Making A Murderer

[Mendoza]

Brendan reminded me of Paul Dano. If theres ever a film.....

[VladimirIlyich]

The ex boyfriend who testified seemed dodgy as fuck.

I think this is why they put him in the witness box,as somebody with a motive and much more likely to gain access to the girl. He was also part of the search party who entered the property. Motive and opportunity to hide evidence right there.

[Spy Bee]

Imagine if he gets out and then kills his new bird though! 

 

PLOT TWIST!

[Mendoza]

We never found out what happened to Jodi. 

[Spy Bee]

We never found out what happened to Jodi. 

Ssshh, that's series 2!

[Juniper]

Finished it this evening.

 

I sadly think they did it (or Dassey just helped move/burn the body after knowing she was there when still alive) but the police planted evidence in certain locations such as the keys in the tralier and bullet in the garage in order to snag them and the prosecution (and sometimes defence in the form of Dassey's smiling cunt of a lawyer) and police worked together.

 

I don't think her family/her ex were involved in the murder at all but again worked with the police behind the scenes, such as finding the car within a few minutes of arriving and being there in the first place to search with a camera.

 

There are some articles out there with items/evidence the documentary left out which is interesting, not sure if they have been posted/mentioned already.

 

http://www.alternet.org/media/did-makers-making-murderer-leave-out-evidence-against-steven-avery

 

All in all an interesting but depressing watch.

[Brownie]

The bit that got me was when Colburn called his colleague to run the plate number of the RAV4 2 days before it was found at Averys. That phone call is dodgy as fuck as it clearly sounds like he has the car in front of him. He has no response to that line of questioning either, it's dodgy as fuck.

[Brownie]

Those who think he is guilty by the way, are you basing that judgement on the evidence in the trial? I can only assume you must be. You don't think there is at least some reasonable doubt attached to that evidence?

[Juniper]

Those who think he is guilty by the way, are you basing that judgement on the evidence in the trial? I can only you must be. You don't think there is at least some reasonable doubt attached to that evidence?

Yeah I'm basing it on the evidence on the trial and the stuff they missed off from the programme in the article I posted above.

 

There's always some doubt at the end of the day. Im not 100% sure, but that's my overall feeling when I weigh everything up.

 

I don't event think the Jurors who spent 6 weeks listening to a lot more than we heard would be 100% sure, hence why they were initially 7 vs 3 in favour of him being innocent before changing their votes.

[Brownie]

Yeah I'm basing it on the evidence on the trial and the stuff they missed off from the programme in the article I posted above.

 

There's always some doubt at the end of the day. Im not 100% sure, but that's my overall feeling when I weigh everything up.

 

I don't event think the Jurors who spent 6 weeks listening to a lot more than we heard would be 100% sure, hence why they were initially 7 vs 3 in favour of him being innocent before changing their votes.

I read all of the stuff that Kratz mentioned was missed off but it was all circumstancial stuff and some of it he never even submitted at the time as evidence. So i'm not sure how he can suggest that the documentary ignored key evidence.

 

I have no idea if he's guilty or innocent, I just see no reason how he can be found quilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[Hades]

Brendan reminded me of Paul Dano. If theres ever a film.....

He already played that role in Prisoners.

[VladimirIlyich]

I think he's innocent,he's definitely innocent under the laws of 'reasonable doubt.'

I would be more likely to consider his guilt if a) he wasnt in the process of bankrupting the Police Department with his 38 million dollar lawsuit just as the murder case started b) Other potential suspects were investigated and c) The people conducting the investigation were not massive criminals too,based on their whole behaviours during the investigation. I also believe that body was moved,as was the girl's car,which was mentioned above.

 

[Juniper]

I think he's innocent,he's definitely innocent under the laws of 'reasonable doubt.'

I would be more likely to consider his guilt if a) he wasnt in the process of bankrupting the Police Department with his 38 million dollar lawsuit just as the murder case started b) Other potential suspects were investigated and c) The people conducting the investigation were not massive criminals too,based on their whole behaviours during the investigation. I also believe that body was moved,as was the girl's car,which was mentioned above.

Regarding the car being moved Dassey stated that Steven moved the car and then took the battery cable from the hood. I don't think this was included in the documentary

 

Then you have Stevens DNA under the hood of the car being confirmed, which I doubt could have been planted, unless the police would have known about the battery cable being removed in order to plant a reason for Avery going under the hood in the first place.

