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

04-04-2016 , 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
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.
+1
04-04-2016 , 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
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.
Listen carefully to the dispatch tapes, specifically the one on the 5th of Nov when only a Car was found on 40 ACRES of accessible land "Do we have a body yet, NO-But we do have Steven Avery in custody"

And stop with the Bullet & Keys because they were not found on the 5th.
Or the Bones.
Over 150 seasoned professionals did not find any evidence for 3 whole days.
But PS was lead by God to the Rav4.
04-04-2016 , 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
Listen carefully to the dispatch tapes, specifically the one on the 5th of Nov when only a Car was found on 40 ACRES of accessible land "Do we have a body yet, NO-But we do have Steven Avery in custody"

And stop with the Bullet & Keys because they were not found on the 5th.
Or the Bones.
Over 150 seasoned professionals did not find any evidence for 3 whole days.
But PS was lead by God to the Rav4.
I was responding to post indicating that the ex-boyfriend of the victim should have been a prime suspect early in the investigation. This is ridiculous. She was last seen with Avery, her car was found on Avery's property, Avery is a convicted violent criminal. To any reasonable person, he would be the prime suspect.

If they had examined the car and found evidence pointing to her ex boyfriend or anyone else, they would have followed that up. They didn't, they found further evidence pointing at Avery.
04-04-2016 , 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
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.
I didn't say that. I stated, very clearly and honestly, that your defense of R.H. made me FEEL odd. Given that he was not properly investigated, you too, should accept that there are open questions concerning R.H. Because it is an unknown, it makes no sense for an objective poster to vehemently defend him.

Yet, you wrote what you wrote, which is very strange. You may disagree, but I think a lot of people who read that post will agree with me.
04-04-2016 , 11:56 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.
In golfnuts world - anywhere except, apparently, rural Wisconsin, an ex-boyfriend that stays connected to the ex-girlfriend, is near the top of the list of suspects in a murder case.

In golfnuts world - anywhere except, apparently, rural Wisconsin, an ex-boyfriend would not be allowed to roam around a declared crime scene concerning the disappearance/murder of his ex-girlfriend.
04-04-2016 , 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer

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.
"Do you have Steven Avery in custody?"

How does the Sheriff declare a crime scene if they don't even know a crime had been committed?
04-04-2016 , 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
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.
Brilliant: So now we have two distinct timelines used to explain away holes in the investigation:

1. Poorshillz and Fraley claim all the evidence was immediately apparent, and there was no reason to expand the investigation beyond S.A; so therefore, there were no other suspects and R.H. was not investigated (as there was no reason for it).

2. Ikasigh claims everything was an unknown - so unknown that the police did not even realize they were dealing with a crime; so, therefore, there were no suspects and accordingly, R.H. would not be investigated.
04-04-2016 , 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
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.
When did they determine the blood to be SA's?

When did they "determine" the bones belonged to T.H.? (At least according to them)?

Meanwhile, prior to all that, R.H. is not investigated.

That's the problem, it cannot be hand waved away - the investigation was botched, regardless of who the actual killer was.
04-04-2016 , 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
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?!?!"
R.H. being in a satanic sex club is not an issue raised on these facts. There would be no reason to investigate that unless something further came up.

You are playing the "hindsight game" where you take all the facts you assert as true and use them to justify the non-investigation of open issues at the time the case was open.

R.H. testified he "guessed" T.H.'s password (and for what its worth, gave a smirk as he said it). That is the testimony.

As far as the rest of the list, it is and was a list of valid concerns that were not investigated. First and foremost, is "who was harassing T.H. in the weeks leading up to the murder?"

Fraley admits that is an angle that was not investigated and that "literally anyone could have done it." Aside from the hyperbole, anyone could have done it, but reasonably, only a few would have been likely to have been harassing T.H. - R.H., is among them.

Anyhow, you can argue until you are blue in the face, but the person you are defending here (Fraley) already admits the investigation of that list was not complete.

That is the issue. Sorry you don't like it. Your beloved Sheriff's department did not properly investigate.
04-04-2016 , 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
I was responding to post indicating that the ex-boyfriend of the victim should have been a prime suspect early in the investigation. This is ridiculous. She was last seen with Avery, her car was found on Avery's property, Avery is a convicted violent criminal. To any reasonable person, he would be the prime suspect.

