Making a Murderer (Spoilers)

[#1rish]

IMO Brendan's brother or that other guy Scott Tadych (guy dating Avery's sister) did it.

 

[Rocket89]

Theresa is killed somewhere, I think some sort of head trauma is most likely. She's put into the back of her Rav4, explaining the marks left by her bloody hair.

It's this part, specifically, that I'm curious if anyone has a theory on how Avery could have done this when she visited his home to take photos of the van.

If he kills her in his home, or the garage, or outside somewhere near his home he would have to have done so without leaving ANY of her blood anywhere. Her blood would have dripped everywhere while loading her into the Rav-4.

If he burns her body in his bonfire in his back yard AND killed her in any of the above scenarios then there'd be no need to put her in the Rav-4. So why was her blood/hair in the trunk?

Perhaps it's possible he hits her in the head so hard that she's knocked out and can't scream. He gets super lucky loading her into her Rav-4 without blood dripping anywhere on his property and no one sees him drive off in her car. Plus, he'd have to be wearing gloves the whole time and not leave any prints.

If she was shot in the head, she had to have driven away from Avery's property and later be abducted. If Avery did that he'd have to immediately jump in his vehicle with all the tools necessary (gun, gloves, fuel to burn her body, etc. etc.) and chase her off the road. That would have taken major premeditation and more than just a possible instance of a rape gone bad. Also, what does he do with whichever car he doesn't drive to the quarry to burn her? And how did he dispose of the weapon(s) but somehow not do the same with her personal belongings (camera, phone, etc.) too?

 

[Senoj13]

I am thru episode 8 and can't wrap my head around how so many unintelligent, inept people we have in local government. After 3 episodes, I Googled the show to see if was fiction.

To me, the biggest issue with the case is the jury. Its evident that they didn't take the case seriously and wanted to just get out of there. I am not convinced one way or the other about what really happened, but no logical person can weigh what was presented and say they have no doubt.

The court system has moved away from the truth and right and wrong to solely being about wins and loses. And I think steps were definitely taken in this case to guarantee a win for the prosecution.

 

[woolybug25]

snap...

Avery wrote and filed his appeal before noted defense attorney Kathleen Zellner took on his case. One of the motions claims a search warrant executed on the property was invalid, meaning evidence from the search should have been inadmissible. The second motion claims a juror pressured others into voting guilty.

The motion seeks a stay of enforcement of the judgment and release on bond. If the court decides to vacate Avery's conviction based on his claims, prosecutors would have to decide whether to retry him without the impermissible evidence.

Steven Avery of 'Making a Murderer' files appeal - CNN.com

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

#Heguilty
#gotwhattheydeserved
#itsaclearcase
#everyonewantsacause
#stillfeelbadforbrennan

 

[GoldenDomer]

Steven did it, but the Police broke the law while trying to make the case more obvious in order to make certain he would get put away because they knew a jury would be hesitant to sentence him after getting out of jail on a false conviction the first time.

They're both guilty of something, but glad the murderer is behind bars.

Lots of people want to treat Avery like a poor guy from Wisconsin who wouldn't hurt a fly, but dousing a cat in gasoline and throwing it across a fire pit seems to give Steven Avery's character away.

 

[greyhammer90]

#Heguilty
#gotwhattheydeserved
#itsaclearcase
#everyonewantsacause
#stillfeelbadforbrennan

I'm sincerely fine with you believing he's guilty, but saying it's a clear case is crazy.

 

[Booslum31]

- Really liked Steven's lawyers.
- Wanted to punch that smiley freak that was Brendan's first attorney
- Think the cops planted the key and the bullet to enhance their case
- I think the jury got it right but the prosecution had no idea how things went down
- I usually side with law enforcement on things but this got me thinking
- I will fight that DA if i ever see him...well maybe not!
- Was sick for two days and watched all ten episodes in a dayand a half...crazy shat.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

Steven Avery's Ex-Fiancée Says He's a Guilty, Abusive "Monster"

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm sincerely fine with you believing he's guilty, but saying it's a clear case is crazy.

Agreed. Guilty or not, he did not receive a fair trial and that's what matters. Because w/o that, our justice system has failed (wouldn't be the first time).

Steven Avery's Ex-FiancéeÂMichiganSays He's a Guilty, Abusive "Monster"

LOL at this woman. Figured it was only a matter of time before someone came out looking for some additional fame. Two things: 1) Avery was a turd of a human being, no question. He has a rap sheet. Could he have been abusive? Possibly. And for that, I feel bad for her. But 2) I feel the need to call bullshit. She said she was faking it for the cameras...no. She violated a restraining order (IIRC) At the very least she violated a no-contact rule put in place by her PO. She claims Avery threatened her....from prison...when he's being tried for murder...and his phone calls are recorded. Umm, yea right.

Again, I don't think Avery is a stand-up citizen. Hell, there are some days I even think he did it. The success of this show is only going to bring more of those involved out of the woodwork. I mean, what's next? We see Avery's parents on the Late Show or Today Show?

