MovieChat Forums > Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion > Why wasn't Teresa's brother questioned?

Why wasn't Teresa's brother questioned?

posted 7 years ago by up-46579
14 replies | jump to latest

He is one of the most shifty people ever, a day after Teresa had been missing he is already talking about the grieving process, completely convinced she is dead? I mean seriously if one of my family members was missing i would not be convinced they were dead after a day unless i somehow knew they were...

Also being so damn shifty and talking over the boyfriend (worried he would say something out of place?) when asked about if they were on the Avery property, hacking into her voicemails and 'accidently' deleting them? yeah right he stinks of murderous guilt.

"YEAH WE LOVE THE POLICE" - of course he does because they were obviously working together in this whole mess.

History has shown that when someone is murdered the murderer is nearly always someone who is close to the victim ie a family member. How in the hell was he and the ex boyfriend and roommate not serious suspects in this murder?

[–] Ro-bust 7 years ago

Go do some research you.

Usually it is the person close to them OR the last person known to see them alive...in this case Steven Avery. The brother had a solid alibi and was miles away when she went missing. I wouldn't also be sure of the timeline they say Mark made those comments, but then maybe he is just a pragmatic person who knew his sister well enough to know that if she had been gone that long without contacting th e family something serious had happened to her. Are you suggesting he killed his sister and then made that much of a faux pas on live TV? I find it hard to be believe he wouldnt be watching his every word.

[–] berniegfletcher 7 years ago

Robust, there is no point talking to an "Anyone but Avery" cultist who posts such ignorant and despicable comments. I hope he never has a sibling murdered and has to react the "correct" way. What are the statistics on college educated brothers killing their sisters? This has nothing to do with the stats on men killing partners.

The OP will never answer the questions about the actions of niece-raping, woman abusing scumbag SA. Why use *67? Why didn't SA give BD as his alibi? Why did he lie about the fire and BD? Why did SA lie about the time TH was there? Just coincidence SA had deep cuts on his hand? What was he doing for hours that afternoon? SA also talks of TH's family grieving...when she is only a missing person.

Ironic that the series is about not having a "witch hunt" without enough evidence, yet posters attack innocent people with ZERO evidence. Appalling.

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Robust, there is no point talking to an "Anyone but Avery" cultist who posts such ignorant and despicable comments. I hope he never has a sibling murdered and has to react the "correct" way. What are the statistics on college educated brothers killing their sisters? This has nothing to do with the stats on men killing partners.

This is why I tend to get caustic with supporters at times.

Ironic that the series is about not having a "witch hunt" without enough evidence, yet posters attack innocent people with ZERO evidence. Appalling.

Murderer groupie rule #1- multiple courts of law and mountains of evidence can be rejected for the convicted offender. Innuendo and speculation however is perfectly sufficient for anyone else other than the convicted offender.
(WM3 case for example- two courts of law with two separate juries rejected for the innocent Goth kids subjected to a witch hunt because they dressed in black and liked Slayer, but innuendo was sufficient for Byers, or Hobbs or whoever else their supporters were accusing from one documentary to the next. The Meredith Kercher murder- multiple courts of law rejected for Amanda Knox, while innuendo was sufficient for her third world immigrant accomplice)
And that'd just one of several similar arguments that supporters of various high profile convicted offenders give, regardless of the case itself.

I find it very telling indeed that supporters of convicted offenders tend to use the exact same tropes, double standards and specious arguments. All that's different is the case, but the arguments and tropes remain the same. Says it all about the weakness of the case for innocence.

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

[–] dodgin_nigels 7 years ago

Didn't Avery have some vast amount of solid alibis for the sexual assault he was locked up for?

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Not an apt comparison though as his wrongful conviction had a sense of context as to why he was wrongfully convicted, whereas here, there's no way to explain away that amount of evidence other than to allege a frame up or cop an insanity plea. There's no evidence of the former and the defence never attempted the latter.

