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

09-25-2016 , 10:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
I've stated several times that the Dassey statement from May 13 is what I believe happened.

Ok. Gang-rape, handcuffs, chains, two stabbings and five gun shots in multiple areas of a residence over hours.

How much "evidence" would be likely left behind in a scenario described by BD? How much effort would it take to clean up "evidence"? There were even tears when she was crying as BD said.

Everything erased? 6 months later they find one bullet fragment in a wall that nobody can ever retest.

You really think these two yo-yos could clean up a crime scene? How about changing your thought if you think they guilty that they killed her in some other manner somewhere else. Sounds much more realistic. Like they just shot her outside in the driveway.
09-26-2016 , 01:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smacc25 Making a Murderer
I would like to hear Revots version on what happened that day? The full works, Means Motive & opportunity. The full Monty Revots, can we have it?
Maybe lkasigh can ask him what his theory is.
09-26-2016 , 01:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
I've stated several times that the Dassey statement from May 13 is what I believe happened.
Wow. Holy Sh*t. You actually believe this happened? Pretty bold of you to state this ITT. No one can possibly take anything you say seriously from now on.

Of all the insane, illogical, physically impossible and totally improbable events that the state has claimed happened as part of it's case against SA, the BD scenarios and coerced confession are BY FAR the most ridiculous. Yet here you stand, no questions asked.

Shocked.
09-26-2016 , 03:46 AM
I'm pretty sure revots helped lkasigh assault that possum. Being pretty sure is as good as evidence, right?
09-26-2016 , 05:02 AM
If you feel Revot is guilty that must be true.
09-26-2016 , 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Wow. Holy Sh*t. You actually believe this happened? Pretty bold of you to state this ITT. No one can possibly take anything you say seriously from now on.

Of all the insane, illogical, physically impossible and totally improbable events that the state has claimed happened as part of it's case against SA, the BD scenarios and coerced confession are BY FAR the most ridiculous. Yet here you stand, no questions asked.

Shocked.
There is absolutely nothing insane or impossible about it, which is why BD was found guilty by a jury.
09-26-2016 , 11:12 AM
Your logic is laughable.
09-26-2016 , 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfnutt Making a Murderer

You really think these two yo-yos could clean up a crime scene? How about changing your thought if you think they guilty that they killed her in some other manner somewhere else. Sounds much more realistic. Like they just shot her outside in the driveway.
I am not interested in guessing what the most logical way for SA to kill her would be. Murderous sociopaths are not logical. If he was logical he would not have killed her in the first place.

Yes I think they were able to clean up most (but not all) of the evidence. A big bonfire helps with that, along with some bleach. It's not rocket science.
09-26-2016 , 12:10 PM
Haha oh wow man. I can't even.
09-26-2016 , 12:38 PM
Murderous sociopath are not logical is an amazing statement.
09-26-2016 , 12:41 PM
You should try : the devil was on his side and obviously erased most evidence.
09-26-2016 , 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddymitchel Making a Murderer
Murderous sociopath are not logical is an amazing statement.
LOL no it's not. In almost all cases murdering someone is inherently illogical. You will almost certainly get caught and end up spending most of your life in jail. Any reasonable person would choose not to do it.
09-26-2016 , 01:47 PM
Decisions that defy morale don't have to defy logic.
People who defy logic are more likely to get caught because they are basically dumb.
You can be unpredictable because of the lack of logic that doesn't mean you are hard to figure out after the fact.

The one who is illogical here is you pretending Brandon confession can be real when it's matching absolutely no evidence
09-26-2016 , 02:22 PM
Either avery is illogical and has no chance to do the clean up you pretend he did or he isnt and he didnt need to clean up because nothing happend like brandon confessed it.
You cannot have it both way.
He cannot leave a crime scene spotless when it s close to impossible , while he leave obvious traces when it s the easiest to get rid of it.
09-26-2016 , 02:28 PM
You are arguing his innocence based on him not doing a good enough job getting rid of all the evidence. This is exactly what murderers do on a regular basis and why they usually get caught.

I see no reason to think that he could not have cleaned the garage floor, burned the bedding/clothes etc., and yet left the car hidden thinking he could get rid of it later. It's not the smartest move but the guy is obviously not a genius. It certainly seems more likely than the grand police conspiracy that would be required to manufacture all the evidence.
09-26-2016 , 03:31 PM
Because a trained professional would have had a super hard time cleaning what you are pretending happen and leaving absolutly no trace.
Because you pretend he and brandon were in the car, with no trace of brandon and yet some super obvious trace of avery.
absolutly nothing support the narrative from the confession, the only evidence is something that was found after the dodgy confession and that wasnt even tested properly, which result in absolutly nothing left.

I m arguing like most people that he isnt guilty, because of a terrible and possibly criminal investigation.
Avery is possibly a sociopath , and even possibly a killer, but when someone describe a super violent crime scene supposedly done by 2 moronic redneck in a super unfavorable environement and absolutly nothing support it , the conclusion is massive bull****.

Anyway you talking about logic is like a blind person arguing about nuance of colors.

You can say the little bit of evidence found is enought for you to think he is guilty, but saying you believe the joke of a confession and the narrative it's painting make you look super stupid.

When zellner tell you both the victim cellphone and suspect tell a story that doesnt match the narrative, you still have no doubt, because maybe in your mind avery in 2005 was bright enougth to think they would triangulate both cell phone and he would have an alibi ?
Like he most likely had set up a dexter like crime scene not to get caught to the point that not a drop of blood was found in his trailer or garage?
maybe she was never in the trailer, but then how can avery clean the mess of a garage and not leave any evidence , when 20 qualified people would have had a hard time?
No he scrubbed evey single item and didnt miss anything.

