend is an ex for a reason. I don't know many people that are friends with their ex's. When one of the parties enters a new relationship, the significant other usually will not want their bf or gf conversing with them.

B) RH should not have been helping lead any part of investigation. He should have provided the police information just as SA and BD did. It sounds so ridiculous that police should not waste resources on people close to a case. The people close to a case are statistically, overwhelmingly, likely to have been involved in some fashion.

Once again this has nothing to do with this case. Any case. Strange murders do happen. Strange double suspects with one victim also can occur. Double suspects that are uncle and nephew. Possible.

Did SA have a motive? It sure seems that he had many reasons not to commit murder in the middle of his civil trial. Is he that incompetent where he would call his victim on the phone, rape and murder her in front of his nephew, leave her car on his lot and then go on vacation? Possible.

SA would be on the list of likely suspects. As would a few others.

Would it have been that hard for Detective Wiegert to put each of the suspects in a room and talk to them for an hour the same way he did to SA?

To RH: We know you did it. We have evidence. It is understandable. You are jealous of her and bitter that she broke up with you. We all have feelings like that. Just tell us what you know so her family can move on with their lives. You are making this much more difficult on them. We know you loved Teresa and regret your actions. She would look down from Heaven and appreciate your actions from this moment forward. Do the right thing and be honest.

Rinse, wash, repeat with a few others and see how they act and what information is elicited.
04-04-2016 , 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Great rebuttal: The issue is the competence and completeness of the investigation in that one particular person was not fully investigated. So, you response is: "Doesn't matter because he didn't do it, anyway."

Like I said before, just stop already. You are like a wind-up toy spewing the same stuff over and over again.

Honestly, I read your impassioned defense of R.H. and it made me feel really odd - like you are either him, a friend or a relative - or groupie. I don't know. Just strange.

Anyhow, you don't have the answers, so perhaps you should stop trying to provide answers. You admit all the things on my list were in play before anyone confirmed the blood was S.A.'s. You lose so much ground in this discussion by trying to paper over every crack of the crocked investigation. You would be much better off conceding reasonable points - such as the fact R.H. was not properly investigated. For whatever reason.
Ya, the stuff on your list that wasn't wrong and or made up.
04-04-2016 , 03:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
A) Odd. An ex-boyfriend is an ex for a reason. I don't know many people that are friends with their ex's. When one of the parties enters a new relationship, the significant other usually will not want their bf or gf conversing with them.

B) RH should not have been helping lead any part of investigation. He should have provided the police information just as SA and BD did. It sounds so ridiculous that police should not waste resources on people close to a case. The people close to a case are statistically, overwhelmingly, likely to have been involved in some fashion.

Once again this has nothing to do with this case. Any case. Strange murders do happen. Strange double suspects with one victim also can occur. Double suspects that are uncle and nephew. Possible.

Did SA have a motive? It sure seems that he had many reasons not to commit murder in the middle of his civil trial. Is he that incompetent where he would call his victim on the phone, rape and murder her in front of his nephew, leave her car on his lot and then go on vacation? Possible.

SA would be on the list of likely suspects. As would a few others.

Would it have been that hard for Detective Wiegert to put each of the suspects in a room and talk to them for an hour the same way he did to SA?

To RH: We know you did it. We have evidence. It is understandable. You are jealous of her and bitter that she broke up with you. We all have feelings like that. Just tell us what you know so her family can move on with their lives. You are making this much more difficult on them. We know you loved Teresa and regret your actions. She would look down from Heaven and appreciate your actions from this moment forward. Do the right thing and be honest.

Rinse, wash, repeat with a few others and see how they act and what information is elicited.
yea, ok.. Someone who looses someone they care about should not be helping find out what happened. Got it. Ridiculous. Shame on you dude. Seriously.
04-04-2016 , 03:45 AM
Oski, stop with the stupid accusations that I am RH or Colborn or Kratz or whoever else you suggest. I have never posted from anywhere outside of illinois, minnesota or iowa on my account. Mods can verify.
04-04-2016 , 03:46 AM
In golfnuts world.. Someone he is friends with goes missing, just STOP right there. Tell police to handle it and sit on your ass. Don't turn over any information you gain to police either because you know, it isn't your job.
04-04-2016 , 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer


Yes, but murderers are less likely to kill someone when they are not with them. Holy ****? Do you think Ryan is special ops or something? staking TH out to kill her. This is ridiculous.



