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

01-17-2016 , 01:20 PM
Oski: Mr Buting explains some stuff with a better timeline.
A better read than the 1 I previously put up.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/...ft-out-2060115
01-17-2016 , 04:27 PM
Quote:
The story of Steven Avery has gripped the world, with many righteous online crusaders protesting his innocence since watching the documentary Making A Murderer on Netflix.

In a recent interview, Steven Avery's mother made a shocking new claim that few of us even considered to be a possibility.

According to Dolores Avery, her son is innocent because Teresa Halbach, the woman he allegedly murdered, is not even dead.

In audio published by TMZ from The Hill-Man Morning Show on Boston's WAAF radio, Dolores claims that the victim could even be involved in the conspiracy.

"I don't think she's even dead," she claimed on the radio show.

When asked about the bones that were found on the property, she responded, "How do you know if them were her bones?"

She added that someone could have "planted" them.

read that on facebook, pretty sure its all made up but I didnt bother to check the source
01-17-2016 , 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rafiki Making a Murderer
How come these guys aren't allowed to willingly submit to poly's? I know it's not even admissible, but it helps your public perception so damn much. A guy with a 70 IQ isn't beating a poly. I wish Avery could take one now just to put that much more fuel on the fire. Like crushes the poly cold.
In the beginning of ep 10 I believe they say BD asked to take a polygraph, but his little pea headed lawyer didn't make it happen.
01-17-2016 , 05:03 PM




#understandingprobabilities
01-17-2016 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer



MaM.. season 2-Aliens?


http://tvline.com/2016/01/17/making-...son-2-renewed/

Another suspect?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-missing.html

Last edited by smacc25; 01-17-2016 at 05:33 PM. Reason: Suspect Link
01-17-2016 , 05:53 PM
Dr Phil: Did you have any guilt when SA was released after 18yrs in prison.

Kenneth Peterson(The sheriff): No none whatsoever.

Ain't no surprise there.
The devil does reside in Mantiowoc county imo.
01-17-2016 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemeliminator Making a Murderer
I like how fruit snacks ignored my simple (yet important) question of whether non-******ed people ever confess to crimes they didn't commit.
Seems less probable it's a false confession than that he's just not telling the truth about parts. I think it's like 100x more likely he's lying about where the rape/murder happened then having made up the entire story. When he's being truthful he speaks without hesitation and looks up. I think the only time he looks the cops in the eyes throughout all the interviews is when he's explaining how deep the stab wounds to the chest and neck were.

In the May interview, months after the early March confession, he gives a near identical account of what happened. The cops loop back around to why she was in the truck. He basically completely stops responding when they're pressing him on this. I wonder where they took her.

Also at one point in this last interview they ask him who's knife it was that he stabbed her with and he says 'the owner of the house'. WTF does this mean? Isn't he on a first name basis with everyone in their compound? Very odd.

Again, people should watch the actual interviews. I don't get any sense of coercion or suggestion from the police. At one point the one cop gets frustrated and tells him not to guess, or if he's guessing to qualify his statements with "I think that..." or "Im guessing that..."

I'll say it again. Damn fine police work. Justice was served. God bless the United States of America.
01-17-2016 , 06:44 PM
Quote:
Seems less probable it's a false confession than that he's just not telling the truth about parts. I think it's like 100x more likely he's lying about where the rape/murder happened then having made up the entire story. When he's being truthful he speaks without hesitation and looks up. I think the only time he looks the cops in the eyes throughout all the interviews is when he's explaining how deep the stab wounds to the chest and neck were.
I've seen every minute. I never say, "you're wrong" to anyone in my posts, but this time: You're wrong.

First of all, he very clearly states it went the "whole length of the knife". Fassbender, who we can only assume realized that a knife being insterted the whole length while slitting a throat would equal a decapitation so he quickly corrects the error by attempting to show BD how to measure how deep the knife went.

Fassbender makes a visual demonstration to BD to show him how to explain the depth of the knife using his own fingers, a demonstration that BD must watch and then replicate. THIS is the reason he is looking at him.