 

From the below article

 

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

 

"Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence"

 

 

[Mendoza]

Six pages in, it's about time the attractive reporter got a mention

 

[Bobby Hundreds]

Regarding the car being moved Dassey stated that Steven moved the car and then took the battery cable from the hood. I don't think this was included in the documentary

 

Then you have Stevens DNA under the hood of the car being confirmed, which I doubt could have been planted, unless the police would have known about the battery cable being removed in order to plant a reason for Avery going under the hood in the first place.

 

From the below article

 

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

 

"Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence"

 

The only problem is, is we know the police were leading dassey's statements and we know somebody had taken Averys blood from evidence and taken a syringe to it. If you can plant evidence and pretty much have an imbecile you can manipulate I don't think its that far fetched to assume coppers could have the intelligence to add more details, they had plenty of time. Just killing someone hiding the car right next to your house and then thinking i think ill remove the brake cable seems weird anyway. I'm not sure if he is innocent or guilty but the evidence and the statements are tainted too much. I would't want steven avery pardoned but he should have a retrial they both should. The validity of the evidence and how it was aquired should face heavy scrutiny. We have all only seen a 10 hr documentary though it's not really enough for people who have signed a petition asking for his release.

[Bob]

The problem though is that you'd struggle even more now to get an impartial jury for any retrial.

 

Those who thought he was guilty before will have either changed their mind after watching it or entrenched their position, and those who didn't have an opinion will think he's been stitched up.

 

I cant believe you could live locally and not have watched this documentary, as almost everyone I know here has watched it and had - to borrow a phrase - never heard of the cunt.

[Sweeney287]

Six pages in, it's about time the attractive reporter got a mention

 

I always looked forward to the press briefings.

[Brownie]

Regarding the car being moved Dassey stated that Steven moved the car and then took the battery cable from the hood. I don't think this was included in the documentary

 

Then you have Stevens DNA under the hood of the car being confirmed, which I doubt could have been planted, unless the police would have known about the battery cable being removed in order to plant a reason for Avery going under the hood in the first place.

 

From the below article

 

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

 

"Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence"

Well it seems clear that they planted the blood and the key so it's not a big stretch to assume that they planted his DNA.

 

And did Dassey state that or did the police state it with Dassey just agreeing so that he could get finished and go home to play on his playstation?

[Brownie]

Does anyone know where his DNA on the hood came from by the way? Saliva, hair etc?

[Sparky]

Does anyone know where his DNA on the hood came from by the way? Saliva, hair etc?

 

Pretty certain I read or heard somewhere that it was sweat.

[Juniper]

Well it seems clear that they planted the blood and the key so it's not a big stretch to assume that they planted his DNA.

 

And did Dassey state that or did the police state it with Dassey just agreeing so that he could get finished and go home to play on his playstation?

Oh I agree with you Brownie but I don't personally think that the police planted that piece of DNA.

 

Easy to plant a key and a less easier to plant a bullet from his own gun with her DNA on it (given she was incinerated in a fire) but some of theories I've seen elsewhere about how they planed his DNA (down to used socks, cans he was using whilst being interviewed, police driving him around for hours in a hot car so they could get a sample!!!) Seems a little too far.

 

Then you read that some of her car items and phone were found toasted on his property..

 

Surely you would just put a blood mark in the hood also? Or maybe someone would go to silly lengths?

 

They do need a retrial, both of them, but I don't think it will happen as the Police/States main evidence (or most importantly how it got there) doesn't add up.

 

Regardless of if they did it or not the case is crocked as we all agree on.

[Anubis]

Apparently Anonymous have information to prove Averys innocence. Probably bollocks like as they haven't released anything.

I think that was a wind up. More 'official' anonymous sources called bollocks on it.

[Spy Bee]

Then you read that some of her car items and phone were found toasted on his property..

 

 

And yet her pelvis was found some distance away in a barrel in a quarry. I don't think she was burnt on site.

[Anubis]

I don't think that, taking everything into account, you could discount Steven Avery as a suspect, but there has clearly been foul play from the police and the evidence is severely tainted.

[Captain Turdseye]

Yep. It can't be proven either way beyond reasonable doubt.