Or could it be that theresa wasnt killed on avery propery and that confession is massively flawed.
09-26-2016 , 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
It certainly seems more likely than the grand police conspiracy that would be required to manufacture all the evidence.
At least I now have a better idea as to how SA was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.
09-26-2016 , 06:36 PM
The inability to assimilate information and draw logical conclusions based on that information becomes more and more evident.

Quote:
I am not interested in guessing what the most logical way for SA to kill her would be. Murderous sociopaths are not logical.
These 2 sentences are not related in anyway, yet you have grouped them together as reasoning for your beliefs.

In the first sentence, the word "logical" was used to elicit YOUR logic as to how the crime could have happened with the physical evidence at hand.

The second sentence is to a totally unrelated subject. I also happen to agree with you on this point btw as killing people is an illogical thing to do. Yet I can still apply my own logic as to how a murder was accomplished based on the evidence at hand.

Quote:
You are arguing his innocence based on him not doing a good enough job getting rid of all the evidence. This is exactly what murderers do on a regular basis and why they usually get caught.
Incorrect data assimilation. The point is that there is absolutely NO evidence that anything occurred as you have stated you believe happened. We are simply arguing his innocence based on the fact that there is no physical evidence to support what the state claims to have occurred and what you believe occurred. If this crime took place as you believe it did, to leave no evidence whatsoever would have required so much time and effort in clean up it's infinitesimally more probable that it did not occur at all.

Additionally, you fill this gaping void of evidence with incorrect applications of logic. Here's an example. "They used bleach to clean all the blood, DNA and any/all other evidence from the scene. Brendon had a bleach stain on his jeans, therefor he committed the murder and assisted with the clean up."

Information that was not assimilated in order to arrive at this conclusion:

Garage:

- Blood and DNA from other people were found, just not from TH.
- Jeans had a bleach stain, but no blood/DNA or other stains.
- The garage showed no evidence of having been cleaned at all, let alone to the degree necessary to remove only one person's DNA from the scene.
- No BD or TH DNA or blood was found anywhere in the garage including walls, work benches, floor cracks, car parts or anywhere else one would expect blood or blood spatter to be.

Trailer:

- No BD or TH DNA or blood was found anywhere in the trailer. Period.
- Many other samples were found including Steven, Jodi, other Avery's, just not BD and not TH.
09-26-2016 , 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext Making a Murderer
At least I now have a better idea as to how SA was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.
I would guess revots believes the likelihood of a grand police conspiracy to be close to nil, and I would think you would realize that.

What would you consider the likelihood of a grand police conspiracy along with all the unlucky coincidences Steven got himself into?

I asked you this a few days ago, but have not heard back yet:

Do you have a theory on how the frame job was carried out? There's a lot of evidence to explain- bullet, blood, car, keys, license plates, bones in two different barrels, hood latch DNA. And it matches his actions- he was seen using the fire pit and burn barrels where evidence was found, he had a recent cut on his right finger that matches where the blood was found. The cops would've basically needed to have surveillance on him and kill Teresa themselves.

And what if he went back inside after their meeting and started calling people all afternoon? What if he went back to work like he usually did? What if he ran out for gas or food? There was huge risk he'd spoil their whole plan by giving himself an alibi. What if Teresa got back on her phone after their meeting and called someone saying she just finished work and was heading home? There'd be a witness that she left the meeting alive.

It was incredibly risky to plant all this if they weren't watching Avery on 10/31 and therefore sure he didn't have an alibi, and even if they were watching him, at any point he could've done something that would give him an alibi like deciding to go back to work. Would they just dump Teresa's body if he did and try again later? Is there any theory on how the frame job was pulled off that takes all the evidence into account?
09-26-2016 , 07:54 PM
Thanks for your honest opinion revots.

Can I have 1 more pls? What is your opinion on using Jailhouse snitches in the S.A. case as it seems 3 or 4 maybe coming to a screen near you? Thanks
09-26-2016 , 08:07 PM
For the peeps....... Thanks for the time & effort Altwolf-Reddit poster.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2E...trSnR1YkE/view

Bookmark this guys.
09-26-2016 , 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by whosnext Making a Murderer
At least I now have a better idea as to how SA was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.
He was found guilty because of all the evidence against him. The only argument the defense had was that it was planted by the police. They were unable to provide any evidence that it was in fact planted. I've yet to hear any proof from anyone itt or anywhere else that it WAS planted. On the other hand, the prosecution WAS able to provide evidence that proved Avery's guilt.
09-26-2016 , 09:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
He was found guilty because of all the evidence against him. The only argument the defense had was that it was planted by the police.
Nope. He was found guilty because of the ridiculous PR campaign and who knows what else was going on in those deliberations.

Quote:
They were unable to provide any evidence that it was in fact planted.
You can thank Judge Willis for that, otherwise you would have heard of alternate suspects, means motives and opportunities. They did in fact provide plenty of evidence of a conspiracy to frame Steven Avery as well as plant evidence.

Speaking of unable to provide evidence, how's that crime scene theory working out for you?
09-26-2016 , 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by revots33 Making a Murderer
He was found guilty because of all the evidence against him. The only argument the defense had was that it was planted by the police. They were unable to provide any evidence that it was in fact planted. I've yet to hear any proof from anyone itt or anywhere else that it WAS planted. On the other hand, the prosecution WAS able to provide evidence that proved Avery's guilt.
You believe a woman was raped, tied up, stabbed, etc by 2 men in a bedroom.

What evidence do you have of this?

      
m