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

12-26-2015 , 12:59 PM
I feel like given the first false imprisonment there's 0% chance any cop gets in any real trouble for planting evidence. Possible it might not work, but they think he did it anyway and there's basically no risk. If they killed Avery and try to make it look justified there's some chance they get caught and go to prison. Maybe my 5% chance cops killed Theresa was inflated for that same reason. Just don't trust Lenk at all.
12-26-2015 , 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by En Passant Making a Murderer
Bob,

As much as I love a good conspiracy theory, why would the cops go through all that effort instead of just killing Avery? Theresa was last seen at Avery's, and that's where the body was found. People are not that sophisticated. My questions revolve around the extent of Branden's involvement.
Getting away with actual murder is a lot harder then getting away with planting evidence.

Like the defense attorneys said, they definitely believe he did it anyway.
12-26-2015 , 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
Getting away with actual murder is a lot harder then getting away with planting evidence.

Like the defense attorneys said, they definitely believe he did it anyway.
I don't believe they said that.
12-26-2015 , 01:20 PM
Aside from what was already covered in here, I do wonder about the Avery cousins they had on the stand. The ones that went hunting. Similar to the ex-boyfriend and roommate. They were shown a bit here and there, with obviously something off about them, then gone from the rest of the series.
12-26-2015 , 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 50yearoldnit Making a Murderer
I don't believe they said that.
I phrased that poorly, I meant to say the defense attorneys said that the police and department believe steve avery did it, and planting the evidence just made the case easier to get a conviction.

Not that the defense attorneys believe he did it.

Really poorly phrased on my part, my b.
12-26-2015 , 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 50yearoldnit Making a Murderer
I don't believe they said that.
In the closing arguments, defense attorneys said you only had to think the cops planted evidence to ensure a conviction for a man they thought was guilty anyway. Kratz said to acquit you have to believe the cops killed her themselves.
12-26-2015 , 01:35 PM
Is anyone else shocked that Branden cannot get a re trial? Len was basically in cahoots with the state's attorneys. Curious to hear what criminal attorneys have to say about this.

Edit: I'm not an attorney, but I'm guessing there has to be either radical new evidence or a huge conflict of interest to warrant receiving a new trial. If Len colluding with the state doesn't qualify, then what does?

Last edited by En Passant; 12-26-2015 at 01:50 PM.
12-26-2015 , 01:55 PM
They wouldn't give Steven a retrial for essentially decades when it was clear something was up. It seems like the justice system in that area and the state is just faulty.
12-26-2015 , 02:13 PM
A retrial admits a mistake, and this is one of the largest cases in wisconsins history.

If new evidence comes up I assume they will do it because it doesnt involve admitting a flawed system.

Which makes is incredibly lol that the same judge was reviewing the appeals.
12-26-2015 , 02:25 PM
How come the defense didn't use his alibi from on the day that the murder was taking place? wasn't he talking on the phone with his then gf at the county jail 2 times on that day and from the recording, he didn't sound like a man who committed a heinous crime? and why didn't he took the chance to testify and let the jury know his side of the story?
12-26-2015 , 02:33 PM
Who's to say the defense didn't use those phone conversations? The documentary doesn't cover the entire trial. But yeah, curious as to why he didn't testify. Also curious to know if he was ever willing to take a lie detector test.

Off topic, but Steven's attorney mentioned in the last episode that the only way he gets a re trial is if they re test the blood strains in the car too see if it shows any EDTA. I want to know what it would take to make that happen.
12-26-2015 , 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCuster_911 Making a Murderer
A retrial admits a mistake, and this is one of the largest cases in wisconsins history.

If new evidence comes up I assume they will do it because it doesnt involve admitting a flawed system.

Which makes is incredibly lol that the same judge was reviewing the appeals.
All three cases from the movie are riddled with mistakes. I'm not sure what's worse, not admitting the mistakes or pretending the mistakes didn't exist. I'm glad I've never been in serious trouble if the presumption seems to be someone is guilty nowadays before the trial begins.
12-26-2015 , 03:23 PM
After finishing it today I'm 80-90% sure he did it. The show really did tell mainly the defense side which is fine but they did leave some information out that doesn't make Steve look that good.

If he did it then it's pretty easy to construct a scenario that works and is pretty straight forward.

