I am new to this series... - Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

All I can advise you to do is go to www.stevenaverycase.org and start reading from top to bottom. Also, scrub everything you just watched on Making a Murderer and consider it fiction. Everything you just watched is purposely misleading (or flat out lies) to brainwash you into supporting Steven Avery.

I would start with the trial transcripts, and compare side by side to the documentary. If you want to know more lies they told you, I can direct you to some links...otherwise, its best to read through the CASO files, Averys Civil Suit, and trial transcripts before making a decision on his guilt/innocence. What you just watched is garbage propaganda!

reply

[–] lawitall 8 years ago

Thank you. My concern is letting a killer out because he was accused once and the media has a way of persuasion. I would hope everyone, including LE would want the actual perp to be in prison. Whether is be for some stupid crime like shoplifting or as severe as rape and murder. I don't know who killed that woman, but I would bet every penny that I have, she went through hell. Again, thanks for the info. I knew in about the third episode this was a pro SA film and screw everyone else. I have yet to see anything on this poor woman who lost her life.

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Coincidentally, the day I watched about the "hole in the top of the vial", I had blood drawn. I was running around like a brainwashed idiot screaming at the TV and law enforcement on how arrogant they must be to steal Avery's blood like that. Then after my blood was taken, I realized I was just duped into believe it. Once the documents were released showing Avery's own team opened the evidence box too, I knew the entire series was full of it.

Nearly everything they present to you is a lie. Remember that!

reply

[–] iatmt209 8 years ago

Regarding the blood vial, it is my understanding that the hole usually seals itself to a certain degree and there is no "droplet" at the top like we saw in the documentary.

Also, what was more damning was the the seal on both boxes was broken, not the vial itself.

Can you expound upon what you mean when you say "Avery's own team opened the evidence box too" ? Do you mean BEFORE they all got together and did what was shown in the documentary? Are you saying Avery's team is the one that broke the evidence seals?

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

There is some speculation that more than one tube was filled when SA's blood was drawn. In most blood draws, the phlebotomist fills at least two tubes. And the foam box shows there is room for at least two more vials.

http://imgur.com/a/VmLne

Of course, both would have been purple top tubes, meaning ETDA was in the vial.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

The main value of the series, and its goal, was to put on view serious problems with the legal system. It does that well. Regardless of whether one thinks Avery is guilty or innocent, documenting both the rape and murder trials shone a spotlight on troubling aspects of the system. Both prosecuting and defense attorneys have pointedly mentioned this value. No doubt the series will continue to do that in its next installment.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

i find it hilarious that people still believe that, that was its only goal.

reply

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

What was the other goal? Im sure its that demos and raccairdi just really wanted to keep a dangerous murderer out of prison - because they're terrible human beings.

reply

[–] JeffS90092 8 years ago

The main goal, which is very obvious, was to gain a lot of viewers by peddling a big, sexy conspiracy! This didn't evaluate the legal system in a serious or deep way. Why would it? That doesn't sell. Conspiracies, on the other hand, do.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Actually, the defense teams have emphasized the idea of conspiracy. It would be odd, and very difficult, for the filmmakers to have ignored that context, so central to the defense case. That would indeed be some severe bias!

I've read commentary by senior prosecutors who've found much value in the doc's exposure of serious problems in the system, as witnessed in the doc's coverage of the Avery and Dassey trials.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] JeffS90092 8 years ago

The only thing of value was showing how people can confess to crimes they didn't commit. Everything else was pretty much speculation, half-truths, and ultimately conspiracy theory nonsense. All of those special suspicious-looking shots of Michael Halbach, the eerie music whenever those evil conspiring cops were on the screen, the spliced soundbytes and testimony, the red herring of the blood vial.

It was not a serious, sophisticated look into the justice system. It was entertainment. And that's why it was popular.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Actually, the defense teams have emphasized the idea of conspiracy. It would be odd, and very difficult, for the filmmakers to have ignored that context, so central to the defense case. That would indeed be some severe bias!

I've read commentary by senior prosecutors who've found much value in the doc's exposure of serious problems in the system, as witnessed in the doc's coverage of the Avery and Dassey trials.