He was helping police track down TH, he wasn't with her that day, he had no way of knowing her location, she made phone calls at 2:40, was with SA after 3, this isn't hard to figure out. The people she saw around that time should be looked at first.
***Buting: So the last time you actually saw Teresa was Sunday?
Hillegas: Yes
Buting: Do you know about what time that was?
Hillegas: No. I donít know
Buting: I mean we talking morning afternoon night?
Hillegas: I donít know
Buting: You donít remember at all? [pause] Alright, by the time Calumt County investigators arrived, I take it you were pretty concerned about Teresaís well-being, where she was
Hillegas: Yes
Buting: Did the police interview you and Scott together, or did they put you in separate rooms when they talked to you, or how did they do that?
Hillegas: UmÖI believe we were, I believe we were in the same room
Buting: OK, did the police ever ask you for any kind of alibi for October 31st?
Hillegas: No***

You are right. He wasn't with her. Well, we don't know for sure, but why waste energy and resources asking one question. How long would the process of definitively excluding a high probability suspect take? One hour?

Do you really believe that he doesn't remember whether he saw her morning, afternoon or night for the last time, days after she was reported missing? Do you think a seasoned investigator would not see this as a serious sign that something is amiss and should be investigated more thoroughly?

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...Scene-Logs.pdf

Dear lord. He entered the crime scene and was officially logged!

What purpose was he going to serve by being on the property where his ex-girlfriend was allegedly murdered? There is no upside and incredible downside.
04-04-2016 , 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
In golfnuts world.. Someone he is friends with goes missing, just STOP right there. Tell police to handle it and sit on your ass. Don't turn over any information you gain to police either because you know, it isn't your job.
Where did I write that? Everyone should turn over all information to the proper investigative authorities. And the proper investigative authorities should elicit information from all likely suspects. They should statistically start with the most likely and narrow their suspects down over time and as new evidence becomes available. This often takes weeks/months to collect and properly analyze.

They should never focus on just one individual/narrative since this limits the possibility that the crime occurred in another fashion. In this case, with no identifiable body or weapon, and multiple people living on the property, there were more than average number of suspects that should have been investigated more thoroughly.
04-04-2016 , 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
Not ex-boyfriends. One ex-boyfriend who accessed her voicemail and cannot remember if it was morning, day or night when he visited her house.

There were 150 law-enforcement personnel deployed to SA. SA was in custody so the community danger was reduced.

Redeploying 2 of those officers to examine other much more likely suspects would not have damaged the investigation. They should have sent Colburn and Lenk over to investigate ex-BF and kept all three away from SAs property.
The point I am making is that they are not "more likely suspects" once you know any facts about the case. Yes, if all you have is a body, anyone involved romantically with the victim will be the most likely suspect. If you have a body, victim's car, and victim's car keys all found on the property of the last person to have been seen with the victim, that person becomes by far the most likely suspect.

When it was just a missing person case, they didn't even know a crime had been committed, so there couldn't have been any suspects. Once they determined it was a homicide, they had their man. Why would they reallocate resources to rule out the remote possibility that her ex-boyfriend somehow collaborated with Avery, or constructed an elaborate frame-up of Avery? If anything like that did happen, they would be more likely to uncover it by investigating Avery as thoroughly as possible and working backwards.
04-04-2016 , 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
***Buting: So the last time you actually saw Teresa was Sunday?
Hillegas: Yes
Buting: Do you know about what time that was?
Hillegas: No. I donít know
Buting: I mean we talking morning afternoon night?
Hillegas: I donít know
Buting: You donít remember at all? [pause] Alright, by the time Calumt County investigators arrived, I take it you were pretty concerned about Teresaís well-being, where she was
Hillegas: Yes
Buting: Did the police interview you and Scott together, or did they put you in separate rooms when they talked to you, or how did they do that?
Hillegas: UmÖI believe we were, I believe we were in the same room
Buting: OK, did the police ever ask you for any kind of alibi for October 31st?
Hillegas: No***

You are right. He wasn't with her. Well, we don't know for sure, but why waste energy and resources asking one question. How long would the process of definitively excluding a high probability suspect take? One hour?

Do you really believe that he doesn't remember whether he saw her morning, afternoon or night for the last time, days after she was reported missing? Do you think a seasoned investigator would not see this as a serious sign that something is amiss and should be investigated more thoroughly?
At that point in the investigation it was just a missing person case. They're looking to trace her movements. Her ex-boyfriend was one of probably dozens of people who may have seen her in the last few days before she went missing. Are you really suggesting that, before the police knew anything about what happened, when it was still fully possible that she had went away voluntarily, or been the victim of an accident, etc., that the police should have interrogated each of those dozens of people for an hour. That's a lot of time and wasted resources. And again - at this point they didn't even know for sure that there was any crime to investigate.