If he didn't then from the point Teresa leaves you have to come up with a large number of coincidences and conspiracies for any of it to work. It's not very likely.

I suspect Branden knew about it, maybe helped him cover it up but perhaps wasn't that involved. He probably could have avoided the mess he is in if he just said that he went over there and she was already dead and Steve threatened him if he told anyone so he didn't know what to do. He doesn't seem that bright though.
12-26-2015 , 03:40 PM
I don't understand how the defense couldn't get Brandons charges reduced substantially. Then again, this documentary didn't appear to show much of his trial. Unless there's more evidence the documentary didn't show, there seems to be little to no chance he actively premeditated this murder and at most was dragged into it unwillingly by his uncle.

Brandon seems easily influenced and it would seem the defense could have shown how due to his low intelligence and inability to make decisions for himself lead to whatever involvement he may have had. Something like involvement after the fact. Seems I have seen adults help hide the body of a victim, while not taking part in the murder, and gotten off with as little as no time by testifying for the prosecution.

Plus wasn't he like 16? Seems like his age and the reasons mentioned above should have drastically reduced his sentence to the point where he would already be out of prison by now.

Last edited by yimyammer; 12-26-2015 at 03:55 PM.
12-26-2015 , 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by esad Making a Murderer
After finishing it today I'm 80-90% sure he did it...

If he did it then it's pretty easy to construct a scenario that works and is pretty straight forward.

But from what we saw they didnt construct a scenario that works AND is pretty straight forward at all. I could buy it more if they provided a resonable timeline with events but now its so many question about what, when, how, where and why.
12-26-2015 , 04:18 PM
What they omitted from the Brendan trial is that his mother volunteered a pair of jeans that were stained. Brendan himself told his mom he helped his uncle clean the garage around Halloween.

Two constants in Brendan's interviews:
They had a Bonfire
He helped clean up a spill in the garage

One of the detectives mentioned to Brendan that Steven initially denied there was a bonfire that night. If true that sounds really bad for Steven.
12-26-2015 , 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned4lyfe Making a Murderer
What they omitted from the Brendan trial is that his mother volunteered a pair of jeans that were stained. Brendan himself told his mom he helped his uncle clean the garage around Halloween.

Two constants in Brendan's interviews:
They had a Bonfire
He helped clean up a spill in the garage

One of the detectives mentioned to Brendan that Steven initially denied there was a bonfire that night. If true that sounds really bad for Steven.
Didn't the dna lady say they had tested the cracks in the garage and in addition to not finding any of the deceased dna, they didn't find any evidence of dna cleanup?
12-26-2015 , 04:53 PM
My biggest concern is how the hell they convict 16yr old with mind of 8yr old and sentence to life in prison with no evidence other than his ridiculous "confession".
He clearly has no clue what is going on and the gravity of his circumstance. Hence his concern about getting back to 6th period because his project is due and wondering if he'll be home in time to see Wrestlemania.

I feel so much anger at those investigators, prosecutor, his defense lawyer, judges and jury. Makes me sick.

Like the defense points out and should be so obvious to everyone if she was stabbed, raped, throat cut, shot, where the F is any spec of blood, sweat, semen, hair. Anything?!
12-26-2015 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerisfunny Making a Murderer
But from what we saw they didnt construct a scenario that works AND is pretty straight forward at all. I could buy it more if they provided a resonable timeline with events but now its so many question about what, when, how, where and why.
Sure from what we saw in the show they didn't but I'm sure they did present one at some point in the trial.

Here's mine

- Teresa comes over
- Steven lures her into house
- Does his thing somewhere maybe garage
- Kills her probably in garage
- Drives car over to salvage yard and hides it
- Burns up body in bonfire

That's it. Can't get more straight forward and simple then that. And yes I know you're going to come back with "Well what about this!!??" But everything fits into this simple scenario.
12-26-2015 , 04:56 PM
Quote:
Didn't the dna lady say they had tested the cracks in the garage and in addition to not finding any of the deceased dna
Yes

Quote:
they didn't find any evidence of dna cleanup?
No. She said they wouldn't expect to find any DNA if it had been bleached.
12-26-2015 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by esad Making a Murderer
Sure from what we saw in the show they didn't but I'm sure they did present one at some point in the trial.

