YO!! I was saying the first time I heard it, and every goddamn time since. Sounded like a freaking annoying high school girl.

She was likely placed in the back of the car at some point. We don't know if she was ever transported. He might have put her in there. Drove the car to salvage yard and then picked up body later to burn.

As far as motive. He specifically asked for her to come photograph the car. Had talked to her before and wanted to rape her. His fiancée was in prison.

The quarry bones. Two bones fragments were identified as human in the quarry along with many other animal bones. The only connection they made was that they had a similar burn pattern. There is no dna connection. The only bones identified by dna as hers are the ones at his house. It's the defenses theory that she was burned at the quarry and then the bones were transported and planted by the cops. There is no direct evidence of that.

We know she was shot twice in the head with a .22. We don't know anything else for sure. We don't know that she was stabbed at all. Could have happened in the garage. As Brendan's mother testified Brendan came home with bleach stains on his jeans and said he had been cleaning the garage with Steven.

There doesn't have to be ton of blood all over the place. That again was the defenses theory that there should be more blood, but we don't know how much there was as the only injury we know for sure is that she was probably shot twice in the head with a .22. A .22 is not a .357 magnum. It usually makes a small hole and you don't get much or any splatter.

I don't doubt that SA did it. Heck of a frame job if he didn't , but one of the pieces of evidence I can't figure out is the key. Seems to have almost of had to been planted by the cop. This was a key the victim would of handled thousands of times and SA only once or twice, but only SA's DNA was found. How did the cop come up with the key. Did SA kill the victim , put her in her own car(hence the bloodstains ), drive by the burn pile and dump her body off , and then go park her car on his own lot and hide it with a tree branch. Did he then leave the key in the ignition and then the cops found it and took it out and later washed it clean of victims DNA and planted SA's DNA on it ,and then planted it in his trailer ? The key thing just doesn't ad up. Or maybe I missed something.

This does make things a lot clearer. I still don't understand why he left the car on his property in 1 piece, in clear view where it could be easily found in 10 minutes by a search party when he lives on property that could crush a car or alternatively he could have some how lost the car in a river/lake/etc. or burned it off his property. I guess if he did it, he is just lazy and stupid.

I'm a little appalled that the documentary crew didn't at least present some of the prosecutor's strongest evidence. Maybe the 2nd series could show the opposing viewpoint.....

Do yo have a link to this thread? I was searching and couldn't find anything. Just like the police. BOOM!! Nailed it!!

But seriously, link please

I had to consult Wikipedia after the first episode. I just couldn't bear to slowly get tortured by a potentially bad ending.

And after reading about the ending couldn't watch the other episodes.

I think his plan was to crush the car but you don't just a crush a whole car. You remove the battery (someone did this), the tires, drain the fluids and remove other parts.

I think he was planning on doing this but circumstances prevented him. He also probably underestimated how difficult it would be to do without being noticed.

Wat?

Where'd you hear this?

That is my biggest issue and it makes me question all of their motives. As more people find out the other side of the story, it is going to take focus away from the sheriff dept, prosecutor, and public defender. Even if he is guilty there should still be consequences for things that they did.

http://archive.postcrescent.com/arti...lanned-torture

http://archive.thenorthwestern.com/a...U022187316.PDF

Everything fits aside from the lack of blood or spatter anywhere

I think the way the series is presented is forces people to look at it as

The prosecutor/cops are corrupt scumbags

OR

Steven Avery is a murderer.

The reality is that the prosecutor/cops can be corrupt scumbags AND Steven is a murderer. One truth doesn't cancel out the other.

God, no kidding. I would be tempted to vote against him on gp

thx

this documentary is looking more disingenuous by the minute. Thats a chunk of damning info about Steven completely ignored in this doc

So your jury vote would be, "Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?"

Sgt Colburn and Lt Lenk hit the jackpot when they found Theresa's dead body in the back of that car. "We're doing society a favor by getting him off the streets. Yeah he didn't kill her ,but he shouldve been put away for other things he's done. At the same time saving the county and alot of good upstanding people their jobs and reputations. Why should we have to go down because of this inbred scumbag? No one will care about this guy. They will think he did it anyways."

From /r/makingamurderer

Kratz:

You could probably dismiss most of it but the phone calls seem really suspect.

Tried watching last night after I got home from the bar, shut it off half way through the first episode. Guess I should try when not drunk.

Regarding DNA on the hood latch from this article http://www.convolutedbrian.com/dasse...ril-2007.html:

enjoyed

sick life

not sure if he is guilty. but sure that cops were corrupt

Not going to quote any specific posts but the problem isn't that he was obviously innocent and found guilty. The problem is that the criminal justice system as designed requires the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is roughly a 90%+ standard. Even the posts I see saying 80-90% he did it, guess what that isn't enough. I listed over 20 issues that raise reasonable doubt. There is no way no matter how many details were left out of the documentary that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have possibly proved that there was no police evidence tampering beyond a reasonable doubt but there is no way on earth they proved that Steven Avery was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't care how many facebook posts or emails there are from the scumbag attorney Kratz that "we didn't see the whole story", the facts we did see raise reasonable doubt regardless of what "facts" are left out.

I would counter that the documentary is proving to be biased in favor of the defense, which is fine for a tv show, but inadequate for determining innocence or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In order to do that, I think we would all need to hear all the facts and I think its pretty clear we're not getting all of them from this documentary, still enjoyed it though

I mean it is biased but there are TONS of issues with the case being proved beyond a reasonable doubt which is a VERY HIGH standard. I have seen many defendants walk on much less than Avery. The complete lack of physical evidence besides the questionable blood evidence in the car (because of Lenk/Colburn not signing in, calling the car in before it was found, and possibly tampered with blood evidence from the previous case), the key being found on the 8th search or whatever by Lenk, and the thing I don't seeing being talked about is that I think it is pretty obvious Brenden's "confession" was garbage. However it conveniently led the police to a bullet never before found that had Teresa's DNA on it in an area previously heavily searched months later. I mean come on even one of those things is questionable but when you add them up there is way more than reasonable doubt that the physical evidence was valid. Those issues are not disputed by scumbag Kratz or anyone else and no amount of left out evidence changes that.

Sent Kratz an email wrt Brendan's case and received the same reply I posted earlier about the evidence omitted from the Avery case

Also Kratz's main arguments at the time seem to be:

1) How dare you question police integrity these are the guys who keep us all safe! The only problem with that is that we know that they are all dirty because of the earlier case. We also know that the police in question were explicitly not supposed to be around the crime scene but conveniently found literally ALL of the physical evidence against SA.

2) How dare you question MY integrity! The only problem with that is that Kratz is an admitted scumbag who was suspended from the practice of law. There is literally no debate that Kratz was a complete scumbag. He tried to bang victims whose cases he was prosecuting and prosecuted individuals sending them to prison for doing the same things that he was doing for years (drug addiction).

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.

Not to mention that a prosecutor's job is not to obtain a conviction at any cost it is to be part of the system that finds guilty people guilty and innocent people innocent. Does anyone really see this case and think that is really Kratz's motivation? The Brendon Dassey case which is much more egrigious than Avery's case is proof that it isn't. No rational person can watch Dassey's confession and think anything other than the kid is severely mentally damaged/inept and he is very likely not involved. The fact that the Dassey statement was put into the media as absolute fact likely tainting both of their trials is proof of a person who is a scumbag willing to do anything to advance his career rather than do his real job. The fact he later used his position of "power" (lol calumet county DA) to bang damaged women is proof that he is a selfish evil person.