Making a Murderer (contains spoilers)

[Hendricks]

This is a pretty fascinating interview of the creators of Making a Murderer given by Alex Baldwin.

 

https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/566233

[gashauskis9]

This is a pretty fascinating interview of the creators of Making a Murderer given by Alex Baldwin.

 

https://www.wnyc.org/radio/#/ondemand/566233

Was this narrated by Stephen Hawking

[Guest Paul Allen]

Read this theory last night. Something about the brother and the ex boyfriend wasn't right though I agree...

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/is-this-the-most-credible-theory-about-making-a-murderer-yet-200116

 

Jambo Road... 

[aussieh]

Robert Jones, another innocent man who was set up.

This time in New Orleans. He did 24 years because the DA set him up, withheld evidence and knew he was innocent.

He still has to clear his name.

Edited January 23, 2016 by aussieh

[GlasgoJambo]

Robert Jones, another innocent man who was set up.

This time in New Orleans. He did 24 years because the DA set him up, withheld evidence and knew he was innocent.

He still has to clear his name.

Pft. Well made docudrama or GTF

[Ray Gin]

Read this theory last night. Something about the brother and the ex boyfriend wasn't right though I agree...

http://www.theladbible.com/articles/is-this-the-most-credible-theory-about-making-a-murderer-yet-200116

 

Certainly sounds massively more plausible than the story the police came up with.

[Beverley]

don't watch the video here if you've not seen the show, but if you want to know whats gone on... this is the cliff notes song about the case

 

[sunblestjambo]

Pft. Well made docudrama or GTF

[NewYorkJambo]

don't watch the video here if you've not seen the show, but if you want to know whats gone on... this is the cliff notes song about the case

 

 

If you just watch the Cliff Notes it appears obvious he's innocent. If you watch the documentary it's not clear cut either way. Serious questions remain unanswered. Overall, I think Steven is guilty and Brendan innocent

[Tynecastle Valhalla]

i genuinely dont know how you can come to the conclusion that avery is guilty

[NewYorkJambo]

i genuinely dont know how you can come to the conclusion that avery is guilty

 

I was pretty undecided after watching it but would probably just have sided with guilty. But since reading what the documentary makers left out  - reputable articles on websites like CNN and not some crazy fan blog - I'm pretty sure he's guilty. Would there still be some doubt in my mind? Sure, but if pushed I'd definitely go for guilty.

 

She had complained about him previously feeling that he was creepy. She asked her boss not to go there again but Steven insisted it was her that came out that day. He rang her several times witholding his number (something you have to do manually). He also owned shackles (arm and leg irons) which his ex girlfriend (she's in the documentary) claims he used on her just three weeks before. And while him burning cats alive - yep he did that - doesn't count toward his guilt it does speak to the character of the man.

 

Even if you ONLY go on the documentary, I just don't believe that the corruption would go right up to FBI level which means the blood vile evidence is legitimate. I can totally see local cops being corrupt but not going that far up the chain to an unrelated department.

Edited January 24, 2016 by NewYorkJambo

[redm]

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115

'Making a Murderer': Steven Avery's Lawyer on the Evidence Left Out

 

An interesting read in Rolling Stone.

[1874robbo]

I was pretty undecided after watching it but would probably just have sided with guilty. But since reading what the documentary makers left out - reputable articles on websites like CNN and not some crazy fan blog - I'm pretty sure he's guilty. Would there still be some doubt in my mind? Sure, but if pushed I'd definitely go for guilty.

 

She had complained about him previously feeling that he was creepy. She asked her boss not to go there again but Steven insisted it was her that came out that day. He rang her several times witholding his number (something you have to do manually). He also owned shackles (arm and leg irons) which his ex girlfriend (she's in the documentary) claims he used on her just three weeks before. And while him burning cats alive - yep he did that - doesn't count toward his guilt it does speak to the character of the man.

 

Even if you ONLY go on the documentary, I just don't believe that the corruption would go right up to FBI level which means the blood vile evidence is legitimate. I can totally see local cops being corrupt but not going that far up the chain to an unrelated department.

 

So what's your take on not one drop of blood or her dna anywhere in the room he's supposed to have killed her?

Also the small matter of the car key being found on the seventh search of his room!! By an officer who wasn't meant to be anywhere near the case.

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what evidence you saw to make you think he's guilty?