If they had examined the car and found evidence pointing to her ex boyfriend or anyone else, they would have followed that up. They didn't, they found further evidence pointing at Avery.
Correct, at the time, any reasonable person would have S.A. as the "prime suspect." If you were better at reading comprehension, you would discover that most people in this thread hold that very opinion, including me.

"Prime suspect" does not mean "only suspect." Of course, if you do not investigate any other person or theory, the prosecution is going to try to make a case on what they got. Krantz prosecuted on what he got from the investigation - and as you should see, it was a case that seems, to the reasonable viewer, to be a case that provides more questions than answers.

That is not how a murder conviction is supposed to go. When a defendant walks free - those are the cases that tend to raise the questions at every turn; here, this was a conviction with a life sentence, yet there are endless questions about how the crime happened, where it happened, when it happened.
04-04-2016 , 12:20 PM
Let's also revisit Ryan's testimony:

1. He was questioned by officers on November 3rd


Q. All right. By the time that Calumet county
investigators arrived, I take it you guys were
pretty concerned about Teresa's well being, where
she was?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that it was important that you
provide as much information, as accurate
information as you could?

A. Yes.

Q. 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?


A. I believe we were -- I believe we were in the
same room.

Q. Okay. Now, did the investigators ask you any
questions about the nature of your relationship
with Teresa?

A. Yeah.





2. He never had access to the Avery property, just the surrounding properties

Q. Just so we're clear Mr. -- I'm sorry. Just so
we're clear, Mr. Hillegas, the area that you were
allowed access to was the outside of the Avery
property itself, in other words, the surrounding
properties, not within the salvage property; is
that true?

A. Yes.
04-04-2016 , 12:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Let's also revisit Ryan's testimony:

1. He was questioned by officers on November 3rd


Q. All right. By the time that Calumet county
investigators arrived, I take it you guys were
pretty concerned about Teresa's well being, where
she was?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that it was important that you
provide as much information, as accurate
information as you could?

A. Yes.

Q. 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?


A. I believe we were -- I believe we were in the
same room.

Q. Okay. Now, did the investigators ask you any
questions about the nature of your relationship
with Teresa?

A. Yeah.





2. He never had access to the Avery property

Q. Just so we're clear Mr. -- I'm sorry. Just so
we're clear, Mr. Hillegas, the area that you were
allowed access to was the outside of the Avery
property itself, in other words, the surrounding
properties, not within the salvage property; is
that true?

A. Yes.
Terrific pull! Of course, if my understanding of how calendars work is correct, Nov. 3 is prior to Nov. 5 which is when R.H. is on the Avery property. Also, if R.H. was not on the crime scene, why is he in the log book?

Last edited by Oski; 04-04-2016 at 12:31 PM.
04-04-2016 , 12:42 PM
Quote:
Terrific pull! Of course, if my understanding of how calendars work is correct, Nov. 3 is prior to Nov. 5 which is when R.H. is on the Avery property.
Yes, Nov. 3 comes before Nov. 5, but I don't see the relevance when Ryan is referring to Nov. 5 and beyond when saying that he never had access within the salvage property.


Quote:
Also, if R.H. was not on the crime scene, why is he in the log book?
Probably because he was still searching the surrounding properties on the 40-acre land.
04-04-2016 , 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
Yes, Nov. 3 comes before Nov. 5, but I don't see the relevance when Ryan is referring to Nov. 5 and beyond when saying that he never had access within the salvage property.




Probably because he was still searching the surrounding properties on the 40-acre land.
Which is not the crime scene - and thus, there was no reason for him to sign in.

The log book is to chronicle who is in/out of the crime scene. R.H. was on the crime scene, thus, he was logged in.
04-04-2016 , 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Which is not the crime scene - and thus, there was no reason for him to sign in.
What prompts you to say the entire 40 acre land wasn't considered the "crime scene" at that time and required sign-in?
04-04-2016 , 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
Brilliant: So now we have two distinct timelines used to explain away holes in the investigation:

1. Poorshillz and Fraley claim all the evidence was immediately apparent, and there was no reason to expand the investigation beyond S.A; so therefore, there were no other suspects and R.H. was not investigated (as there was no reason for it).