Also, they didn't have a buyer for the documentary when they filmed it. As the OP himself pointed out, I believe, they offered it to PBS and one other network before Netflix bought it. Documentarians never know if they can actually get their work shown anywhere, short of hiring a hall themselves and making it free.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

There's always more than one goal involved in making a film, of course, but I think it became clear as they were filming that a significant aspect of the story taking shape was related to major problems with the system. These are obvious regardless of what one feels about SA's guilt or innocence. It's only natural that taking care to clearly communicate this context would become central to their focus.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

but I think it became clear as they were filming that a significant aspect of the story taking shape was related to major problems with the system.

That problem being the people who are the system. Part of their purpose, I think, was to point out, as I've said ad nauseam, that the system is only as good as those in it. They begin with the 1985 case, in which those involved clearly had preconceived ideas and followed them to a conclusion, which turned out to be false. The system itself is pure and beautiful, it's those who make it work who are sometimes flawed, as in the 1985 case, and, they suggest, perhaps in the 2005 case. That they included Kratz' own wrongdoing was, in a sense, testament to their theme. By doing what he did, he basically made their case. Human beings are flawed, and sometimes these flawed human beings have authority over us. And this, they point out, can be the result.

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

No, the main value of the series was to lie and misdirect their viewers into believing the police were being sued and so framed Avery for murder.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Again, the defense teams made framing a central implication. It would be lying and misdirecting for any filmmakers to ignore that. Your complaint is misdirected; it would be better aimed at the defense teams than the documentarists who covered their argument.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about the film makers taking what the defense presented, and lying, twisting, manipulating, and misleading it to their viewers. It's extremely dangerous IMO!
Just look at Ryan Hillegas for example: the mockumentary purposely showed him in a negative light, edited his testimony, just to make him look like a creepy exboyfriend with a reason to kill her. And now, people actually believe he killed her because of it. Every thing they showed us in Making a Murderer about him is a lie, and now people are calling for his head.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

I'm not even talking about that

Yes you are; you just typed:

"the main value of the series was to lie and misdirect their viewers into believing the police were being sued and so framed Avery for murder."

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] JeffS90092 8 years ago

What they should have focused on even tangentially was how spending 12 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit affected Avery. But that's not sexy. That's not mindless drivel that you can lap up with a spoon. That requires slow reflection. It requires a deep evaluation of what constitutes reasonable doubt, of the appropriateness of the death penalty, of how the human spirit persists even in adversity.

"Nah, that's too intellectual. Let's just throw in some suspicious looking shots of people and talk about the trivial hole in a blood vial. CONSPIRACY!!!"

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Having read your posts that one reads as disingenous. Avery as representative of how the human spirit persists even in adversity. That's the focus you would have preferred to see. Sure.

It doesn't fit with your view so you call it "mindless drivel." I think it has flaws, but I also think your remarks are over the top. Again, senior prosecutors have commented on finding value in the doc's exposure of serious problems in the system. I'll take their assessment over some passionate dude on the internet.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

over some passionate dude on the internet

Well said. Especially the PD of whom you speak.

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Maybe I'm not expressing it correctly...I was tired and rushed.

Yes, the defense brought forth a "frame" theory, but the directors didn't cover that. They pretended too, but they manipulated it in such a way they made it lies, with an attempt to purposely misdirect their viewers into accepting it as facts.
Basically I'm saying, if they were just trying to show the flaws in the justice system...they wouldn't have to lie about it. But they did lie to create a conspiracy.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

The defense team considered the' frame theory legitimate, so it's only natural that the film would reflect that perspective. It wasn't an investigative doc doing independent journalism - like, say, Jeremy Scahill's Dirty Wars - but followed the defense team and prioritized their interpretations.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Yeah, using lies!

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Criticism of the doc is warranted, and I've agreed with certain critics. Personally I find yours hyperbolic, so I take it with a silo of salt.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

The one thing we didn't tell him is that you have to be careful when you bring a lawsuit against a Sheriff's Department in a community where you still live, because you could end up getting charged with murder.
- Stephen Glynn, Steven Avery Civil Rights Lawyer

Soooo....you're trying to tell me I'm just criticizing the mocumentary buy pointing out lies like this???
Documentary film makers have a responsibility to be truthful, no matter what perspective they are telling the story from. Having an authority figure like Glynn state a flat out lie, and pass it off as a true statement for the narrative of your film...makes it fiction.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

you're trying to tell me I'm just criticizing the mocumentary buy pointing out lies like this?

