Making a Murderer (Spoilers)

[wizards8507]

First, Megyn Kelly asks Kratz about the lack of DNA in Avery's room and garage. He tries his best not to answer the question but Kelly follows up. Then, Kratz explains they used bleach to clean it up and says traces of bleach were found on Brendan's pants, which is something I haven't seen anywhere.

That's not really evidence. Bleach happens on laundry, especially "traces." The amount of bleach to clean up throat-slashing amounts of DNA wouldn't leave "trace amounts" on one of two suspects' pants. It would leave copious amounts of you-better-burn-your-pants-too bleach on both suspects' pants, hands, gloves (remember, no fingerprints anywhere). These aren't criminal masterminds who are even capable of the sophisticated cleanup they supposedly did. They're simple. The kid (and his mom) didn't even know what the word "inconsistent" means, let alone the best strategies for cleaning up DNA from a murder scene.

 

[kmoose]

I'm not sure that Steven Avery didn't kill the girl, but what the cops/lawyers did to his nephew should be criminal. Seeing them take advantage of that dumb kid over and over again was pretty hard to sit through. And now it makes me worried about what might possibly happen to some of the posters on this board, if they ever run afoul of their local constabulary.

 

[NDWorld247]

That's not really evidence. Bleach happens on laundry, especially "traces." The amount of bleach to clean up throat-slashing amounts of DNA wouldn't leave "trace amounts" on one of two suspects' pants. It would leave copious amounts of you-better-burn-your-pants-too bleach on both suspects' pants, hands, gloves (remember, no fingerprints anywhere). These aren't criminal masterminds who are even capable of the sophisticated cleanup they supposedly did. They're simple. The kid (and his mom) didn't even know what the word "inconsistent" means, let alone the best strategies for cleaning up DNA from a murder scene.

Right, good points. Not to mention they didn't find any traces of bleach or cleaning supplies in either the room or garage. I was just surprised that it was the first time I heard about bleach on the pants given the amount of material I've read since watching the doc.

 

[woolybug25]

Right, good points. Not to mention they didn't find any traces of bleach or cleaning supplies in either the room or garage. I was just surprised that it was the first time I heard about bleach on the pants given the amount of material I've read since watching the doc.

Nor the 22g squirrel gun that they claimed as the murder weapon.



One thing never mentioned that I thought was weird with this case, did they ever check any of the drains in the house or garage? I thought that was regular protocol to check the drains for dna in murder cases. After all, even if they cleaned everything, they would have to dispose of it.

 

[tussin]

I am firmly in the camp that both are innocent. I can understand why Avery has detractors, but, seriously, why the hell is Dassey sitting in jail? The last two episodes really made me sick to my stomach. That poor kid's life is ruined because crooked criminals in a position of power took advantage of him when he was scared, confused, and intellectually over-matched. It's disgusting.

It was also infuriating to see his appeals constantly get denied. This is common sense stuff... GET IT RIGHT!

 

[GATTACA!]

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4687060804001&w=466&h=263"></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href="http://video.foxnews.com">video.foxnews.com</a></noscript>

Fox had Kratz (prosecutor) and Strang (defense attorney) on yesterday and they shared one piece of info that wasn't in the documentary and that I haven't seen in any of the "evidence that wasn't in the documentary" articles.

First, Megyn Kelly asks Kratz about the lack of DNA in Avery's room and garage. He tries his best not to answer the question but Kelly follows up. Then, Kratz explains they used bleach to clean it up and says traces of bleach were found on Brendan's pants, which is something I haven't seen anywhere.

Coincidentally (or not?), Clorox bleach is the advertisement I got before watching the video. lol.

Apparently there was deer blood found in the garage too. So somehow Avery and Brendan used bleach to clean up all the human blood but leave behind the deer blood.

Also Kratz said at some point that Avery killed Teresa in the garage then put her in his car? Someone is going to have to explain to me how that series of events makes any sense if he burned her in the pit behind his house? Something that also couldn't have happened.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Dude enjoy. Serial season one is a masterpiece in storytelling.

I just binge-listened to all of season one. Fantastic podcast. However, I'm a visual person, so I found it difficult at times to keep the timeline/facts straight. I'm not totally convinced Adnan did it. I think Jay played a much larger role than what's portrayed. I'm disappointed that we don't get to know the results of the DNA testing. It certainly doesn't provide any closure.