Even the absolute best pro-prosecution arguments from theorists have completely stayed away from the BD interviews because they are so clearly coerced and just plain stupid. You're answers are so ridiculous, this has to be a pure troll. If it is, you got me.

Last edited by lostinthesaus; 01-17-2016 at 06:56 PM.
01-17-2016 , 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by W0X0F Making a Murderer
Interesting that you phased these two things differently. So, the second one is, in your estimation, more probable than the first. How did you arrive at these odds? (1 in 50,000 is better odds than 50,000 to 1)

#understandingprobabilities
Completely made up by me. Meant that it is very rare to have the ability to professionally be capable of cleaning a crime scene and have personal access to crushing a car.

He ostensibly cleaned crime scene to remove any blood or DNA. But he would leave his own blood/DNA in her car for days after it was known she missing and he was a likely suspect?

Far fetched.
01-17-2016 , 07:30 PM
What was left out of the documentary for SA/BD defense

Very plausible theory of how DNA planting was done

Sorry if anything has previously been posted.

On the DNA planting vid which is an extremely large amount of speculation and is said to simply be a "how it could have happened vid", it just further adds to incredible amount of coincidences that occurred during this investigation, coincidences that must have happened in order to pull of the frame and are in fact shown to have happened. Many of the coincidences weren't simply happenstance, they were also the very result of participants defying mandates to be removed from the investigation in the first place.

So in golfnutt's defense, there is obviously no way to determine real mathematical probabilities. Be we can say the probabilities are extremely polarized with the overwhelming amount leaning towards SA having absolutely nothing to do with the crime.
01-17-2016 , 07:47 PM
I have watched a few forensic files on real cases, and from I could gather, they caught tons of criminals that failed to come close to properly scrubbing blood. And these were in small places, like back of a truck.

It seems if someone was knifed and/or shot multiple times, there would be blood everywhere. And this was in a completely messy trailer.

Was there really virtually no physical evidence except for what was in her vehicle that he didn't thinking about cleaning even while he was a suspect?

Hmmm....
01-17-2016 , 07:58 PM
Quote:
The story of Steven Avery has gripped the world, with many righteous online crusaders protesting his innocence since watching the documentary Making A Murderer on Netflix.

In a recent interview, Steven Avery's mother made a shocking new claim that few of us even considered to be a possibility.

According to Dolores Avery, her son is innocent because Teresa Halbach, the woman he allegedly murdered, is not even dead.

In audio published by TMZ from The Hill-Man Morning Show on Boston's WAAF radio, Dolores claims that the victim could even be involved in the conspiracy.

"I don't think she's even dead," she claimed on the radio show.

When asked about the bones that were found on the property, she responded, "How do you know if them were her bones?"

She added that someone could have "planted" them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirGaribaldi Making a Murderer
read that on facebook, pretty sure its all made up but I didnt bother to check the source

I ain't gonna lie... I considered the same thing. Only because I don't remember for sure them confirming that they were her bones in the doc. I know its stupid, but at this point, with everything in that series, very little is impossible.
01-17-2016 , 08:01 PM
That's it guys, Dolores cracked the case. Time to move on.
01-17-2016 , 09:36 PM


53:37

I was trying to find when he first admits to the rape but they cut out a big chunk of the interview. You can see it skip from 11:46 to 12:24pm. Is it common for them to censor graphic descriptions? This would be when he for the first time admits to the rape and stabbing, up to this point they're only looking for witness testimony against SA but dumb dumb can't keep quiet. Everything you've heard or read of him discussing it is after this, which is why they often ask leading questions using details he's already provided which have been continually misrepresented by the documentary and clueless posters.

I think I'm done with this thread and the case in general. SA will never get out of prison. I feel bad that he duped me for a few days while watching the first 8 episodes or so. The crime itself is deeply disturbing as well and I'd rather not continue thinking about it. Good luck to everyone and I hope you figure this out as well.
01-17-2016 , 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer




#understandingprobabilities
Woulda been hilarious if he said "no, except for the ones in my head. But they're always there."