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

[–] dodgin_nigels 7 years ago

Haha, well, right...seems the context you're speaking of in his first conviction is some semblance of prejudice - I say this based only on what I know, not necessarily all available information. Establishing said context is part of what made the documentary so compelling upon first viewing.

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

Yeah you might be right, I'd say so wrt the actual police investigation anyway, in the sense that some of them probably thought it was him from the start, as he'd be a "usual suspect" due to being known to them along with his previous crime against his cousin.
Re his wrongful conviction itself, as I interpreted it (and could be wrong to clarify) was that the wrongful conviction was more down to human error rather than an actual unfair trial.
The victim had suffered a traumatic experience and was convinced it was Avery. People who are convinced, in such a charged atmosphere like a trial can be very compelling and unfortunately she believed what she was saying and the jury didn't believe Avery's witnesses who were telling the truth. And that absolutely sucks but gives an insight into how wrongful convictions can occur in an imperfect system. The cops didn't believe him or his family as all were known to the cops.

Here though you've a ton of evidence and a confession and no alibis from either and both suspects lying and generally acting suspicious. The confession is supported by forensic evidence whether one thinks it was coercion or not and bottom line Dassey mentions lots of details the cops never tell him.

And the frame up theory logistically and practically is untenable as it's nearly impossible to pull off.

He was definitely wrongfully convicted for the rape but one can at least give a plausible enough explanation or at the very least pitch a credible enough sounding scenario, for how it occurred. Teresa's murder is much much harder to explain away in terms of totality of evidence other than a frame up and there's nothing other than speculation to actually support it, nor does it actually sound plausible if one examines it.
If one views the totality, the most logical likely and simple explanation is that both did it Imo.

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

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

Not an apt comparison though as his wrongful conviction had a sense of context as to why he was wrongfully convicted

What? No idea what this means. Explain, please.

He had an alibi and witnesses and was still convicted for the 1985 crime.

He was convicted against all logic and evidence in 1985. Small wonder, then, that he was convicted, by the same investigators and county, in 2005.

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

I already did explain.

Re his wrongful conviction itself, as I interpreted it (and could be wrong to clarify) was that the wrongful conviction was more down to human error rather than an actual unfair trial.
The victim had suffered a traumatic experience and was convinced it was Avery. People who are convinced, in such a charged atmosphere like a trial can be very compelling and unfortunately she believed what she was saying and the jury didn't believe Avery's witnesses who were telling the truth. And that absolutely sucks but gives an insight into how wrongful convictions can occur in an imperfect system. The cops didn't believe him or his family as all were known to the cops.

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

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

The cops didn't believe him or his family as all were known to the cops.

A perfectly good reason for not believing witnesses, I'm sure. In an unjust world. Did Dolores have a record? Did Barb have a record? Did every one of the witnesses, including the store clerk who issued the receipt which proved he was elsewhere, have a record?

You can't make this right, Vile. It was more than LE error. A member of the sheriff's own office staff suggested he look at Gregory Allan and he refused. The Manitowoc police chief suggested it, and Kokourek dismissed it. Beersten herself finally called, asking if it could be Allan, and was told not to worry about it, they had the right guy.

They were either truly convinced it was Avery or it didn't matter to them. Or they were, for some reason, protecting Gregory Allan. Read the DOJ's report of what happened; it's very incriminating. And yet there was no official fault found. This is indication that a good ole boy system permeated the state of WI during that era...and may still.

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

A perfectly good reason for not believing witnesses, I'm sure. In an unjust world. Did Dolores have a record? Did Barb have a record? Did every one of the witnesses, including the store clerk who issued the receipt which proved he was elsewhere, have a record?

Not what I said. His brothers were well known to the cops, which is why they wouldn't be believed. Never said it was right or justified, but simply explainable in a human nature kinda way.

You can't make this right, Vile.

You can call me corpus. Or Mr Vile.

It was more than LE error. A member of the sheriff's own office staff suggested he look at Gregory Allan and he refused. The Manitowoc police chief suggested it, and Kokourek dismissed it. Beersten herself finally called, asking if it could be Allan, and was told not to worry about it, they had the right guy.

