Agree with everything but this, this seems self explanatory. He could wear latex gloves, get cut, so blood drips out oif the ripped glove but doesnt reveal a fingertip for fingerprint transfers. It annoyed me when the lawyer(?) for SA brought it up too.

Agree that this is a possible reason why you have no fingerprints + blood. But at the same time if the blood was planted you would have no fingerprints + blood. So i think the fact there are no fingerprints + blood strengthens (but does not prove for the reason you mention) the argument that the blood was planted in the car. It is one element that can add reasonable doubt to the equation which as the defense is all that you need (well apparantly not in Wisconsin).

Oh I see, you were just listing suspect things. Gotch ya

How did 2 Manitoc related jurors make it through selection? I thought that should immediately exclude them. Also are the final 12 jurors not allowed to speak up or they choose not too? Is that why we are only hearing for the excused. Also I assume the information about 7 not guilt, 3 guilty, 2 undecided came from the excused juror and isnt just publicly released?

To be fair I saw that two jurors were direct relatives of the sheriff's office on reddit. And the 7/3/2 was mentioned in the documentary. Typically speaking the attorney's get a survey completed by the jurors after the trial is over both regarding their performance and other things. I guess I assumed that was either part of that jury survey or possible released by one of the jurors (possibly the excused juror).

How is that self explanatory? That is just random speculation.

Not only would he have to be wearing gloves that could easily be penetrated, they would need to be actually penetrated, and he would need to be completely unaware of it bleeding to notice that he was dripping all over the place.

The planting of the blood is the most logical explanation given the lack of fingerprints and the vial of blood that was penetrated.

We could use a real life Dexter to study the blood pattern. I would highly doubt the patterns found are consistent with how an actual human would bleed.

I am talking about people presenting it is something that cant happen, I wasnt saying thats obviously what went down, or saying I believe that is what went down, just there is a very easy explanation from the prosecutors side. By self explanatory I meant that it seems obvious how you can get blood and no finger prints. Obviously It could still be planted, I just saw in the doc, and on reddit, people throwing that out as the silver bullet.


According to people on reddit who have read more of the case and its decision:

- The blood did match that of a drip(the same guy who talked about the hair blood confirmed this apparently).



A quote from a guy on reddit(about the needle hole in the vial):

"I am not the OP. But I am a prosecutor. And formerly, while I was in college, worked in a lab as a phlebotomist and lab tech. I have collected hundreds, if not thousands, of blood samples in the exact vacutainer collection tubes that the Avery sample was collected in. I worked in the early to mid-late 90's, when the rubber top vacutainers were used (there are more modern ones, with a plastic/latex top cop combo that are different). I already made a post on this in this reddit. But the short version is that those rubber top vacutainers always have a hole in the top from the collection. The only way to collect blood with those is to put the needle in the patient's vein, then puncture the top of the vial through the rubber top with the other end of the needle so the blood goes directly from the patient's vein into the vial. Every rubber top vacutainer like the one shown will have the same exact puncture hole from the initial collection of the blood. The fact that any nurse, phlebotomist, or medical professional who collects blood knows that this is common knowledge made me suspect the motivations of this documentary."

Again from reddit:

"I've seen several posts here, as well as comments from Manitowoc law enforcement and individuals connected with Avery's prosecution, that "Making a Murderer" ignores significant inculpatory evidence pointing to Avery's guilt.

In the decision from the State of Wisconsin court of appeals denying Avery's motion for post conviction relief, the court considered the argument that the key found in Avery's trailer should have been excluded as evidence. The appeals court concluded "The other evidence of Avery’s guilt was compelling."

The decision included a summary of the evidence of guilt that the court found compelling, and it seems as if most of that evidence was included in the documentary. Here's my analysis of evidence cited by the court versus my memory of evidence presented in the documentary.

1) Halbach visited Avery salvage on the morning of the disappearance to take photos. This is well established in the film.

2) The caller requesting her visit identified himself as B. Janda. I don't think the documentary included this information.

3) Bobby Dassey’s testimony. I think the elements of his testimony identified by the appeals court as inculpatory were included in the show.

4) Blaine Dassey testimony that Avery put a plastic bag in burning barrel, and later tended a bonfire. I don't think the documentary reported this, although the fact that Avery had a bonfire on the night of the appearance was well reported from other sources.

5) Scott Tadych testimony Again, I think the elements of his testimony cited in the decision were included in the film.