No, I'm not trying to tell you that.

Glynn stated his own view of the situation. Others stated theirs, and they were recorded. Katz, for example. You don't actually know if Glynn's view is mistaken, let alone a lie, which would imply he knows otherwise. You're convinced you know this, but in fact you don't. You're just another hyperbolic dude on the internet. That attitude is blatant in your posts; you frequently make irrational comments. For that reason I tend not to take you seriously.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Actually I do know he's lying because he's the lead attorney on Avery's civil suit. I'm pretty damn sure he knows with a high degree of certainty he is NOT suing the sheriffs department. Therefore he lied!
Now you can try and sound smart and argue the mockumentary is just recording people's opinions and therefore not lying all you want. That just tells me you can't see the forest...Forrest!

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

The statement refers to the past, when SA's suit included the Manitowoc County Sheriff, not to an action happening at the time.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Are you seriously trying to defend this lie?? LMAO...listen to the word, D-E-P-A-R-T-M-E-N-T!

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

How pedantic. Huffing and puffing because you took the line absolutely literally. SA was suing the Manitowoc County Sheriff. The Sheriff runs the "department." You need to step back and get a little perspective.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

There you go trying to sound smart again, but sounding dumb in the process. E-X-S-H-E-R-I-F-F, and he wasn't running anything!

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

You got that right! Kratz presented a case with nothing but innuendos...and using lies! If one thinks logically, there is no absolute trace of Teresa being at Avery Salvage. Sure, she was seen, admitted by Avery she had been there, but no absolute proof she was murdered at Avery Salvage.

There's only two traces of Teresa found...a slug with her blood on it in the garage and the gruesome finding of her burned body, her bones. Both could have been placed after the fact....not necessarily by LE, except for the key. Think about it. Teresa was apparently murdered and her body disposed of in a most horrific way. That manner of murder and disposal would have left something of her besides those two pieces of evidence found. Quarry, burn barrels, fire pit, garage where dust lay along with deer blood. There are just too many variables to be absolute in what actually happened in this case.

The RAV being found with traces of his blood and nothing else of him except for a bit of DNA on a hood latch just adds to the variables. No DNA or blood on the battery cables, the support rod, the grill in order to reach the latch, the hood, the seats, the floor, nothing anywhere. The debris covering the RAV was not sent to the lab along with the RAV. Maybe there was microscopic trace such as skin, fiber, blood....Trace which could not be seen with the human eye. Also, nothing of him on the license plates.

Nothing about this case makes sense.

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Nothing about this case makes sense.

That's because your mind is limited in thinking of ways to explain everything you mentioned. So with that limitation, you of course are going to follow the heard to the conspiracy farm!
Everything has been explained to you and other for 9 months now, yet you still can't accept it, Yeah, Kratz version leave wholes and has lies...but that doesn't mean Avery is innocent. It just means Kratz is limited too. A better prosecutor would have left you with no questions. But I'm willing to bet you wouldn't accept that either.
So why are you here? You looking for answers to those questions like other truthers are; you get them; then you deny them and go back to asking them again. What's your point?

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Yeah, Kratz version leave wholes and has lies...but that doesn't mean Avery is innocent. It just means Kratz is limited too.

So by your own reasoning, Glynn is just "limited too." And a better defense lawyer would have left you with no questions. Well, that settles that. Or, you know, not.

But I'm willing to bet you wouldn't accept that either. So why are you here?

A logical fallacy. Appeal to personal fantasy as a premise, followed by an implied conclusion based on the assumption that the fantasy is true. Like I said, frequently irrational.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

No where in my post did I say SA is innocent. No where in my post did I say there was a conspiracy. All I'm doing is stating facts as I see them. I didn't deny anything. Nothing more, nothing less. Without Brendan's faulty confession which has now been thrown out, there would be no case. Where do you begin? All you have is a missing person's case. There isn't enough for a warrant.