Can u elaborate on more than LE error?

They were either truly convinced it was Avery or it didn't matter to them.

Yeah I reckon they were indeed truly convinced. As opposed to trying to frame him. As for the not matter thing, I don't know. Maybe they felt that hey, one scumbag is behind bars anyway, which if they did, is completely inexcusable. No evidence that they thought this though.

Or they were, for some reason, protecting Gregory Allan. Read the DOJ's report of what happened; it's very incriminating. And yet there was no official fault found. This is indication that a good ole boy system permeated the state of WI during that era...and may still.

Any evidence- as in actual evidence as opposed to what you'd personally consider "indication"- to support this though?

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

[–] mme3924-1 7 years ago

What you said was this:

The cops didn't believe him or his family as all were known to the cops.

"family". That's all encompassing. You implied that it was justified that LE didn't believe any of the witnesses who said Steven Avery was elsewhere because they--his family--were all known to the cops.

You can call me corpus. Or Mr Vile

I call 'em as I see 'em. (That's a baseball reference for you cricket types)

Can u elaborate on more than LE error?

Not error. Refusal. For whatever reason, Kokourek and Vogel decided they had the right man, Steven Avery. But it's unexplainable, since Vogel had information about Allan in his file on the case. That makes it appear that they had tunnel vision and were unwilling to even look elsewhere. It's part of why the same accusation has been leveled in the 2005 case.

Yeah I reckon they were indeed truly convinced. As opposed to trying to frame him. As for the not matter thing, I don't know. Maybe they felt that hey, one scumbag is behind bars anyway, which if they did, is completely inexcusable. No evidence that they thought this though.

Well, by keeping "one scumbag" behind bars, they allowed another to continue to rape and assault, didn't they? LE are not supposed to "be convinced". They are supposed to follow the evidence. That they didn't in the 1985 case is inescapable.

Their behavior and actions in the 1985 case -- and many of their actions and behavior, including non-behavior (as in what they didn't do) in the 2005 case, are good indications that they had a mindset. If you've never encountered a good ole boy system, or mindset, then perhaps you can't understand. But it exists, and is, in and of itself, a kind of "conspiracy." It's groupthink, a lot of closed minds, an unwillingness to "see" anything other than what they already believe. And is often also political, as in, "if you aren't for me, you're against me."

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

LE didn't believe his family, jury didn't believe his witnesses. I never once said it was justified, don't make me regret taking you off ignore.
I'm not into cricket.

Not error. Refusal. For whatever reason, Kokourek and Vogel decided they had the right man, Steven Avery. But it's unexplainable, since Vogel had information about Allan in his file on the case. That makes it appear that they had tunnel vision and were unwilling to even look elsewhere. It's part of why the same accusation has been leveled in the 2005 case.

Quite possible. Doesn't equate to maliciously covering up Allen's confession though.

Well, by keeping "one scumbag" behind bars, they allowed another to continue to rape and assault, didn't they? LE are not supposed to "be convinced". They are supposed to follow the evidence. That they didn't in the 1985 case is inescapable.

And I said if so, it was "completely inexcusable", so I'm not sure what your point is.

Their behavior and actions in the 1985 case -- and many of their actions and behavior, including non-behavior (as in what they didn't do) in the 2005 case, are good indications that they had a mindset. If you've never encountered a good ole boy system, or mindset, then perhaps you can't understand. But it exists, and is, in and of itself, a kind of "conspiracy." It's groupthink, a lot of closed minds, an unwillingness to "see" anything other than what they already believe. And is often also political, as in, "if you aren't for me, you're against me."

Yes, again quite possible except no it isn't remotely like a conspiracy, never mind kinda but the rest of your point is certainly possible and not what I'd consider especially outlandish either fwiw. No evidence for it though nor is it relevant to his murder conviction, due to the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

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

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

yeah right he stinks of murderous guilt.

Well when you put it that way...

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