Quote:
Originally Posted by fruit snacks Making a Murderer
Seems less probable it's a false confession than that he's just not telling the truth about parts. I think it's like 100x more likely he's lying about where the rape/murder happened then having made up the entire story. When he's being truthful he speaks without hesitation and looks up. I think the only time he looks the cops in the eyes throughout all the interviews is when he's explaining how deep the stab wounds to the chest and neck were.

In the May interview, months after the early March confession, he gives a near identical account of what happened. The cops loop back around to why she was in the truck. He basically completely stops responding when they're pressing him on this. I wonder where they took her.

Also at one point in this last interview they ask him who's knife it was that he stabbed her with and he says 'the owner of the house'. WTF does this mean? Isn't he on a first name basis with everyone in their compound? Very odd.

Again, people should watch the actual interviews. I don't get any sense of coercion or suggestion from the police. At one point the one cop gets frustrated and tells him not to guess, or if he's guessing to qualify his statements with "I think that..." or "Im guessing that..."

I'll say it again. Damn fine police work. Justice was served. God bless the United States of America.
Dude, you just posted multiple paragraphs without ever answering the question. I'm not asking about Brenden, I'm asking in general: do non-******ed people confess to crimes they didn't commit?
01-17-2016 , 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
First of all, he very clearly states it went the "whole length of the knife".
no

Quote:
Police: How deep?

B: Just as long as the knife went through her (motions across his own neck)
01-17-2016 , 10:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WichitaDM Making a Murderer
3) We know Steven Avery is a scumbag because of his past acts! The only problem with this is that in general you aren't supposed to be proving criminal cases based on peoples reputations or propensity for other offenses unless they are identical or extremely similar to the offense in question. SA literally had zero prior convictions for sexual crimes or homicide.
What?
01-17-2016 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
Just as long as the knife
Quote:
whole length of the knife
Wasn't even the point anyhow, but keep up the fine analytics.

Do you realize that you're assigning guilt by pointing out how untruthful he is in his CONFESSION TO THE CRIME? Then you are completely disregarding the lack of any forensic AND circumstantial evidence to back up his confession. You then offer a supposedly edited out scene of a youtube video that "proves" this part of his story is fact because he made eye contact with the officers and talked steadily. However, throughout the hours of video available, you fail to see that Fassbender and Weigert are undeniably coercing this confession multiple times and even changing Brendan's confession when forensic science proved his original confession could not be true.

Good riddance. Never thought I'd say this, but I miss PoorSkillz.

Last edited by lostinthesaus; 01-17-2016 at 10:47 PM.
01-17-2016 , 10:28 PM
Fruit snacks: since the Brenden Avery confessions were so solid and good police work, why didn't they use it at the Steven Avery trial?
01-17-2016 , 10:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemeliminator Making a Murderer
Woulda been hilarious if he said "no, except for the ones in my head. But they're always there."



Dude, you just posted multiple paragraphs without ever answering the question. I'm not asking about Brenden, I'm asking in general: do non-******ed people confess to crimes they didn't commit?
Yes, non-******ed people have confessed to crimes for which they have been later exonerated.

In fact, most wrongful convictions include a false confession.

Whether or not one occurred here, I don't know.
01-17-2016 , 11:19 PM
But fruit snacks has been arguing that Brenden avery isn't ******ed, just dumb, so he couldn't have been tricked into confessing.
01-17-2016 , 11:23 PM
Watching his very consistent and quick responses when he was on the stand leads me to believe BD is not ******ed.
01-17-2016 , 11:25 PM
What is the fall out from all of this? Will anyone who watched this that sits on a jury have a difficult time pressing the guilty button?
01-17-2016 , 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyRavishing Making a Murderer
What is the fall out from all of this? Will anyone who watched this that sits on a jury have a difficult time pressing the guilty button?
Considering the State's absolute failure to show that SA committed this crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the clear motive behind the MC frame job and evidence of either complete investigative incompetence or intentionally planting evidence, combined with presumption of innocence, then yeah. Lets hope it's fairly difficult if they ever get the opportunity again.

      
m