Everything has not "been explained for nine months". There is no absolute proof of what Kratz said. You and your sort cannot, I repeat, cannot even tell where she was murdered. Put all that Brendan said out of your mind....it is no longer relevant. Build your case without Brendan. Find SA guilty without Brendan's words. Where is your probative evidence? Without Brendan do you believe it would have been taken to trial? If you do, on what grounds?

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

"Without Brendan's faulty confession which has now been thrown out, there would be no case. Where do you begin? All you have is a missing person's case. There isn't enough for a warrant."

As was pointed out to you a number of times here before, SA was charged with murder in November 2005 and BD did not make his confessions until 2006. BD also did not testify in SA's trial. What warrant are you referring to? Are you suggesting finding the Rav 4 with SA and TH's blood in it was not evidence? Bones and personal items in the fire pit? SA's lies about what he did that night?

Either SA is the murderer or there was a conspiracy.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Are you suggesting finding the Rav 4 with SA and TH's blood in it was not evidence? Bones and personal items in the fire pit? SA's lies about what he did that night?

I think she may be talking about the warrant obtained after Mar 1, in which they again searched the garage and found the bullet fragments. Because it was that interrogation of Brendan wherein Wiegert asked Brendan who shot her in the head. They asked who shot her, and whaddaya know! they find bullet fragments! Which they failed to find months earlier, although one was in a crack right near the front door of the garage, and the other under a compressor and even though they apparently used high powered flashlights (one is shown in a photo) to look, presumably, in corners and underneath things in the garage.

Either SA is the murderer or there was a conspiracy.

Depends on what you mean by conspiracy. A one or two man planting team, or a full blown "LE did it" conspiracy.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Do you think kspkap is talking about March 1 when she says "Where do you begin? All you have is a missing person's case. There isn't enough for a warrant."

A "missing person" on March 1, 2006?

Wasn't a warrant issued in November?

Zellner is bright enough to know that the Nov. 3 date on LE documents is the computer generated date of entry for the case. Even an ardent Avery supporter what_a_jem posted on reddit today:

"I correct both sides and expect both side to correct me. For example, I don't think the vehicle was reported as being seized on he 3rd and actually think the document was multi-functional and saying the vehicle would be evidence. Of course it might be indicating it was seized on the 3rd, I just think that's very unlikely."

kspkap refers to her side as "the questionable side". I like that term, can I use it?

Bo. D. testified that he saw TH walking toward SA's trailer so I guess you could argue that Bo. D. was the last person to see TH alive. Her Rav4 was still there when he left according to Bo. D.

Whether the "questionable" side argues that there was a huge conspiracy or a small conspiracy to kill TH and frame SA, it is still either a conspiracy or SA killed TH. There is no scenario possible where SA is innocent and there is no conspiracy.

Still waiting months later for any reason why SA would not use his perfectly good alibi of being with his nephew tending a fire and cleaning a garage on Halloween night. Anybody? Questionable side?

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

to kill TH and frame SA

I'm not sure killing her would necessarily be part of a conspiracy. It could have been opportunistic.

It could also be a case of "We're certain he did it, but we lack evidence. So we'll produce some."

I am not saying there was a conspiracy.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Oh, I quite agree that killing TH was likely the work of an opportunistic murderer. What I said was:

"There is no scenario possible where SA is innocent and there is no conspiracy."

At least two people (up to dozens) would have to be involved in the framing of SA i.e. a conspiracy. Is it the word you do not like?

One example: Avery supporters have resorted to claiming that DP is lying about the 2:27 phone call (2:27- 2:32) because that destroys SA's supposed cell tower "airtight alibi". If TH is on her way to Avery's at 2:30, she cannot possibly be finished at SA's and "12 miles" away (KZ) at 2:41 pm the last time her cell phone is working. That call is CFNA anyway which could mean anything.

The Calumet detectives must also be in on the frame if they say the voicemail at 2:12 is for the Z's. JZ must also be lying in her statement that TH arrived between 2 and 2:30 pm.

The list goes on and on, LE, forensics, FBI. One person could not possibly pull off a frame like this (if there was a frame).