2. Ikasigh claims everything was an unknown - so unknown that the police did not even realize they were dealing with a crime; so, therefore, there were no suspects and accordingly, R.H. would not be investigated.
Correct. Both are true. Before they found the vehicle, they didn't know whether there was any crime to investigate.

After they found it they knew a crime had been committed and upon investigation all the evidence pointed towards Avery.
04-04-2016 , 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz Making a Murderer
What prompts you to say the entire 40 acre land wasn't considered the "crime scene" at that time and required sign-in?
Are you instigating there was a 40 acre perimeter of police officers that all had log books?


There was only one log and it was on the property. You can't believe the place was that secured when lenk was able to log out but never log in to begin with.
04-04-2016 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU Making a Murderer
Are you instigating there was a 40 acre perimeter of police officers that all had log books?


There was only one log and it was on the property. You can't believe the place was that secured when lenk was able to log out but never log in to begin with.
I'm not instigating anything.

I'm saying there was probably a main entrance to that 40 acre property which required a sign-in. I'm saying that because:
  1. it was private property
  2. considered a crime scene
  3. people were looking for a missing person

it's fair to assume people weren't able to just come and go on that property as they pleased.
04-04-2016 , 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oski Making a Murderer
R.H. being in a satanic sex club is not an issue raised on these facts. There would be no reason to investigate that unless something further came up.

You are playing the "hindsight game" where you take all the facts you assert as true and use them to justify the non-investigation of open issues at the time the case was open.

R.H. testified he "guessed" T.H.'s password (and for what its worth, gave a smirk as he said it). That is the testimony.

As far as the rest of the list, it is and was a list of valid concerns that were not investigated. First and foremost, is "who was harassing T.H. in the weeks leading up to the murder?"

Fraley admits that is an angle that was not investigated and that "literally anyone could have done it." Aside from the hyperbole, anyone could have done it, but reasonably, only a few would have been likely to have been harassing T.H. - R.H., is among them.

Anyhow, you can argue until you are blue in the face, but the person you are defending here (Fraley) already admits the investigation of that list was not complete.

That is the issue. Sorry you don't like it. Your beloved Sheriff's department did not properly investigate.
No, he didn't testify that he guessed her password. That isn't what he was talking about. He wasn't talking about voicemails when he said that. He was talking about when him and her other friends pulled up her phone records. Buting then asked if he had ever checked her voicemail and he said no. I asked but you ignored, were all the friends in on it? Were they all working together to kill TH, cover up the murder? what.. Should this have been a thought the detectives had? Because they all collectively guessed the password and RH said that he thinks the password auto populated.

Also, I haven't see the harassing TH thing substantiated so I am not even sure if it happened.
04-04-2016 , 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
The point I am making is that they are not "more likely suspects" once you know any facts about the case.
You are right. There are not more likely suspects.

Well, that is until 6 months later when Brendan Dassey is interrogated and confesses. New information/evidence was provided which led to an additional suspect being charged.

Do you think it would have been ok for BD to have been allowed to log-in and walk the crime scene?
04-04-2016 , 01:50 PM
No, because BD lived on the property where TH went missing.
04-04-2016 , 01:51 PM
He also wasn't working with all her friends to find her.
04-04-2016 , 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the orange crush Making a Murderer
through about 850 posts, its funny that the king moron of the thread so far is named "poor skills"

lol
You still have many pages of this to look forward to:

Spoiler:


04-04-2016 , 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkasigh Making a Murderer
Correct. Both are true. Before they found the vehicle, they didn't know whether there was any crime to investigate.

After they found it they knew a crime had been committed and upon investigation all the evidence pointed towards Avery.
What was all the evidence the pointed towards Avery?

It turns out, according to the state, there was an accomplice in the rape/murder. Who was convicted by a jury.
04-04-2016 , 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer
What was all the evidence the pointed towards Avery?

It turns out, according to the state, there was an accomplice in the rape/murder. Who was convicted by a jury.
His blood in her car. Her bones in his fire pit. Her car keys in his house.

Again, I know you believe there is reasonable doubt that these were all planted. I'm asking you to ignore the possibility of planting and explain whether, after these pieces of evidence were found, it would have made sense to bring the victim's ex boyfriend(s) (who had no connection to Avery) for interrogation?

      
m