Bottom line, I found this to be pretty similar to MaM in that the defendant got convicted of a murder based pretty much solely on a confession (neither of which made sense, Jay's or Brendan's). It's a shame that the juries didn't vote accordingly. The prosecutors have to prove your guilt. You don't have to prove your innocence. And in both cases, there simply wasn't enough hard, concrete, without a shadow of a doubt evidence to support the alleged crimes.

 

[wizards8507]

Scott Walker needs to nut up.

 

[GDomer09]

I find it funny that when people say that it is possible that they cleaned the entire crime scene of DNA and any blood in the garage/bedroom that they just miraculously forgot to clean the car of their DNA just leaving the blood there in clear site.

Also if they were smart enough to hide the car in their own auto salvage dump right behind their house they wouldn't be smart enough to clean an entire crime scene.

Not to mention they had a car compactor on site that could have shredded the last piece of evidence.

 

[calvegas04]

I am thinking the brother and Ex bf may be lovers and she found out.

 

[gkIrish]

I am thinking the brother and Ex bf may be lovers and she found out.

ohhhhh I like that theory.

 

[Wild Bill]

Even if he truly is guilty. The level of professional misconduct in both trials is very troubling.

How could the lawyer let Brendon be interrogated without him being present? Horrible representation. Totally gave away his 5th amendment right as well.

Investigators "do you remember your Miranda rights we read to you? (4 months ago?) *to a kid in special education classes.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He wasn't getting paid, right? That's probably the explanation.

I can't imagine being in Dean Strang's position while that idiot Kachinsky was arguing the motion to suppress Dassey's confession (assuming he was present in court). He had to dying to be at that podium.

 

[dang227]

Making a Murderer (Spoilers)

Did anyone else think Kachinsky looked like a young Lou Holtz with that haircut?

 

[wizards8507]

Maybe I missed this, but why didn't they chase the harassing phone call that Teresa received that her coworker mentioned on the stand?

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The White House/Obama can't pardon someone on a state level, but guess who can (and who won't): Gov. Scott Walker.

Just because a documentary on TV says something doesn't mean that's actually what the evidence shows," Walker said. "The bottom line is that there was a crime that was committed a decade ago.There is a system in the judicial system by which individuals can petition the courts to get relief like others have done in the past that shows that someone might actually be innocent. But I am not going to override a system that is already put in place.

Here's the thing, Scott...what if said system is the reason these individuals are in prison? The job of the higher courts (and your job, in this situation) is to make sure the checks and balances are in place to ensure fairness and justice are carried out to each individual. No, you should not pardon a convict because of a TV series. But you should look into what actually happened.

What an ignoramus. Grow a pair balls, Scott.

 

[Henges24]

The White House/Obama can't pardon someone on a state level, but guess who can (and who won't): Gov. Scott Walker.



Here's the thing, Scott...what if said system is the reason these individuals are in prison? The job of the higher courts (and your job, in this situation) is to make sure the checks and balances are in place to ensure fairness and justice are carried out to each individual. No, you should not pardon a convict because of a TV series. But you should look into what actually happened.

What an ignoramus. Grow a pair balls, Scott.

I doubt a governor would ever admit that one of his counties is framing a man especially one that sat in prison for 18 years innocently.

IF Avery is completely innocent and the police know he is, he knows it too.

 

[gkIrish]

The White House/Obama can't pardon someone on a state level, but guess who can (and who won't): Gov. Scott Walker.



Here's the thing, Scott...what if said system is the reason these individuals are in prison? The job of the higher courts (and your job, in this situation) is to make sure the checks and balances are in place to ensure fairness and justice are carried out to each individual. No, you should not pardon a convict because of a TV series. But you should look into what actually happened.

What an ignoramus. Grow a pair balls, Scott.

So why are you allowed to pardon someone if the justice system is fair and never makes mistakes. What a moron.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I doubt a governor would ever admit that one of his counties is framing a man especially one that sat in prison for 18 years innocently.

IF Avery is completely innocent and the police know he is, he knows it too.

I'd say there's pretty much no chance it'd ever happen.

So why are you allowed to pardon someone if the justice system is fair and never makes mistakes. What a moron.

Exactly.

Whether someone thinks Avery did or didn't do it is irrelevant to me, because what's more important is that neither he nor Brendan got a fair shake. That's why they should re-open the case and go back to trial.

I knew they were still in prison, but I had no idea that the new attorney (for Brendan) built, what I thought to be, a solid case for appeal. Same judge. Same outcome. What kind of checks and balances is that? I was equally shocked to hear the State Supreme Courts denied it as well. To me, it was that obvious that his case was mishandled, yet the justice system completely failed him. That's why you have the authority to pardon people, Scott. Good grief man.