Going by the evidence presented at trial if I'd been on that jury I would have been an overwhelming not guilty.

[aussieh]

So what's your take on not one drop of blood or her dna anywhere in the room he's supposed to have killed her?

The jury should've been from outside Wisconsin.

Also the small matter of the car key being found on the seventh search of his room!! By an officer who wasn't meant to be anywhere near the case.

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what evidence you saw to make you think he's guilty?

Going by the evidence presented at trial if I'd been on that jury I would have been an overwhelming not guilty.

Not if you or your family were in danger. Edited January 25, 2016 by aussieh

[1874robbo]

Not if you or your family were in danger.

If they were that much in danger then the guy that was on the jury and had to leave through family issues is in big trouble!!

He was on the show telling everyone how corrupt it all was.

[Beverley]

i genuinely dont know how you can come to the conclusion that avery is guilty

i guess by the same token we can't honestly come to the conclusion that he was entirely innocent.  

 

i think its patently obvious that there wasn't enough genuine evidence to find him guilty, so assuming all we saw on the documentary was all the jurors saw (unlikely i know) i could only give a not guilty verdict, BUT thats not to say he wasn't guilty or in some way involved.  

 

sadly, i don't think we'll ever know for sure

[Daydream Believer]

So what's your take on not one drop of blood or her dna anywhere in the room he's supposed to have killed her?

Also the small matter of the car key being found on the seventh search of his room!! By an officer who wasn't meant to be anywhere near the case.

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what evidence you saw to make you think he's guilty?

Going by the evidence presented at trial if I'd been on that jury I would have been an overwhelming not guilty.

 

The Blood - That he killed her somewhere else. (and the bullet was planted)

The key - That it was planted.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that he killed her and that the police also planted evidence and that the prosecution didn't get all of the events correct.

 

I think that it's impossible to say that he did or didn't kill her having only seen 10 hours of TV tbh. I think it needs looked at again, and maybe another trial but the idea that millions of people can somehow decide that he's innocent without having seen everything the jury saw is surely wrong.

[NewYorkJambo]

The Blood - That he killed her somewhere else. (and the bullet was planted)

The key - That it was planted.

 

It's not unreasonable to think that he killed her and that the police also planted evidence and that the prosecution didn't get all of the events correct.

 

I think that it's impossible to say that he did or didn't kill her having only seen 10 hours of TV tbh. I think it needs looked at again, and maybe another trial but the idea that millions of people can somehow decide that he's innocent without having seen everything the jury saw is surely wrong.

 

This

[GlasgoJambo]

I was pretty undecided after watching it but would probably just have sided with guilty. But since reading what the documentary makers left out - reputable articles on websites like CNN and not some crazy fan blog - I'm pretty sure he's guilty. Would there still be some doubt in my mind? Sure, but if pushed I'd definitely go for guilty.

 

She had complained about him previously feeling that he was creepy. She asked her boss not to go there again but Steven insisted it was her that came out that day. He rang her several times witholding his number (something you have to do manually). He also owned shackles (arm and leg irons) which his ex girlfriend (she's in the documentary) claims he used on her just three weeks before. And while him burning cats alive - yep he did that - doesn't count toward his guilt it does speak to the character of the man.

 

Even if you ONLY go on the documentary, I just don't believe that the corruption would go right up to FBI level which means the blood vile evidence is legitimate. I can totally see local cops being corrupt but not going that far up the chain to an unrelated department.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX6U2CtUQAABadu.png:large

[NewYorkJambo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX6U2CtUQAABadu.png:large

 

I assume you disagree. How about you join the grown up debate and say why instead of posting pictures - which you couldn't even embed so I had to click the link. Good work!

[Chester™]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/making-murderer-explosive-new-details-7245290

 

Bullying allegations about the jury. Easy to forget that 7 originally had him down as innocent until 3 jurors dug their heels in.

[alyp]

Wow.  What a complete and utter Kratz that guy is.  Check out a letter he sent to Avery whilst trying to convince him to confess so he could make a few bucks.  Loath-able human being.

 

"I got your letter dated August 28, 2015, wherein you tell me that your visitor list is full, and ask if I checked out other fingerprints found on Teresa Halbach's car, telling me that these people could have "set you up" for this.

 

I apologize for misunderstanding your letters from a couple years ago, as I thought you were interested in being honest about what happened and finally telling the whole story to someone. Since I'm the person who probably knows more about your case than anyone else, I hoped that you would choose me to tell your story to.

