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

01-20-2016 , 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
I've debunked 3 parts of your theory that BD offered facts about the murder in his "confession" that only the murderer could have known and is therefor guilty or involved. I did this by clearly showing you that the media was broadcasting every single fact about this case long before BD was ever interviewed. They tried the same thing to his cousin and had no rebuttal when she simply said "I saw it on the news".

You'd have to be delusional to think that this whole town wasn't running wild with the facts from this case. You don't think someone in the Avery family in highschool in a town of 1400 people doesn't hear about the details of the what the cops are supposedly discovering?

It is interesting that the classic strategy of withholding facts from the crime scene and allowing suspects to offer them before they are BPI was nevery utilized in this case. I wonder why?
The only thing you showed was the leg shackles. That he could have known from reports. Nothing about terressa's blood, nothing about how many times she was shot in the head, nothing about what side of her head she was shot on..

You realize him knowing even one of those things is pretty damning right?
01-20-2016 , 11:57 PM
Question: Do people think/know Colborn could tell the year of Rav4 just by looking at it? I believe 'back in the day' you could read the year of a car by looking at the tail lights, I don't think that's true. I don't think most troopers are gonna be experts on Rav4's to the point of being able to identify the year just by looking at it.
01-20-2016 , 11:59 PM
I cant stress this enough..

Lets review:

Stevans gun was used to kill teressa
The bullet that was used to kill teressa was in stevans garage
Bones from teressa were found on his property
Some of her personal items were found just outside his door, including her pda (burned btw)
His blood which tested negative to EDTA(meaning it was almost certainly not preserved blood) was found inside her car
He had DNA on the hood latch of her car
Others testified to seeing him with a fire going
He admitted to having a fire going
Her vehicle was located on her property


Ya, innocent indeed.
01-21-2016 , 12:02 AM
So, you need to suggest that someone else killed teressa with his gun, hid the bullet in his garage, then burned her on his property sometime within the 5 days he had a bonfire with no one noticing, hid the items of hers outside his door, stole some of his dna and blood and put it all over her car and under her hood..

Ya, I am the one trolling. Do you people even logic?
01-21-2016 , 12:05 AM
Really wish people would stop bringing up the bullet with Halbach's DNA on it. Following every valid scientific method, it's invalid and a legit jury would have regarded it as such. The fact that the result was allowed to be admitted as evidence is staggering. What we know:

-the negative control was contaminated
-the state originally neglected to share this information
-that in itself should raise huge red flags (hello Duane Deaver, Patrizia Stefanoni)

Now repeat after me until it sinks in:
The negative control is not there for show...
The negative control is not there for show...
The negative control is not there for show...
01-21-2016 , 12:06 AM
Fraley, why are you spelling his name 'Stevan'?
01-21-2016 , 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
Really wish people would stop bringing up the bullet with Halbach's DNA on it. Following every valid scientific method, it's invalid and a legit jury would have regarded it as such. The fact that the result was allowed to be admitted as evidence is staggering. What we know:

-the negative control was contaminated
-the state originally neglected to share this information
-that in itself should raise huge red flags (hello Duane Deaver, Patrizia Stefanoni)

Now repeat after me until it sinks in:
The negative control is not there for show...
The negative control is not there for show...
The negative control is not there for show...
The negative control does not effect the actual bullet.
01-21-2016 , 12:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I cant stress this enough..

.
Yes, yes you can. You've stressed it too much. You've taken over this thread and not for the better.
01-21-2016 , 12:12 AM
For those of you intrigued with this series, make sure you check out 'Capturing the Friedmans'. It actually relates with the issue of coerced confessions.
01-21-2016 , 12:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyRavishing Making a Murderer
Question: Do people think/know Colborn could tell the year of Rav4 just by looking at it? I believe 'back in the day' you could read the year of a car by looking at the tail lights, I don't think that's true. I don't think most troopers are gonna be experts on Rav4's to the point of being able to identify the year just by looking at it.
The make and model is indicated on the vin #.
01-21-2016 , 12:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The negative control does not effect the actual bullet fragment.
FYP
01-21-2016 , 12:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubey Making a Murderer
Yes, yes you can. You've stressed it too much. You've taken over this thread and not for the better.
+1, I will leave you guys to your conspiracies.
01-21-2016 , 12:28 AM
I know it's been said, but anyone who supports the 'guilty' verdict has to be bothered by the fact two of the most damning pieces of evidence, the key and the bullet, weren't found on initial sweeps. And in the case of key, which is pretty hard to miss, it was found on the 7th search.