Go back to your statistical reasoning. Most missing persons are eventually found safely. Even if you know it is a homicide, the ex is maybe one of 10 high priority suspects. To subject all of them to a police interrogation is a very resource intensive technique at a time when your resources would be better used to try to locate the person (who, for all you know, may even still be alive and in danger). It's just not worth it.

Also you don't know that the police didn't do criminal background checks on the ex and other friends of the victim. You don't know that they didn't ask her girlfriends or family members whether she ever had problems with boyfriends. Almost certainly they did do that. You can bet that if someone had a sexual assault or domestic violence conviction in his past, or if her mom had said that she was afraid of a certain person, that person would have been looked at much more closely.

If as the investigation developed leads had emerged pointing to the ex-boyfriend, they could have circled back to him at any time. He wasn't making any attempt to run away or avoid the police.

By the time leads did develop, they pointed directly at someone else.

Again, I understand that you believe there is a possibility that at some point, the police decided to frame Avery, and not to focus on anyone else. And that they manufactured evidence to be sure that they got him. If you feel there is evidence supporting this narrative, that's okay. But I think you are looking at it through the lens of your assumption of corruption.

I'm asking you just as a thought experiment to assume the police were honestly seeking to find out what happened in the case. If you make that assumption I don't think you will see anything shady in not pursuing the ex-boyfriend.
04-04-2016 , 09:14 AM
Quite amazing that you are just a few lines away from the source where the checking voicemail lie came from but you still think he checked her voicemails. Unbelievable.
04-04-2016 , 09:16 AM
and actually, is quite common for police to not label every person who knew a missing person as a suspect. Kind of ridiculous to do things that way. Ryan was not the most likely person just because he knew her. There is a ton of nuance there and you are smart enough to know this.
04-04-2016 , 09:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer

I'm asking you just as a thought experiment to assume the police were honestly seeking to find out what happened in the case. If you make that assumption I don't think you will see anything shady in not pursuing the ex-boyfriend.
Yeah the entire ex-bf angle is ridiculous given the fact that the missing woman's car was found on SA's property, with SA's blood in it. Oh yeah and the victim's bones in his yard.

The most interesting part of this entire thing is how easily people can be misled by a TV show, without realizing they are being manipulated. For example there were quite a few comments early on itt about what a jerk TH's brother seemed like. Yet as I watched it I was amazed at how composed the kid managed to be given the fact that he had to speak for his family, and sit in a room every day with the man who murdered his sister and burned her body in his yard. Likewise there was nothing at all suspicious about the ex-bf unless you think staying friendly with an ex is some sort of crime.

However, the show was edited and presented in such a way as to make both the brother and the ex-bf seem shady and unlikeable somehow.

As a viewer of the show, you are meant to be on Team Avery and have a rooting interest in his being found not guilty. Therefore anyone not on "your" team, including any friends or family of TH, will be perceived negatively even if there is zero factual reason for it.

It's quite interesting from a psychological/propaganda perspective. I am fairly certain that a different filmmaker, with the exact same case and footage, could have created a series where TH's family were the heroes and the audience was convinced SA was a cold-blooded murderer/psychopath.
04-04-2016 , 10:15 AM
To sum up what I've seen:
  1. Oski presents a list of points that make Ryan suspicious, including that he hacked her voicemail, and wonders why each of these points weren't investigated further because of the questions they raise.

  2. Fraley explains that half of the points on Oski's list are false, thus there is no reason to investigate them further, and the other half of Oski's points are innocuous things like visiting/calling his friend.

  3. Does Oski apologize for not knowing the facts and thank Fraley? No, Oski will never admit he's wrong, so he instead continues to defend his false list, saying it doesn't matter that half of it is false because the investigators didn't know it was false at the time*, and proceeds to personally attack Fraley.


*Basically, Oski is saying, "It doesn't matter that Ryan never hacked her phone! The point is why didn't detectives investigate whether he hacked her phone?!"

If you're going to do this, might as well go all out: "Why wasn't Ryan investigated to determine if he was in a satanic sex club?!?!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
It seems to me, my knowledge of this case is equal, or exceeds yours and I have not had to waste my time digging through transcripts.

      
m