Unfortunately, you only want to continue your nonsense about being set up. That's too bad, because you had ONE opportunity to finally tell all the details, but now that will never happen.

 

By the way, the difference between you and famous convicted murderers from the past is they told their whole truthful story to someone, who then wrote a book about what actually happened and people got to understand both sides. I was willing to help you do that...but if you are going to continue to lie about what happened between you and Ms. Halbach, I am not interested.

 

If you change your mind, and want to tell your honest story someday, please contact me.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/01/25/ken-kratz-book-making-a-murderer/79303912/

 

For me, I think Avery is probably guilty but had I been on the jury there is no way I would have said he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  The cops clearly tried to 'make sure' this time after the previous embarrassment after the earlier conviction.  The biggest irony of course is that if they had put in the same amount of effort into actually investigating the crime as they did planting evidence and manipulating a young mentally challenged kid they would likely have put Avery away and none of this scandal would have happened.

 

As for Branden, an absolute scandal.  The way he was manipulated was horrible to watch.  Especially O'Kelly.  Poor kid.  He will get out one day I reckon but his life is fekked.  Given his gene pool it probably was from the day he was born.  Heartbreaking.

[Private Hudson]

Apologies if this has been posted already. It's the best theory I've read so far, and it ties up all the odd behaviour of those involved.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/22/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-brendan-dassey-_n_9048104.html?ncid=fcbklnkukhpmg00000001

 

"The Netflix documentary raised numerous questions about the evidence and circumstances which at times were confusing to say the least.

Reddit user JayPact has shared one theory spotted on the comments section in YouTube that could be the most convincing yet... (it's worth reading in full).

 

The police didn't kill Theresa Halbach. Andrew Colborn located that RAV4 with the assistance of Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas who illegally trespassed onto the Avery Salvage Yard on the night of November 3rd 2005. Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas suspected something was up since the Avery Salvage Yard was the last place they knew Theresa visited on Oct.31st Halloween day. They went snooping on the property and found the car.

 

They checked the car and found the key in the ignition and blood in the cargo area. Mike or Ryan removed the key from the ignition to ensure that no one could easily move the car off of the Avery property... freaked out about this huge discovery they call the Manitowoc Sheriffs Department. Andrew Colborn fielded the call that night and went out and met Ryan and Mike at the Salvage Yard so he could view the car for himself. Ryan and Mike show him the car and to be certain its Halbachs he "calls" in the plate number to dispatch. Colborn has to "call" in... instead of "radio" in... the plate number to Manitowoc dispatch because he wasn't in his police cruiser at the moment, but rather on foot and in the "field' on the Avery Salvage property.

 

This mistake places Colborn at the scene and in contact with Halbachs RAV4... 2 days before it is officially located on November 5th, 2005, by Pam Sturm.... This is problematic for Colborn because all call and radio transmissions to dispatch are recorded and logged onto the Manitowoc Police server. Andrew Colborn is now operating outside of police protocol at a potential crime scene that he has no official directive to be at. He tells Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas to basically STFU about what they found and not mention to anyone that they were ever on the Avery Salvage property that night. Ryan or Mike turns the RAV4 key over to Andrew Colborn.

 

Mike and Ryan are told to go home. Andrew Colborn then immediately calls Lt. James Lenk and briefs him about the discovery of the Halbach car and breaches of protocol he committed on the Avery property, also about Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach being there. Lt James Lenk realizing that Colborn's calling in Halbachs plate is a serious mistake with potential consequences orders Andrew Colborn to remove the license plate from Halbach's car and then report to him immediately.

What James Lenk and Andrew Colborn, or the others for that matter, don't realize at this point and are completely unaware of is that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych have kidnapped, raped, shot and then burned Theresa Halbach in the privacy of the gravel quarry off of Jambo Rd on Halloween evening. They choose to burn her body to dispose of their DNA evidence of the crimes. They hid Halbach's car in the rear of Avery Salvage and wiped it clean of their prints.

 

I believe it is Scott Tadych's idea to secretly transport the cremains of Halbach from the gravel quarry and dispose them into Steven Avery's burn pit. Scott Tadych transports Halbach's cremains in secret by using one of Barb Jandas burn barrels from her yard. Scott Tadych fails to collect all of Halbach's cremains from the original burn site in the gravel quarry, thus leaving some behind that FBI investigators later find... but he also fails in making certain all of Halbach's cremains are out of Barb Jandas burn barrel after dumping them into Steven Avery's burn pit.