If you believe those were planted, what's your theory on what happened? Planting the evidence just seems so critical. There's only two possibilities from there, they didn't think they had a strong enough case or there was a conspiracy.
01-21-2016 , 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
+1, I will leave you guys to your conspiracies.
can you leave for good and not fake leave like PoorSkillz did
01-21-2016 , 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
So, you need to suggest that someone else killed teressa with his gun
Nope. Both Tadych and Bobby admitted to being on the scene, both with .22 caliber rifles moments before she was killed, allegedly. A police report states that Tadych was attempting to sell a .22 rifle days or weeks later, but denied it on the stand.


Quote:
hid the bullet in his garage
No. Planted a bullet fragment - 6 months later.

Quote:
then burned her on his property sometime within the 5 days he had a bonfire with no one noticing
Obviously already debunked multiple times. The bones were moved. There was a 2nd burn site. It's not even up for discussion anymore.

Quote:
hid the items of hers outside his door
I mean they hid her bones in his bonfire pit. Why is does this part seem unbelievable to you?

Quote:
Stole some of his dna and blood and put it all over her car and under her hood..
No DNA in her car. No legit DNA anywhere else. The documentary already covered very extensively exactly how and when the blood could have been planted.

Quote:
Ya, I am the one trolling
!
01-21-2016 , 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bank Making a Murderer
can you leave for good and not fake leave like PoorSkillz did
Don't leave, we'll have nothing to talk about.
01-21-2016 , 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubey Making a Murderer
Fraley trolling now for sure
One would hope, but it's possible he's just that dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Its called cognitive dissonance.
I'm not convinced you know what those words mean. Please explain their relevance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Technically no, I will paraphrase and those that want can watch the confession themselves. It was the march 1st one that is relevant here.

after brendan had confessed to raping her, and cutting her, and killing her, putting her body in the back of the car and a few other things the conversation went something like this..

Police: who shot her
brendan: Stevan did
Police: how many times
Brendan: like ten times
Police: how many times in the head?
Brendan: 3
police: what side of her head was she shot
Brendan: like the left side (points to the left side of his head)
The fact that you don't include the leadup to this question really says it all about your honesty. Including that makes it obvious that the police are leading him to that exact conclusion. That's why they keep asking "what happened to her HEAD?" and every time he says something other than her being shot they say "No, what ELSE happened to her head?" Before they get frustrated and just poison the well by mentioning this fact that he "shouldn't have known." As for guessing which side of her head she was shot on... He had a 50/50 chance! What's so amazing about that. As for guessing how many times she was shot...he gave multiple conflicting numbers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Also the "who shot her" question is a technique to see if the person is falsely confessing. Police thought at the moment he was nothing more than a witness and wanted to protect him. They even had him staying in a hotel away from the family. They ask questions like that to see if the person answers correctly. Branden could have said, "no one shot her" he didn't that is just another thing he knew.
Wow, what nonsense. Up until the "who shot her" question Brendan had already 'confessed' to participating in her rape and torture, and you're trying to claim the police thought he was just a witness?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
I never said branden couldn't have known about the fire pit. I said there was stuff he couldn't have known that he did. I never specified what.
Whoops, walk it back, walk it back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Master, the hood latch was swapped AFTER, let me repeat AFTER, brandan told police that stevan avery disconnected the battery..
And as we see from the transcripts saurus posted, the police led him step by step to that fact. Him knowing about that becomes a lot less amazing and damning when the police are asking "what did he do under the HOOD OF THE CAR Brendon?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by truefish Making a Murderer
Do some research. There is a lot of evidence intentionally left out. After seeing this I am convinced that he did kill her and the police planted evidence to ensure a conviction. The bullet in her head came from his 22 caliber rifle that hangs over his bed. There was also non blood DNA evidence on the hood mechanism of the Rav4. Dassey told investigators that when they hid the vehicle Avery opened the hood and disconnected the battery. I believe the key and blood was planted but that Avery and Dassey did kill her. Also Avery was obsessed with Teresa Halbach. At one time he was warned by police to stay away from her. She said that he made her very uncomfortable and that he often was wearing only a towel when she came to photograph the vehicles. Something else that is not pointed out is that his fiancé thought he was a monster. I believe despite Avery's low IQ appearance he is in fact a sociopath. If you remember in the beginning of the show he mentions throwing a cat into a fire. The fact is he doused the cat in motor oil before doing this. Cruelty to animals is a common characteristic of sociopath killers. The show does a very good job in convincing viewers he is just an idiot that is getting screwed over.
When did bolded happen?