My bottom line: Should he have been convicted of murder beyond reasonable doubt? The answer is hell no. That's the problem. That's what should be talked about. Whether we think he did or not is superficial. The real problem is what happened during the investigation, interrogations, interviews, trial, verdict, etc.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I'm sincerely fine with you believing he's guilty, but saying it's a clear case is crazy.

That's fair. I think it's clear he (they) did it. I don't think it's clear how it actually happened. I couldn't give you a perfect sequence of events to recreate the murder because there was too much movement of key evidence and misinformation floated.

I wouldn't live within 100 miles of the sheriff dept's jurisdiction. A bunch of asshats that cost a man 18 years of life. Who knows if that was a tipping point that ultimately led to this murder.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

That's fair. I think it's clear he (they) did it. I don't think it's clear how it actually happened. I couldn't give you a perfect sequence of events to recreate the murder because there was too much movement of key evidence and misinformation floated.

I wouldn't live within 100 miles of the sheriff dept's jurisdiction. A bunch of asshats that cost a man 18 years of life. Who knows if that was a tipping point that ultimately led to this murder.

Serious question then. If you're on the jury, how do you vote?

 

[phork]

Serious question then. If you're on the jury, how do you vote?

I couldn't vote guilty and live with that knowing I did the right thing. The evidence certainly points in his direction without actually putting the finger on him. Frankly all the key evidence is faulty. Listed here to show my train of thought:

• Key found after, I think, the 5th or 6th search, by police from the county who weren't supposed to be involved in the investigation. His DNA is on it (sweat by all accounts) no finger prints.
• The blood test for the EDTA, the other lab person not FBI said that these tests only detect the presence of EDTA not the absence, depending on the levels. The blood test is not air tight.
• The blood sample evidence packaging with the syringe hole in the top.
• Brendans confession pulled out of him with no lawyer or parents present.
• Brendans shady lawyer.
• The car is parked in the autoyard and the lady who found it walked right to it. That yard was massive, where do you start? Its possible but I think highly unlikely.
• Why didn't he burn the car and compact it? No one would have been the wiser.
• The slitting of the throat and other lacking bedroom evidence. So you are telling me you can cut someones throat and not leave a trace AT ALL in that room? I am quite sure a new mattress was not purchased in the week following.

I know I am leaving some stuff out, this was the top of my head.

 

[Irish#1]

I've not watched any of this yet, but given what I have read and heard so far, I think this is another one of those classic situations where those who believe he was framed will look for anything to refute facts and/or evidence and those who believe he is guilty look beyond the evidence and use character and the persons past as proof.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Serious question then. If you're on the jury, how do you vote?

I'd vote guilty and sleep very well knowing I got it right. I'd still wonder how it actually all went down. I can only hope Stephen eventually realizes he's never getting out and he comes clean.

I don't have to know exactly how he did it if all the evidence points that he did it. And to be clear, I didn't make up my mind until the final episode played. I was still going back and forth but when it ended, I was fairly certain he did it. Then I read the rest of the evidence not presented in the show and it made the final decision much easier.

 

[woolybug25]

I'd vote guilty and sleep very well knowing I got it right. I'd still wonder how it actually all went down. I can only hope Stephen eventually realizes he's never getting out and he comes clean.

I don't have to know exactly how he did it if all the evidence points that he did it. And to be clear, I didn't make up my mind until the final episode played. I was still going back and forth but when it ended, I was fairly certain he did it. Then I read the rest of the evidence not presented in the show and it made the final decision much easier.

So you don't care if the defense actually proves without a reasonable doubt their case. You're just gonna go with what your gut tells you? No need for them to actually prove their case with evidence?

If you are ever falsely accused, I hope your jurors actually make the prosecution prove their case. The fact that jurors constantly "go with their gut" or let other jurors influence them makes me sad for our justice system.

 

[gkIrish]

I'd vote guilty and sleep very well knowing I got it right. I'd still wonder how it actually all went down. I can only hope Stephen eventually realizes he's never getting out and he comes clean.

I don't have to know exactly how he did it if all the evidence points that he did it. And to be clear, I didn't make up my mind until the final episode played. I was still going back and forth but when it ended, I was fairly certain he did it. Then I read the rest of the evidence not presented in the show and it made the final decision much easier.

This is sad.

 

[Booslum31]

I've not watched any of this yet, but given what I have read and heard so far, I think this is another one of those classic situations where those who believe he was framed will look for anything to refute facts and/or evidence and those who believe he is guilty look beyond the evidence and use character and the persons past as proof.

I hear ya, but i started watching with the belief that he did it and then the show went a long way to convincing me he didn't and the the authorities were a bunch of crooks. Only after, when I read things that were not provided in the show was I re-convinced that he did it.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'd vote guilty and sleep very well knowing I got it right. I'd still wonder how it actually all went down. I can only hope Stephen eventually realizes he's never getting out and he comes clean.

I don't have to know exactly how he did it if all the evidence points that he did it. And to be clear, I didn't make up my mind until the final episode played. I was still going back and forth but when it ended, I was fairly certain he did it. Then I read the rest of the evidence not presented in the show and it made the final decision much easier.