 

This is why investigators found small bits of Halbach in Barb Jandas burn barrel. Thus making a total of three sites where Halbach's cremains are found. Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey are unaware that Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach have found Theresas car on the property and that Lenk and Colborn are now involved and in play with their scheme. .........By shear colossal luck, two completely independent frame jobs targeting one man, Steven Avery were shaping up into the perfect storm. On one front, from Lenk and Colborn regarding the RAV4, ....and on the other unconnected front by Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey regarding the cremains of Theresa Halbach. One party wasn't aware of the other's involvements at any point during the days leading up to the official discovery of Halbach's RAV4 at the Avery Salvage Yard hence why the investigation and murder trial made zero sense to anyone especially the Jury.

 

None of the evidence could be connected because it was all unrelated... everybody was guessing. But Buting and Strang had zeroed in on a part of it but couldn't fully form a solid defense to prove it. The Jury couldn't conceive that Manitowoc officers could have conspired to kill Theresa Halbach to frame Steven Avery as Ken Kratz insisted they had to if they wanted to follow the theory the defense presented of the frame up of Steven Avery by Manitowoc officials.

 

And Ken Kratz was right... Imagine Scott Tadych's confused and utter relief when Steve Avery's blood was found in the Halbach car and the RAV4 key found in Steve Avery's bedroom..... he must have been like.... WTF?! A quote from Scott Tadych after Steven Avery is convicted of Theresa Halbach's murder.... "THIS IS THE GREATEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN" ..... We will see Scott, we will see.....................?"

[GlasgoJambo]

I assume you disagree. How about you join the grown up debate and say why instead of posting pictures - which you couldn't even embed so I had to click the link. Good work!

Apologies m8. this better sums up my views on your assertion of Avery's guilt based on no evidence whatsoever.

Edited January 26, 2016 by GlasgoJambo

[Captain Sausage]

Can't help but feel there must be plenty I didn't see in the episodes.

 

Because based on them, Stevens conviction is extremely dubious at best, while Brandon's is a disgrace.

[Maiden Gorgie]

OK, it is the Mirror, but a second series in the offing?

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/making-murderer-explosive-new-details-7245290

[vegas-voss]

I just cant understand the motive for killing her.Ok the guy was not to bright but he was on the verge of getting a fortune in damages so why would you risk it.

[Peebo]

I just cant understand the motive for killing her.Ok the guy was not to bright but he was on the verge of getting a fortune in damages so why would you risk it.

In terms of the crime he was convicted of, I'm not sure (or at least hope!) many people would understand why someone would carry that out.

[vegas-voss]

In terms of the crime he was convicted of, I'm not sure (or at least hope!) many people would understand why someone would carry that out.

Aye your right

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Apologies m8. this better sums up my views on your assertion of Avery's guilt based on no evidence whatsoever.

I thought she was stunning btw.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Ted Clubberlang

[NewYorkJambo]

No evidence whatsoever? Go back and watch the documentary again. I can see why you would disagree with a guilty verdict but now you're just making things up.

[Ray Gin]

There was certainly evidence, however most of it appeared to be tainted or via sources lacking any degree of credibility.

[1874robbo]

No evidence whatsoever? Go back and watch the documentary again. I can see why you would disagree with a guilty verdict but now you're just making things up.

Evidence like the key they found after 7 searches ha ha please tell me you made your judgement on more than that ffs

[NewYorkJambo]

Evidence like the key they found after 7 searches ha ha please tell me you made your judgement on more than that ffs

 

Not sure why you struggle to have a conversation just because someone disagrees with you. Anyway.... yes, you're correct I made my judgement based on all the evidence and not just one piece of evidence.

[1874robbo]

Not sure why you struggle to have a conversation just because someone disagrees with you. Anyway.... yes, you're correct I made my judgement based on all the evidence and not just one piece of evidence.

Ok let's have a conversation about it.

Tell me what evidence you have seen which convinced you he is guilty.

I will then list the evidence I saw to make up my mind he's innocent.

[hayhojambo]

http://fox6now.com/2016/01/26/protest-planned-for-friday-in-manitowoc-in-support-of-steven-avery-brendan-dassey/

[NewYorkJambo]

Ok let's have a conversation about it.