 

[Irish#1]

There's a reporter here in Indy that worked that market and covered the story. He recently mentioned on TV that the show leaves a lot of facts out and this story isn't as one sided as it makes it appear to be. Can't embed, but here's his take.

FOX59 reporter shares experience covering Steven Avery’s trial made popular with Netflix’s ‘Making A Murderer’ | Fox 59

 

[Rocket89]

Through 5 episodes so far. I think we can (mostly, I hope!) agree that Brendan's coerced confession and any subsequent versions are not the truth. There's just absolutely no way the chains, the hair cutting, throat slitting, gun shots happened at all.

I'm curious if those who think Avery did it, how exactly did he do it? I think he's innocent but I've been trying to find out a scenario where he would do this.

I could see if he had a crush on her. Maybe felt lonely with his girl locked up. Made an advance on her, things got out of hand quickly, and maybe he chokes her to death. Seems strange for someone who appeared to really enjoy not being in prison anymore and likely to receive $36 million from the county, but given his background I guess it wouldn't be super shocking if he just lost it in the heat of the moment.

But it's hard to piece together how he could have gone about it. One thing that sticks out to me is whether she drove away from Steven's house or not. The accepted version of events was that she met him at his trailer, right? Surely, she drove away. No way did he take her inside (possibly kill her) and then go about moving her vehicle right out in plain sight.

I don't know why but this has been a huge sticking point to me. There were people, for that area, all over the place at that time of the day. No way did he abduct her and then move her vehicle without people saying so and witnessing it. So what did he do? Jump in his vehicle, chase her down, run her off the road, and quickly kill her and move her car? Maybe, but I feel like it's much more likely someone else did something similar to this and was waiting for her once she left his house. I don't see how he could have done that without being super ready to clean up evidence in her car. I know they'd say there was some blood but there'd be so much more DNA than what they "found." And I can't logically put together how or why he'd meet with her, she leaves, and then he decides to go chase her down and kill her.

It might not be impossible, but it's really hard to think of a motive for a guy who is about to become stupid rich and THEN how he could kill her in such a way that a whole army of police--who kick his family off their property for several days--couldn't find a damn thing at first.

There's much more, like how in hell does Steven find the time on Halloween to burn a human body while still being at home for at least 2 phone calls from his girlfriend and other appearances at his bonfire?

After about the 3rd episode the injustice becomes so sickening that I had to force myself to watch more and think about how Avery had to be guilty. I just don't know how to piece it together. He also seems super innocent in the interrogations, and really anything they show or play after he gets arrested. Admittedly, that could be an excellent job by the producers and editing team, but I've been struck by how interested he seems while sitting in the court room. Like a guy who is innocent and trying figure out what the hell happened and learning about all this stuff for the first time.

 

[Blazers46]

I have a hard time thinking he did it with the documentary but I am confused as to why people keep asking the question what made him do it. When I was watching episode 1 with my wife, my first comment to her was "He was locked up for 18 years, think about how much sex he missed out on." Doing some math, he was 23 when arrested and released at 41, OUCH!!!

Imagine, for a second, being in a world with nothing but men for 18 straight years. What is one of the first things you would do, if not the VERY FIRST thing you would want/NEED to do when you got out?

I am curious if he recieved some sort of reintegration counseling or was offerered services to help him reintegrate into a world he had not seen for 18 years. A world full of women. I work in a juvenile facility all day long and the biggest obstacle is reintegration. Sure these kids want Fast Food and Papa Johns Pizza but they could talk for days about how much they miss getting laid and cannot wait to get it. Can't just release a caged animal and not expect him to feed, its irresponsible.

If I was Avery and I did do it I would just claim insanity. If I were Avery and I did not do it I might still be tempted to plead insanity. I have a very good sex life and if I was wrongfully accused and sent to jail for 18 years? A caged lion licking my chops for 18 YEARS, and then just released out into the wild. I am like a lion seeking its prey if I go just few days without it, I couldnot imagine 18 years.

Sure he had a whole year to get it but 18 years locked up could really F-up a person in many ways, not just sexually. People ask why would he do this with that payday coming, Avery seems somewhat stable on the surface but I could only imagine how screwed up things might actually be in that mind of his.

**I still have a hard time thinking he did it.

 

[GATTACA!]