What happened to the "airtight alibi" from many moons ago? 1) junk science 2) cell records actually show TH was on her way to Avery's from Z's:

1:52: 2110-3 (likely 3 is sector West Somewhere between SS and JZ
2:12 and 2:13 and 2:24: All at 2192 -3 Near Z's, not much movement
2:27: 2192-1 Now moving North (Sector 1) which is exactly what DP testified. TH is on her way to Avery Salvage Yard.

Conclusion: Impossible for TH to drive to ASY, do her work, leave and be 12 miles away (unless KZ has some other cell phone records).

Coincidence: Do you think it is coincidental that TH's phone goes dead around 4:21 and SA calls TH's phone at 4:35? On top of that why on earth would he think TH was still in the area to take another photo? (Speculation) SA was burning the phone and checking to make sure it was dead.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Coincidence: Do you think it is coincidental that TH's phone goes dead around 4:21

You don't know when it goes "dead" if it does. The last call was at 2:41 pm and was not answered. That doesn't mean that either the phone was dead or TH was.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Cingular employees say that the phone was "dead" when SA called at 4:35. It routes to Chicago. Sorry if I am mistaken.

I double dare anyone to explain why SA did not give his wonderful alibi that he was with his nephew tending a fire and cleaning his garage on Halloween. SA says he was mostly alone and watches porn. The bonfire seems like a normal, innocuous activity and there's his alibi witness...BD...unless...

Don't make me go for the dreaded triple dog dare!

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

At some point it was apparently set to, or at least went to CFNA.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

Is it the word you do not like?

I haven't mentioned or implied any sort of feeling about the word.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

"I am not saying there was a conspiracy."

Okay, help me explain how SA could be innocent and there is no conspiracy. A conspiracy can be 2 or more people planning to do something bad or illegal usually in secret. Do you think one person could pull off the murder and frame-up? Or you think there was one killer and one LE did the entire frame-up by himself separate from the murder? One killer and random police officer finds the body and does everything?

Embrace the word conspiracy. If SA is telling the whole truth, about 50 people are lying or corrupt. Or SA is a murderer.

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

To state that one isn't saying X exists does not imply that one has a particular feeling or attitude about X. That idea is coming from your imagination.

The rest of your post assumes that I think SA is innocent. I've neither stated nor implied that opinion. That idea is also coming from your imagination.

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Zellner is bright enough to know that the Nov. 3 date on LE documents is the computer generated date of entry for the case. Even an ardent Avery supporter what_a_jem posted on reddit today:

If the 11/3 date is the date of entry for the case, it's a stupid way of doing things. Because dates matter, and the date LE did things matters. They should, in that case, have two separate columns: Date of Case and Activity Date.

These are official documents, and if they contain a misleading date, which does not make it clear to what it refers, how is anyone, weeks or months or years from now, supposed to know what that date means?

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Omg, people have told you multiple times, why there was enough to convict SA even without Brendan's confession. You had your scenario and people still explained to you that SA was arrested months before Brendan ever came forward. I am coming around to seeing the doubt you guys have about Brendan, but Steven is guilty as sin.

reply

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

As I've said before, there are too many variables to this case. SA was convicted on circumstantial evidence. Again, no one knows where Teresa was murdered. Kratz had a graphic pre-trial press conference stating what occurred. Only problem was, none of it was absolute. He used lies and innuendos to get a guilty plea.

We, on the questionable side, believe a new trial is warranted, with nothing but the known facts be presented at trial. If they can do that and he's found guilty again, so be it. He's where he needs to be.

And no, no one has told me multiple times the evidence used to convict SA. He may have been arrested before Brendan's now tossed out confession, but do you really think there was enough to take to trial? The confession was icing on a cake that wasn't going to rise. They needed to make it presentable.

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Well his EDTA free blood was in her car and her bones were found in his burn pit/barrel after he had a bonfire (which he lied about) on the day she went missing. He also was the last person to see her alive.

I'm not a lawyer so I can't say if this would have been enough to send him to trial, but I would be quite shocked if it wasn't.

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

He also was the last person to see her alive.

Something else in dispute.

Those of you who are convinced of guilt quote the prosecution, which is your right to do. But when we mention an investigation that seems faulty and evidence that was found under questionable circumstances, and witnesses that seem to change their stories, or phone records that have holes, or the behavior of some LE and witnesses, we're being irrational. LE and prosecutors sometimes get it wrong, too, you know.