Tell me what evidence you have seen which convinced you he is guilty.

I will then list the evidence I saw to make up my mind he's innocent.

 

So let's start by saying that nowhere did I say I was "convinced". I've gone back and forth but if put on the spot with a gun to my head I would say guilty.

 

In documentary

- Last person to see her alive

- His blood in her car (I don't buy that the FBI could be corrupt also. Yes, maybe local cops would be)

- Car found on property (I do believe he is stupid enough to leave it there before you ask)

- Bones/remains on his property)

- Key found in house (may well have been planted - doesn't mean he can't also be guilty)

 

Not in documentary but you can find this on CNN etc

- Burned a cat alive - speaks to his character for sure

- asked specifically for her to come to his house and she told bosses she was uncomfortable because he creeped her out.

- Constantly called her hiding his phone number (pattern of harassment)

- DNA under the hood of her car - he'd been removing the vehicle ID number

- During his 18 year stint in jail for wrongful conviction he told inmates he wanted to build a dungeon and torture women

- Bullets found WERE fired by Avery's rifle

- His girlfriend (one banned from seeing him due to drinking) has said she's convinced he's guilty and cites a history of violence against her

 

 

Anyway, I don't believe he killed her in the bedroom. He would be incapable of cleaning up DNA. There are definite parts the cops are guessing at due to no witnesses. But the evidence left out the documentary is pretty damming.

[Dean Winchester]

So let's start by saying that nowhere did I say I was "convinced". I've gone back and forth but if put on the spot with a gun to my head I would say guilty.

 

In documentary

- Last person to see her alive

- His blood in her car (I don't buy that the FBI could be corrupt also. Yes, maybe local cops would be)

- Car found on property (I do believe he is stupid enough to leave it there before you ask)

- Bones/remains on his property)

- Key found in house (may well have been planted - doesn't mean he can't also be guilty)

 

Not in documentary but you can find this on CNN etc

- Burned a cat alive - speaks to his character for sure

- asked specifically for her to come to his house and she told bosses she was uncomfortable because he creeped her out.

- Constantly called her hiding his phone number (pattern of harassment)

- DNA under the hood of her car - he'd been removing the vehicle ID number

- During his 18 year stint in jail for wrongful conviction he told inmates he wanted to build a dungeon and torture women

- Bullets found WERE fired by Avery's rifle

- His girlfriend (one banned from seeing him due to drinking) has said she's convinced he's guilty and cites a history of violence against her

 

 

Anyway, I don't believe he killed her in the bedroom. He would be incapable of cleaning up DNA. There are definite parts the cops are guessing at due to no witnesses. But the evidence left out the documentary is pretty damming.

Here's a point by point rebuttal, with sources, for most of your points:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40rl21/pointbypoint_rebuttal_to_missing_evidence/

[Ray Gin]

'The jinx' is now available on sky box sets guys.

[Daydream Believer]

Here's a point by point rebuttal, with sources, for most of your points:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40rl21/pointbypoint_rebuttal_to_missing_evidence/

 

Those rebuttals are pretty poor, in fact some of them don't even deny the accusations.

 

It claims that it's not odd to specifically request Hallbach since it's common to want to work with the same people you've worked with before. Sorry but it was just someone from a magazine sent to take a quick photo. I don't know anyone who would care who came to do that.

 

It says that he would have used *69 to hide his number because Hallbach was late. I might be missing something but that makes no sense at all.

 

It rebuts the claim that his sweat was found in the car but accepts that his DNA was and offers no explanation for this.

 

It says that the cat story has only one source (a newspaper article) but doesn't deny the animal cruelty charge. It then lambasts journalists for accepting the reported story without digging deeper. Bizzarely instead of digging deeper themselves the author links as a source the original article describing the cat incident

[Peebo]

So let's start by saying that nowhere did I say I was "convinced". I've gone back and forth but if put on the spot with a gun to my head I would say guilty.

 

In documentary

- Last person to see her alive

- His blood in her car (I don't buy that the FBI could be corrupt also. Yes, maybe local cops would be)

- Car found on property (I do believe he is stupid enough to leave it there before you ask)

- Bones/remains on his property)

- Key found in house (may well have been planted - doesn't mean he can't also be guilty)

 

Not in documentary but you can find this on CNN etc

- Burned a cat alive - speaks to his character for sure

- asked specifically for her to come to his house and she told bosses she was uncomfortable because he creeped her out.

