https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...e_seen_so_far/

Sorry if this has been posted.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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...

Fraley, why are you spelling his name 'Stevan'?

The negative control does not effect the actual bullet.

Yes, yes you can. You've stressed it too much. You've taken over this thread and not for the better.

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.

The make and model is indicated on the vin #.

FYP

+1, I will leave you guys to your conspiracies.

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.

can you leave for good and not fake leave like PoorSkillz did

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.


No. Planted a bullet fragment - 6 months later.

Obviously already debunked multiple times. The bones were moved. There was a 2nd burn site. It's not even up for discussion anymore.

I mean they hid her bones in his bonfire pit. Why is does this part seem unbelievable to you?

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.

!

Don't leave, we'll have nothing to talk about.

One would hope, but it's possible he's just that dumb.

I'm not convinced you know what those words mean. Please explain their relevance.

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!

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?

Whoops, walk it back, walk it back.

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?"

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?

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.

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.

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?

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."

Repeat after me:
The negative control is not just for show.

Yeah

This.

Seriously guys, science. There's a reason the have negative and positive controls.

OK fine you suckered me back in.