6) Discovery of RAV4 at Avery Salvage Extensively documented in the film

7) Blood stains in RAV4, including consistency with blood dripping from active wound The film did report extensively (and critically) on the presence of the stain; I don't recall that the detail that the blood stains were consistent with a dripping wound was included.

8) RAV 4 battery disconnected, Avery DNA on exterior hood latch I don't think this was reported in the documentary.

9) Bone fragments in burn pit identified as Halbach This was included in the series

10) Rivets from jeans in burn pit, cell phone, camera, PDA in burn barrel I don't recall reporting on this in the show.

11) Cartridge casings and bullet fragment consistent with firing from a .22 found in Avery trailer The discovery of the casings and bullet were reported. I don't recall anything in the film noting a consistency with a rifle discovered in the trailer.

12) DNA on bullet fragment Extensively (and critically) reported in the documentary"

I was amazed at the cell phone records. How did the judge determine that her cell phone having voice mails deleted by someone two days after her murder wasn't relevant? They had proof that someone who knew here voicemail password was deleting voice mails after she was supposedly killed and they weren't allowed to use that information in court. I feel like I missed something as to why that evidence didn't make it to trial.

dna on the hood latch is interesting...discovered when?

and why would anyone have disconnected the battery?

They couldn't introduce any evidence that would point to a third party.

The stuff we didn't see must have been awfully compelling. There is definitely a chance that Steve did it, with that being said there is a ton of reasonable doubt. The fact that the previous case happened being ignored in the 2nd case doesn't make any sense when the cops/sheriffs were clearly in cahoots back then and could easily be in cahoots now.

I find it amazing that the state didn't see any wrong doing by the local cops in the first case (some of those cops should be in jail for what they did), so it was no shock when Steven and his nephew repeatedly get repeatedly ****ed.

There is a ton of doubt in the case and a lot more questions have been opened then answered. The stubbornness to try the trial in Steven's home county is so stupid it's hilarious just like it was to move back in to the town. If I was him, I would have left that **** hole and never looked back. It can't be easy to live in a place when the entire police force wants to **** you and likely watches your every move when you are sewing them for likely 10x their yearly budget.

He called in AFTER she was reported missing. Still doesn't make any sense as to why he would call in. Possibly confirming plate #?

Watched all 10 episodes over a 48 hour period which is remarkable for me. Episodes 1-7 were captivating and then it slowed a bit. I kept bouncing between astonishment and anger with each episode. After watching it and looking up the other side on the internet, I am back to anger. A good documentary shows both sides. This one left out way too many important pieces because it didn't fit the innocent or dirty cop angle. The Daisy Fuentes jean rivets found in his burn barrel is the most incriminating piece of info, imo.

Wow I really hope this isn't true. Seems like such an easy thing to verify, and would call into question the filmmaker's integrity.

I started this the day it came out and just finished it, so i might be remembering this wrong, but didn't they show a video of Theresa talking cryptically, saying something like "if i live to 31..." What was that tape? They showed another segment of it in a later episode, and it was just weird. it was like a life retrospective interview. I'm not even inferring it applies to anything, i just wanted to know what the hell that was.

I love that tape because when asked who she loved she said:

My sisters, my mom, of course my whole family.

Wonder how her brother feels. Dude got his spotlight though

Theresa's brother was a real smug ******* thru the whole thing. Like a rug that ties a room together. And he definitely liked being on tv, just like that ********** lawyer Len Kachinsky.

yeah, good call. i didn't even realize she had sisters. the brother rubbed me the wrong way. it's not really fair to comment on how other people mourn, but i didn't see one of her family members so much as bat an eyelash while the court spoke of Theresa's grisly death.

I mean I know he is biased and wants closure, but his matter of fact language of speaking about the kids just lying on stand and whatnot pissed me off.

Also when he said something about how the confession tape is self explanatory and shows what happened and that he wasn't coerced and then someone asked if he has seen it, and he is like nope.

Lol

On these things I assume the reaction shots are out of order. Like when Branden was found guilty they cut to the mother and she didn't really react, iirc.

How are the jean rivets any more incriminating than her actual bones? If the bones were moved so could have been the rivets with them. My biggest question is where is the blood. That garage was a mess filled with all sorts of crap everywhere. There would be blood spatter somewhere that was uncleanable. And if you are so good at cleaning up blood why leave your own in the car you left on your own property as well as a burn pit full of bones. Too inconsistent to be both so professional and amateurish in the covering of tracks.

Can we agree that Steven's defense attorneys were the stars of the documentary?

without a doubt.

They are true American heroes. We need a lot more men like them. Reminded me a little of the lawyer in Rectify.