- Constantly called her hiding his phone number (pattern of harassment)

- DNA under the hood of her car - he'd been removing the vehicle ID number

- During his 18 year stint in jail for wrongful conviction he told inmates he wanted to build a dungeon and torture women

- Bullets found WERE fired by Avery's rifle

- His girlfriend (one banned from seeing him due to drinking) has said she's convinced he's guilty and cites a history of violence against her

 

 

Anyway, I don't believe he killed her in the bedroom. He would be incapable of cleaning up DNA. There are definite parts the cops are guessing at due to no witnesses. But the evidence left out the documentary is pretty damming.

I'm not sure anything you list is damning. Are you referring to other evidence that was left out?

[Daydream Believer]

I'm not sure anything you list is damning. Are you referring to other evidence that was left out?

 

I don't think that there is a smoking gun. The bulk of the evidence is circumstantial but that doesn't preclude a guilty verdict.

[Dean Winchester]

Those rebuttals are pretty poor, in fact some of them don't even deny the accusations.

 

It claims that it's not odd to specifically request Hallbach since it's common to want to work with the same people you've worked with before. Sorry but it was just someone from a magazine sent to take a quick photo. I don't know anyone who would care who came to do that.

 

It says that he would have used *69 to hide his number because Hallbach was late. I might be missing something but that makes no sense at all.

 

It rebuts the claim that his sweat was found in the car but accepts that his DNA was and offers no explanation for this.

 

It says that the cat story has only one source (a newspaper article) but doesn't deny the animal cruelty charge. It then lambasts journalists for accepting the reported story without digging deeper. Bizzarely instead of digging deeper themselves the author links as a source the original article describing the cat incident

 

Avery?s DNA was found on hood latch in Halbach?s car. Probably left out because it's not nearly as strong as the blood evidence. Dean Strang explains that it's much easier to plant DNA than blood (just swipe Steven's toothbrush on it). Second, "If the DNA transfer was from his skin to the hood, where are the fingerprints? And you have, probably, both hands on the hood?potentially eight or 10 fingers that could leave at least a partial print."http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-defense-attorney-dean-strang-we-may-represent-steven-avery-again.html Don't forget that a technician who'd dealt with Steven's blood in TH's car then popped the hood latch with the same gloves - there's a good chance this is how the transfer occurred.https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ztcch/wow_investigator_didnt_change_gloves_after/

 

I think the implication of him using *69 for the phone call was that he wasn't sure whether she was blowing him off. Have you never phoned somebody and wondered if they're ignoring you?

The cat story didn't have one source. The cat story happened. It was in the show. There was, however, only one source that said it was much worse than described in the court documents, which was what the filmmakers had been accused of leaving out.

[Peebo]

I don't think that there is a smoking gun. The bulk of the evidence is circumstantial but that doesn't preclude a guilty verdict.

Indeed. It didn't here.

[Daydream Believer]

Avery?s DNA was found on hood latch in Halbach?s car. Probably left out because it's not nearly as strong as the blood evidence. Dean Strang explains that it's much easier to plant DNA than blood (just swipe Steven's toothbrush on it). Second, "If the DNA transfer was from his skin to the hood, where are the fingerprints? And you have, probably, both hands on the hood?potentially eight or 10 fingers that could leave at least a partial print."http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-defense-attorney-dean-strang-we-may-represent-steven-avery-again.html Don't forget that a technician who'd dealt with Steven's blood in TH's car then popped the hood latch with the same gloves - there's a good chance this is how the transfer occurred.https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ztcch/wow_investigator_didnt_change_gloves_after/

 

I think the implication of him using *69 for the phone call was that he wasn't sure whether she was blowing him off. Have you never phoned somebody and wondered if they're ignoring you?

The cat story didn't have one source. The cat story happened. It was in the show. There was, however, only one source that said it was much worse than described in the court documents, which was what the filmmakers had been accused of leaving out.

 

Fair enough re the *69 thing, I didn't know where he was coming from with that, but it probably leads to more questions that could have been explored.

 

the cat story - The filmmakers could have researched it themselves but they probably didn't know how big the whole thing would become. I do think that they just kind of slipped it in. Ultimately it doesn't have much relevance to whether the court found him guilty or not but since it is the only contemporary record, it was written in a local paper and we know that he was charged with animal cruelty I would have to consider it true unless someone showed me otherwise.