Unreal.

Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That's how it works. The fact that you still don't know exactly how it happened and admitted that there was too much movement of key evidence and misinformation is exactly why you should hesitate to put a person's life in your own hands. That's not beyond reasonable doubt. Not knowing exactly what happened...that's doubt.

There is nothing wrong with your gut telling you that he's guilty. But you don't get to vote based on your gut...or at least you shouldn't. Distinguishing between the two are paramount to this man's life. Again, I'm not convinced that he did or did not do it, either way. But what I do know with certainty is that the State of WI did not prove his guilt beyond doubt.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I think it'd be interesting to add a poll to this thread.

In your gut, is Steven guilty?
In your gut, is Brendan guilty?
If you were on the jury, would you vote Steven guilty?
If you were on the jury, would you vote Brendan guilty?

I think these are two completely different issues and I'm curious what people think.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Unreal.

Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That's how it works. The fact that you still don't know exactly how it happened and admitted that there was too much movement of key evidence and misinformation is exactly why you should hesitate to put a person's life in your own hands. That's not beyond reasonable doubt. Not knowing exactly what happened...that's doubt.

There is nothing wrong with your gut telling you that he's guilty. But you don't get to vote based on your gut...or at least you shouldn't. Distinguishing between the two are paramount to this man's life. Again, I'm not convinced that he did or did not do it, either way. But what I do know with certainty is that the State of WI did not prove his guilt beyond doubt.

Too real. They proved beyond a doubt that he did it by having all of the evidence. They simply weren't able to chronologically explain how it all went down. There is no doubt in my mind that he did it, there is only doubt about how he did it. Did he shoot her first? Did he stab her first? Did he rape her first?

None of that is important because, based on the evidence, I'm certain he did it. This really isn't that difficult. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm not running with my gut. As I've said, I was on the fence the majority of the show but all of the possible "planted" evidence kept melting away.

You have doubts, that's fine. Don't project on me in hopes of further cementing your doubt.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

So you don't care if the defense actually proves without a reasonable doubt their case. You're just gonna go with what your gut tells you? No need for them to actually prove their case with evidence?

If you are ever falsely accused, I hope your jurors actually make the prosecution prove their case. The fact that jurors constantly "go with their gut" or let other jurors influence them makes me sad for our justice system.

This is sad.

You all make me sad too.

 

[woolybug25]

You all make me sad too.

Because we honor the justice system? You're the one that would send a man to prison for the rest of his life despite the prosecution not actually proving it. Would you want jurors to do that to you? Do you simply not respect the justice system? The system is in place to make courts fair and without prejudice. Nobody should feel guilty for not sending a man to prison when the state doesn't prove their guilt. It's a constitutional right to have a fair trial.

Again... I hope you never have to have someone with your thought process on a jury for your court case.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Too real. They proved beyond a doubt that he did it by having all of the evidence. They simply weren't able to chronologically explain how it all went down. There is no doubt in my mind that he did it, there is only doubt about how he did it. Did he shoot her first? Did he stab her first? Did he rape her first?

None of that is important because, based on the evidence, I'm certain he did it. This really isn't that difficult. I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm not running with my gut. As I've said, I was on the fence the majority of the show but all of the possible "planted" evidence kept melting away.

You have doubts, that's fine. Don't project on me in hopes of further cementing your doubt.

NO THEY DIDN'T! That's why this is such a huge story.

 

[woolybug25]

They proved beyond a doubt that he did it by having all of the evidence. They simply weren't able to chronologically explain how it all went down.

Not actually knowing HOW someone committed a crime is doubt.

Reasonable doubt is a term used in jurisdiction of Anglo-Saxon countries. Evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems.[1]

Generally, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty.

You're understanding of the legal system is poor.

 

[Booslum31]

NO THEY DIDN'T! That's why this is such a huge story.

It was interesting when they interviewed the one Juror who left for family reasons. He was only there for the first four hours of deliberation but he made it sound like the majority had their doubts early on and that three of them will "unwilling to discuss" some of the items in question. Wonder if things would have gone differently had he stayed on the Jury.

 

[bkess8]

Going to finish the last episode tonight! Can't wait to read and chime in on this thread (haven't read a word and quickly scrolled to the bottom)!

 

[Rocket89]

Not actually knowing HOW someone committed a crime is doubt. You're understanding of the legal system is poor.

No kidding. It doesn't make you feel too good to watch the treatment of Avery and Dassey in the legal system. Then to hear someone say, "Yeah I was on the fence until the final episode at which point I became absolute certain of his guilt because they had all the evidence" is just mind blowing.

It really is sad if that's more than just trying to be a contrarian on a message board.

 

[phork]

Ultimately in the end he might have done it. He is a shady mofo for sure. HOWEVER the evidence as it was presented was faulty. If I had to chose the one example it would have been where the female lab person totally shot gun blasted the FBI blood guy.

 

[gkIrish]

You all make me sad too.

Explain to me how Steve Avery's DNA was on Teresa Halbach's key but none of her own DNA was on the key.

How is that possible without some sort of tampering?