And if you look at the beginning of this case, and allow yourself to question what and when and how things were done, you might see our point. If you believe everything the prosecution presented before and at trial, then I assume you won't. But we're not stupid or stubborn or determined that Avery and/or Dassey are innocent simply because we question evidence, LE reports, how they began and conducted the investigation, or why they named SA as early as 6:30 pm on 11/3 as a suspect in a non-negligent homicide (see LE report), and wonder about it.

reply

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

There is controversy about the EDTA test. Her bones were also found elsewhere. The amount recovered from the fire pit were not enough to make up a human body. It's not an absolute SA was the last person to see her alive. It's been speculated.

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence. There was no eyewitness and SA did not confess. Too many variables? What does that even mean?

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Uh, I have answered the exact question you posed above. So did Bernie. We have both explained to you the evidence that lead to SAs arrest, minus Brendan's so called confession, which happened months into the following year, after the arrest.

This is exactly why I became frustrated with you before. I don't mind answering you questions, if I can, and agree it's very difficult to remember all the details, but Bernie and I had JUST explained all the evidence remaining to you, less than a week ago, yet here you are asking the same thing, as though we hadn't bothered to respond to you. What's the point if you'll only ignore it anyway?

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

before Brendan ever came forward.

Brendan didn't exactly "come forward". They went after him.

reply

[–] Ro-bust 8 years ago

Sorry Kayla came forward.

reply

[–] JeffS90092 8 years ago

Lol. Wow. Do you seriously believe that? There were so many actual issues that could have been focused on or raised. Instead it was all conspiracy theory nonsense. All that time they spent focused on the blood vial should have been removed. Totally deceptive. Why'd they include it even though it wasn't significant to the trial? Because CONSPIRACY!

The documentary reminded me of a video I watched in high-school about the moon landing being faked. And it required about just as much critical thought, too. Its focus was obvious. "Evil cops conspire to frame innocent man!" Conspiracy!!! Pure drivel. Entertaining drivel, but drivel nonetheless.

reply

[–] johnfishpollard-58874 8 years ago

Ummmmmm.......Jeff OUT!

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Ummmmmm.......Jeff OUT!

We wish!

He keeps saying that....and yet he never actually gets OUT, does he?

So, why keep saying it? Why not admit that he's lurking until he can't resist responding to some post?

reply

[–] Head_Cheese74 8 years ago

What I got out of the documentary is it took 18 years of false imprisonment to make Avery become a convicted murderer.

Don't see what the conspiracy is..I think it's far fetched. Don't think the documentary was intended to mislead. However there are questions. A lot of people seem to think Avery is innocent.

I think the aftermath of the documentary reading the comments section, is more interesting than the documentary itself.

So I keep a open mind to this..

reply

[–] lawitall 8 years ago

I just watched some of the series again ( I'm in a hotel Alabama still reeling from the hurricane to hit Florida, yes, I have life, lol); my questions are this, if the murder went down as Brandon said, stabbing and slitting her throat would there not be blood? Also, being a woman if I was being raped and I was chained or tied to a bed frame, I would scuff the *beep* ouft of the wood trying to get loose.
My next question, do you think it was possible that SA and BD removed the bloodied bed and frame and replaced with a "clean" one.
My personal opinion is that she was murderd in the fire pit, that is why there was no blood evidence in the garage or the bedroom. As far as the rape, she could have been raped outside in the grass and since they were going on What BD said, would they even look anywhere else? I think I'm more confused now than when I first saw the series. Look, at the facts, someone killed her, was the police department and DA so hellbent on framing SA that they would go to this amount of trouble? I think in episode 9 someone wrote a letter that said the Avery tree should be "torn" down, and I could not agree more.

reply

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

I think in episode 9 someone wrote a letter that said the Avery tree should be "torn" down, and I could not agree more.

And what do you propose doing with them? Line them up for a firing squad? BTW, view and listen to the police interviews, read the detective reports, read the darn trial transcripts before posting something like you did. Rape wasn't proved. How do you determine rape from a box of charred bones?