 

If some bloke from Edinburgh doused a cat in petrol and chucked it on a fire there would be a thread on here within minutes full of people saying that life was to good for him (me included) so I'm not going to shed too many tears for him one way or another, though I do accept that it's about the justice system as well as Steve Avery.

[1874robbo]

So let's start by saying that nowhere did I say I was "convinced". I've gone back and forth but if put on the spot with a gun to my head I would say guilty.

 

In documentary

- Last person to see her alive

- His blood in her car (I don't buy that the FBI could be corrupt also. Yes, maybe local cops would be)

- Car found on property (I do believe he is stupid enough to leave it there before you ask)

- Bones/remains on his property)

- Key found in house (may well have been planted - doesn't mean he can't also be guilty)

 

Not in documentary but you can find this on CNN etc

- Burned a cat alive - speaks to his character for sure

- asked specifically for her to come to his house and she told bosses she was uncomfortable because he creeped her out.

- Constantly called her hiding his phone number (pattern of harassment)

- DNA under the hood of her car - he'd been removing the vehicle ID number

- During his 18 year stint in jail for wrongful conviction he told inmates he wanted to build a dungeon and torture women

- Bullets found WERE fired by Avery's rifle

- His girlfriend (one banned from seeing him due to drinking) has said she's convinced he's guilty and cites a history of violence against her

 

 

Anyway, I don't believe he killed her in the bedroom. He would be incapable of cleaning up DNA. There are definite parts the cops are guessing at due to no witnesses. But the evidence left out the documentary is pretty damming.

The cat being burned was in the show.

His Dna under the hood could have been planted easier than the blood.

Hiding his number could like another poster said be due to him thinking she was ignoring him.

Stupid enough to leave the car there? When he has a crusher, why hide it with a few twigs.

A fellow inmate telling tales? Yeh I'll believe that one.

The ex bird saying he's guilty, yet in the show she was beside herself with upset about this injustice.

as for the bullets, they hunted and I watched something that said there was no conclusive evidence saying they were from his rifle.

FBI not involved? Hmmmmm who knows?

 

 

Can you give me your theory for these.

 

Key found in room by officer from manotowic force who weren't to be anywhere near the scene.

Found on 7th search.

 

Colborn calling on the rav 4 plate days before it was found.

 

Why burn a body in front of your house?

 

The heat required to burn the body to how it was found would not be achievable in a barrel.

 

She was allegedly spotted leaving the yard by a witness after meeting with Avery.

 

Messages deleted on her phone as her inbox had been full then suddenly wasn't, the brother and ex boyfriend got into it.

Why delete possible helpful messages.

 

No DNA found whatsoever in the room where she was alleged to have been killed, not even a splash anywhere, now he wasn't the cleanest guy ever.

 

No DNA found in garage.

 

Jurors having links with manotowic sherrifs office.

 

Accusations of bullying by jurors.

 

I haven't even touched on the questioning of Brandon Dassey yet!!!

Edited January 28, 2016 by 1874robbo

[Daydream Believer]

Nobody is claiming that it's a home run for the prosecution, there are plenty of questions that need answered and if the full truth ever came out then I think the police would be on very shaky ground.

 

People seem to be confusing misbehaviour of the police with conclusive proof of innocence though. There's enough there for me to err on the side of guilty (by a slim margin), but that's sitting in my armchair watching on the telly. I don't know what I would say if I had sat on the jury and spent days looking at all the evidence, but none of us do.

 

Whatever view we take, guilty or innocent, I don't think that any of us can be more than about 70% sure based on what we've seen.

[Sraman]

I watched this last night. A family feud that got way out of hand. As others have said it is impossible to be 100% convinced of Averys guilt or innocence based on the series but it certainly left no doubt in my mind that the Manatowoc Police Department is corrupt.

[Boozyuzi]

Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty ? Programme is on the ID channel on Sunday night at 9pm..

 

Sky channel 522.

[MrRobbo10]

Buting and Strang :wub:

 

Shirley Detective Colborn or whatever his name was calling up the police department asking after Teresa's number plate is the smoking gun?

 

Speaking of Teresa she kinda gets overlooked in all of this, murdered and that. You see a bit of her prick brother but .... on Serial Hae Lee got far more of a fair tribute I think and it became less of a circus.