Here's mine

- Teresa comes over
- Steven lures her into house
- Does his thing somewhere maybe garage
- Kills her probably in garage
- Drives car over to salvage yard and hides it
- Burns up body in bonfire

That's it. Can't get more straight forward and simple then that. And yes I know you're going to come back with "Well what about this!!??" But everything fits into this simple scenario.
She was transported in the car.

Your story also misses a motive.

Also does not explain why there would be bones found far away from your kill/burn site.
12-26-2015 , 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by esad Making a Murderer
Sure from what we saw in the show they didn't but I'm sure they did present one at some point in the trial.

Here's mine

- Teresa comes over
- Steven lures her into house
- Does his thing somewhere maybe garage
- Kills her probably in garage
- Drives car over to salvage yard and hides it
- Burns up body in bonfire

That's it. Can't get more straight forward and simple then that. And yes I know you're going to come back with "Well what about this!!??" But everything fits into this simple scenario.
How does the issue of 0 blood anywhere(other then car obv) fit into your timeline? no blood=no crime when shot and stabbed multiple times seems pretty simple to me
12-26-2015 , 05:40 PM
So much weird stuff that if that is the story line there are still so many holes in what actually happened.

Why is there no DNA in the car from Steven but a little bit of blood--did he have cuts on him? Why was he almost Dexter like in cleaning everything up except some how he forgot the blood in the car.
Why did he drive Theresa in the back of the car?
Why would he keep all the evidence of the murder in such easy to find places and not use all the car destroying devices on the property? Why park on the car on the property and how in the **** did the people find the car instantly on a giant lot? Don't tell me god.
Why were some of the bones found elsewhere?
Why was the key magically found by officers a few weeks after the same room had been looked at multiple times and magically it was in clear view. Why was Theresa's DNA NOT found on the key at all?

If what his nephew said basically put both of them in jail, can they explain his story and the lack of physical evidence in the house--again is Steven Dexter-like in his house but for some reason ignores the blood in his car.

I don't understand the motives for him to do it at all especially with the cops on his ass and the fact that he'd been in jail for 18 years. He was free and the state was about to award him with a big judgement. The local sheriffs/cops had a ton more motive to ruin Steven than Steven had to put himself back in a very hairy spot that wouldn't end well for him.

It's weird that the calls to Theresa were not investigated more and what on earth happened to the deleted voice mails after the disappearance. It's weird if no one else was under investigation when there could have been others involved that had a real motive.

I just don't get the why and the how is still pretty fuzzy when it comes to the case. Thus the fact that Steven was so easily sentenced the first time in the county, there should be some second thoughts in convicted the guy again for something that was very questionable. Don't get me wrong, if Steven was proven to have done it by physical evidence, a video, etc. I think the guy should burn in hell but the lack of evidence and all the questionable people involved in the case including the local sheriff agency, the first public attorney for his nephew, the prosecutor and the judge, the fact that the state wouldn't at least give a re-trial seems rather fishy. I hope documentary at least get's the guy a re-trial and his nephew a re-trial.

It's almost as if too much of the evidence pointed to Steven to be real, unless the guy is a total idiot (after watching the documentary, I don't think he's smart but all the easily found evidence seems extremely convenient)--the evidence was almost gift wrapped in a very fishy manner and maybe the documentary was supposed to point us in that direction.
12-26-2015 , 05:40 PM
Ome of the most tilting things in this show has to be Kratz Voice.
12-26-2015 , 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by capone0 Making a Murderer
So much weird stuff that if that is the story line there are still so many holes in what actually happened.

Why is there no DNA in the car from Steven but a little bit of blood--did he have cuts on him?
They found sweat DNA in the car and blood DNA under the hood by the hood latch. There were 10 spots of DNA found according to what I have seen on reddit.

I'd like to hear if the cellmate got a deal for discussing with the prosecution that Avery had designed a torture chamber while in prison.

There is a relative of Avery that was posting on reddit and he said they have a very large family and almost all of them believed he did it and wouldn't participate in the film. He had a history far worse than what was shown. The cat that he threw over the fire had been doused with gasoline before he threw it into the fire. He served time for sexually assaulting a cousin. There was another family rape that went away when the family went silent. They found leg irons and rope on the property and he had just bought them a few weeks before the murder.

I don't really know what to believe, but I feel the filmmakers were dishonest in leaving out some very critical information about the case that didn't fit their agenda.

      
m