In case you aren't aware of it, Brendan's confession was recently thrown out and his conviction overturned! In other words...it didn't happen as per Brendan. Everything he said was fed to him. Listen to his interviews. All this will take time to gain some knowledge about this case, but you need to do so. Because as you yourself said, you are confused. I will also say you are not in the know of the facts!

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] lawitall 8 years ago

The only facts I know are TH bones were found on his property, her car was found on his property and his blood was found in her car. BD confession, the car key. I can almost, almost buy was the confession was coerced and the key was possibly planted. But, if you think this was some kind of JFK conspiracy to get SA out of the picture, that is dillusional. Sometimes, and often most times, the simplest explanation is the correct one. As I have stated before, the best place to learn to be a criminal is in jail. At this point he probably thought he was untouchable. Also, I am wondering as I replied to this post earlier, who wanted it taken down and who did it? Come on...you're hiding behind a keyboard! My response was much more harsh than this response.

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

Dassey's confession was in no way coerced, nor did the court which overturned his conviction rule that it was. None of Duffin's citations even seem relevant to Dassey's case. He also cites other cases where the Federal court ruled in favour of the state, and these cases have suspects treated far more harshly than Dassey was.
I'll be very surprised if a de novo review by an actual Federal judge isn't requested by the state and I have hope that Duffin will be overturned and Dassey's conviction re-instated.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

Okay. New rule.

Now Corpus also has to buy beer for everyone in the thread every time he writes "de novo review".

reply

[–] Whatlarks 8 years ago

And for those who are rusty on their Latin, the English translation is "sour grapes."

"You must not judge what I know by what I find words for." - Marilynne Robinson

reply

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

^^^^ Thank you for translating! I'm not rusty on my Latin...I quite frankly don't know Latin. By you translating I won't have to do the Google shuffle!

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

I can almost, almost buy was the confession was coerced and the key was possibly planted. But, if you think this was some kind of JFK conspiracy to get SA out of the picture, that is dillusional.

Can you buy that a SA settled his civil suit to pay for his murder defense?

reply

[–] kspkap 8 years ago

As per lawitall:

The only facts I know are TH bones were found on his property, her car was found on his property and his blood was found in her car.

In order to see the complete picture of this case you have to listen to and read the interview transcripts, the detective reports, the trial transcripts, etc. That's all we have, those of us on the outside looking in. You then can make a more informed decision. You will either believe all which law enforcement and the state wants you to believe. Or, you will be like so many of us...left with many questions not answered. I refer to us as the "Inquiring minds want to know group."

Her bones were not only found on his property. The quarry must be considered. There are so many questions about the RAV and the forensics performed. Do you have proof the blood wasn't planted? You have to disregard Brendan's confession. Judge Gavin threw it out and overturned his conviction. Everything Brendan stated and confessed to was a result of input from two seasoned detectives. Read the judge's order. Everything is online.

In this case there is no simple explanation. You are speculating he was untouchable. You also speculated she was raped without any proof whatsoever. All we are saying is don't take the MAM production as gospel. As I stated "Inquiring minds want to know."

🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘
My Memory Is Just A Memory! Oh No! Not the Mind Probe!!

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 8 years ago

"Do you have proof the blood wasn't planted?"

Prove a negative! Thanks for the laugh. Is there any proof that you do not wear a tinfoil hat? Don't give me witnesses, they may be lying. Don't give me tests, they may be faulty. Where's the evidence you do not wear a tinfoil hat? You have none. Case closed. s/

reply

[–] lawitall 8 years ago

After reading more on this case and reading this forum. Putting everything aside, I'd like to know what people think happened? I'm at a loss at to how people have reacted to MAM. It was so biased and one sided. I know my feelings on this case. Do I know how any of it happened, of course not. It is all speculative. What I know is that woman is dead. I am just curious as to what people's theories are on what happened? Whether or not you believe in the innocence of SA or BD.

reply

[–] doggie_rodriguez 8 years ago

I have two theories.

1. Steven did it.

2. Police found a dead body. Had no idea who did it and decided to pin it on the guy that was suing them for $36,000,000.

I am confident that one of these is true.

reply

[–] lawitall 8 years ago

Wow. Thanks.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Deeana 7 years ago

They certainly sucked me in. It's amazing how you are able to mislead people by only producing one side of the story and omitting other important evidence.

reply