Through 5 episodes so far. I think we can (mostly, I hope!) agree that Brendan's coerced confession and any subsequent versions are not the truth. There's just absolutely no way the chains, the hair cutting, throat slitting, gun shots happened at all.

I'm curious if those who think Avery did it, how exactly did he do it? I think he's innocent but I've been trying to find out a scenario where he would do this.

I could see if he had a crush on her. Maybe felt lonely with his girl locked up. Made an advance on her, things got out of hand quickly, and maybe he chokes her to death. Seems strange for someone who appeared to really enjoy not being in prison anymore and likely to receive $36 million from the county, but given his background I guess it wouldn't be super shocking if he just lost it in the heat of the moment.

But it's hard to piece together how he could have gone about it. One thing that sticks out to me is whether she drove away from Steven's house or not. The accepted version of events was that she met him at his trailer, right? Surely, she drove away. No way did he take her inside (possibly kill her) and then go about moving her vehicle right out in plain sight.

I don't know why but this has been a huge sticking point to me. There were people, for that area, all over the place at that time of the day. No way did he abduct her and then move her vehicle without people saying so and witnessing it. So what did he do? Jump in his vehicle, chase her down, run her off the road, and quickly kill her and move her car? Maybe, but I feel like it's much more likely someone else did something similar to this and was waiting for her once she left his house. I don't see how he could have done that without being super ready to clean up evidence in her car. I know they'd say there was some blood but there'd be so much more DNA than what they "found." And I can't logically put together how or why he'd meet with her, she leaves, and then he decides to go chase her down and kill her.

It might not be impossible, but it's really hard to think of a motive for a guy who is about to become stupid rich and THEN how he could kill her in such a way that a whole army of police--who kick his family off their property for several days--couldn't find a damn thing at first.

There's much more, like how in hell does Steven find the time on Halloween to burn a human body while still being at home for at least 2 phone calls from his girlfriend and other appearances at his bonfire?

After about the 3rd episode the injustice becomes so sickening that I had to force myself to watch more and think about how Avery had to be guilty. I just don't know how to piece it together. He also seems super innocent in the interrogations, and really anything they show or play after he gets arrested. Admittedly, that could be an excellent job by the producers and editing team, but I've been struck by how interested he seems while sitting in the court room. Like a guy who is innocent and trying figure out what the hell happened and learning about all this stuff for the first time.

Okay here is the only way this makes sense so me....

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. She's driven to the quarry on the back of the Avery property and burned. I think she was burned first in this location for a few reasons. First the bonfire would not have been hot enough to burn the corpse to the degree that it was burned. Back in the quarry anything could have been used to achieve that hot of a fire, gasoline deisel ect. Then the body was put into the burn barrels, that's the reason only a few bone fragments were found at the quarry. The bones are transported to the body fire and dumped, again explaining why only able fragments were found in the burn barrels.

I think regardless of who the killer actually is the cops planted the keys and the bullet to try and ensure a conviction. I think they truly believed Stephen killed her and wanted to make sure they got the result they were looking for.

I don't think Brendan was involved in any way.

I think the most likely suspects outside of Stephen are his cousins or whatever relation those two guys were that were going hunting that day. One admits to seeing Theresa. Both have the time and opportunity, and both know how they could easily frame Stephen.

My actual only doubt with Stephen being the killer is the car. It just makes zero sense for him to hide it way he did. He litterally couldn't have made it stick out any more if he tried the way he piled random garbage all over it. He could have easily just crushed the car.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

There's a reporter here in Indy that worked that market and covered the story. He recently mentioned on TV that the show leaves a lot of facts out and this story isn't as one sided as it makes it appear to be. Can't embed, but here's his take.

FOX59 reporter shares experience covering Steven Avery’s trial made popular with Netflix’s ‘Making A Murderer’ | Fox 59

If you read further back, people refute these claims, not in any substantial way but they refute them.

#teamguilty
#theybothdidit
#Brendanwasmanipulated

 

[Brirish]

One of the biggest questions that sticks out to me is: why would he clean off all her DNA on the keys, blood in the car.. And then leave his own everywhere? That doesn't make any sense?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kmoose]

If you read further back, people refute these claims, not in any substantial way but they refute them.

#teamguilty
#theybothdidit
#Brendanwasmanipulated

If the claims are not refuted in any substantial way, doesn't that leave an awful lot of room for reasonable doubt?

To be honest, I'm not sure what claims you are referring to. The reporter in the video you quoted didn't make any claims that I heard?