The fiancee saying he's a monster only happened for the first time in the past week. How would they have included it in the documentary?

Why do you use "despite" when describing his sociopathy? Do you believe that sociopaths aren't or can't be dumb? If so, you shouldn't be diagnosing anyone, because it's not necessary to be smart to be a sociopath.

It sounds like you think Steven Avery is guilty but got railroaded at trial (you say the police planted evidence etc). So he should get a new trial, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by truefish Making a Murderer
Well that's what I believe. Lots of information that contradicts the show. Killing of the cat and Teresa being very uncomfortable is all I really need.
All you need for what? To say Steven's a creep? I'll agree to that. To say he's guilty of rape/torture/murder is another thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
Bad police work is not a frame job, and I do not even know if I would go as far as saying it was bad police work. They didn't have dna testing then. Someone picked him out of a line up, and he had previously committed sexual crimes in the area. In 1985 that was pretty standard for a conviction of rape.
What about the dozens of witnesses who said Steven Avery was miles away at he time of the crime? What about the corroborating evidence (like the receipt)?

Let's see if fraley keeps his promise. But I'm guessing like poorshills he just can't stay away.
01-21-2016 , 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyRavishing Making a Murderer
I know it's been said, but anyone who supports the 'guilty' verdict has to be bothered by the fact two of the most damning pieces of evidence, the key and the bullet, weren't found on initial sweeps. And in the case of key, which is pretty hard to miss, it was found on the 7th search.

If you believe those were planted, what's your theory on what happened? Planting the evidence just seems so critical. There's only two possibilities from there, they didn't think they had a strong enough case or there was a conspiracy.
I really think most of them justv don't grasp the difference between "I think he's guilty" and "he's guilty beyond any reasonable doubt."

Personally I think it's >50% that Steven Avery is guilty, and like 20% that Brendan Dassey is. But they both got railroaded, so they should get new trials. If that means that two murderers potentially go free, guess whose fault it is?
01-21-2016 , 02:21 AM
One thing that hasn't been talked about is how evasive the cops are when being cross examined.. It's expected, not surprising at all but in this case it is probably more glaring than in other cases.

"I don't remember."
"I believe so."
"Probably."
01-21-2016 , 02:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
The negative control does not effect the actual bullet.
Repeat after me:
The negative control is not just for show.
01-21-2016 , 03:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplyRavishing Making a Murderer
One thing that hasn't been talked about is how evasive the cops are when being cross examined.. It's expected, not surprising at all but in this case it is probably more glaring than in other cases.

"I don't remember."
"I believe so."
"Probably."
Yeah
01-21-2016 , 03:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28renton Making a Murderer
Repeat after me:

The negative control is not just for show.

This.

Seriously guys, science. There's a reason the have negative and positive controls.
01-21-2016 , 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Don't leave, we'll have nothing to talk about.
OK fine you suckered me back in.
01-21-2016 , 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight Making a Murderer
+1, I will leave you guys to your conspiracies.

      
m