 

[Rocket89]

If the claims are not refuted in any substantial way, doesn't that leave an awful lot of room for reasonable doubt?

To be honest, I'm not sure what claims you are referring to. The reporter in the video you quoted didn't make any claims that I heard?

It's like this: There are tons of pieces of evidence in the documentary, probably numbering in the triple digits--at least any key pieces of evidence.

Since the doc has been put on Netflix there have been complaints that some evidence was left out such as:

Avery's DNA was found on the key and underneath the hood of Halbach's car- That good old "sweat" DNA, and of course Avery somehow scrubbed Halbach's DNA off the key and left his on there.

Avery purhcased "shackles and irons" prior to the murder- Actually, they turn out to be little fuzzy pink sex handcuffs that couldn't restrain a 4-year old. And of course with zero Halbach DNA on them.

Halbach's belongings (camera, cell phone) were found in a burn barrel on Avery's property- Because why easily get rid of that stuff somewhere else when you can try to burn it and then leave it right outside your back door?

Avery said he had an intent to kill- Because while serving his 18-year sentence for a rape he didn't commit one of his inmates said so.

Avery used *67 to call Halbach twice on the day she came to his home- Clearly a sign of a guilty person trying to hide something! Even though the whole hiding your number is pointless because Halbach has to answer the phone and would know she's talking to Avery and phone records would show who he's calling anyway.

Halbach was "creeped out" by Avery- Citing an incident where she came to his house and he answered the door in a towel. She told a co-worker and laughed about it, actually.

It's pretty funny that there continue to be all these articles citing "evidence being left out" and they are just re-cycling these same points--most of which originated from the disgraced prosecutor Ken Kratz. Just think about how terrible he looks in the doc and then afterwards says, "Yeah but check out the stuff they left out!" like they're some major points. In fact, I'd argue most of this further makes Avery look innocent.

Even in this thread the "evidence left out" has been brought up 3 or 4 times. I asked a co-worker to watch the doc and he came back the next day after watching episode 1 and said, "I read they left a bunch of evidence out of the series."

Welp.

 

[kmoose]

It's like this: There are tons of pieces of evidence in the documentary, probably numbering in the triple digits--at least any key pieces of evidence.

Since the doc has been put on Netflix there have been complaints that some evidence was left out such as:

Avery's DNA was found on the key and underneath the hood of Halbach's car- That good old "sweat" DNA, and of course Avery somehow scrubbed Halbach's DNA off the key and left his on there.

Avery purhcased "shackles and irons" prior to the murder- Actually, they turn out to be little fuzzy pink sex handcuffs that couldn't restrain a 4-year old. And of course with zero Halbach DNA on them.

Halbach's belongings (camera, cell phone) were found in a burn barrel on Avery's property- Because why easily get rid of that stuff somewhere else when you can try to burn it and then leave it right outside your back door?

Avery said he had an intent to kill- Because while serving his 18-year sentence for a rape he didn't commit one of his inmates said so.

Avery used *67 to call Halbach twice on the day she came to his home- Clearly a sign of a guilty person trying to hide something! Even though the whole hiding your number is pointless because Halbach has to answer the phone and would know she's talking to Avery and phone records would show who he's calling anyway.

Halbach was "creeped out" by Avery- Citing an incident where she came to his house and he answered the door in a towel. She told a co-worker and laughed about it, actually.

It's pretty funny that there continue to be all these articles citing "evidence being left out" and they are just re-cycling these same points--most of which originated from the disgraced prosecutor Ken Kratz. Just think about how terrible he looks in the doc and then afterwards says, "Yeah but check out the stuff they left out!" like they're some major points. In fact, I'd argue most of this further makes Avery look innocent.

Even in this thread the "evidence left out" has been brought up 3 or 4 times. I asked a co-worker to watch the doc and he came back the next day after watching episode 1 and said, "I read they left a bunch of evidence out of the series."

Welp.

Ah, ok.

 

[GATTACA!]

How do you even find "sweat" DNA? What do they think they are swabbing for? How would you ever know it's there?

 

[Henges24]

How do you even find "sweat" DNA? What do they think they are swabbing for? How would you ever know it's there?

Brendon's written confession says that they parked the car in the salvage yard and that Steven unlatched the hood and unplugged the battery.

 

[phork]

Brendon's written confession says that they parked the car in the salvage yard and that Steven unlatched the hood and unplugged the battery.

Thats great, but how does one find sweat? Like you'd have to know specifically where he put his hand because swabbing the whole thing might corrupt your sample..