Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

[Dickies]

Watching a few more episodes now..

Poor Brendan he is completely getting ####ed over. He had no idea what was going on and his lawyer seemed to be working more for the prosecution than the defense. All he cared about was being on a high profile case. It was obvious from that initial interview that Brendan was just trying to guess at what they want him to say so he can get out of there. And the victim's brother sure seems to like being on TV giving interviews to the media. The part when he mentioned that "all they have to do is play the confession" made me roll my eyes. Then right after some lady (I assumed a reporter?) asked him if he had seen the tape and he answers no. Then it looked like she kind of rolled her eyes at him.

The Sheriff is a piece of work. He "has doubts" Avery is innocent of the earlier rape. Seriously? Then his statement of how it would be easier to have Avery killed than to frame him. Wow. The way he said that made it seem like he's had people killed before.

Just finished the episode when they discover Avery's old blood evidence was tampered with, complete with the syringe hole on top. Pretty much no doubt in my mind evidence was planted now. So with that said, how did he get convicted? How does a jury take the earlier wrong conviction, the Sheriff's refusal to admit Avery was innocent and the old blood that was tampered with? Plus Avery's GF called him from jail at the time this supposed horrific rape and murder was taking place, complete with loud screaming that could be heard from 100 of yards away.... yet on that phone call everything seemed a-ok.

Horrible horrible story here. I hope the entire sheriff's department in Manitowoc county ends up dead.

I got tight in the pants every time that reporter's bull#### detector went off.

 

[mitchh1124]

Why is no one worried about Brandon dassey and the old guy with the mustache who was a hunter..only those two backed each other's story. And the time frame was way off

 

[MattFancy]

The Mrs keeps reporting stuff she finds on the internet, so I'm not sure if the leg irons and towel story are factual.

I haven't seen verification of those 2 claims yet either.

The leg irons would have been a huge point in the trial if it was true, and was known at that time.

Unless the documentary left that part out.

1. Leg irons and handcuffs were found in Avery's residence and in Dassey'sThe criminal complaint contended that authorities "located items of restraints within Steven Avery's residence including hand cuffs and leg irons."

According to a lengthy Milwaukee Magazine story from May 1, 2006, Avery admitted they were his, stating of the handcuffs and leg irons, "I bought them. I wanted to try out something different with Jodi (his girlfriend)."

Of course, it's also very curious that Halbach's DNA didn't turn up on these handcuffs and leg irons if they were used to restrain her.

Interestingly, according to the testimony of the Department of Justice investigator in Dassey's trial, that's not the only place such things were found. He testified that leg irons and handcuffs were found in both Avery's and also Dassey's mother's residence, although on cross examination he stated that Brendan Dassey's prints and DNA weren't on them. In otherwords, it was not proven at all that these belonged to Dassey. But they were there, according to court transcripts.

This is why I don't understand why everyone is up and arms about that being left out of the documentary. They were left out because they meant nothing to the case. If there was no DNA on them, how can they say that's what was used?

 

[Sabertooth]

So Brendan mentioned going to the "bombfire" that night several times. I imagine a bunch of people were there for that. Did no one notice a dead body in there?

It was only the two of them at the bonfire. Sketchy.

I've read that others were invited but didn't come.

 

[gianmarco]

Used for what? There was no DNA of hers in the trailer. The only "evidence" she was there and/or raped was Brendan's confession. He wasn't convicted of rape. So what were the restraints used for since it's now relatively clear nothing happened in the trailer?

 

[Mario Kart]

If many of you are swayed by a bias documentary showing only one side and leaving out massive amounts of evidence, we are in trouble since many of you decide on something with so little "all around thinking".

Please allow yourselves at least three varying opinions on most any matter before coming to one conclusion on any topic. There are always three sides to every story.

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't see how you can look at that Dassey "confession" and say they don't need to try him again. Maybe they convict him again, but he should have another trial. I just hated how Weigert buddied up to him. Even patting him on the back when he walked into the interview. So so manipulative to a kid just needed somebody to help him. And the arrogance to say "Brendan, we came down here...on a Saturday because we were told you wanted to talk.' OMG a Saturday???!!!?!

This poor kid has spent 500 Saturdays in custody since they stabbed him in the back repeatedly.

 

[jamny]

If many of you are swayed by a bias documentary showing only one side and leaving out massive amounts of evidence, we are in trouble since many of you decide on something with so little "all around thinking".

Please allow yourselves at least three varying opinions on most any matter before coming to one conclusion on any topic. There are always three sides to every story.

Most people in this thread have looked into it more than just what was shown on the show.

HTH

 

[Sabertooth]

Most people from Wisconsin don't even want to hear that there might be more than one side to the story. Why is that?

 

[chet]

I don't see how you can look at that Dassey "confession" and say they don't need to try him again. Maybe they convict him again, but he should have another trial. I just hated how Weigert buddied up to him. Even patting him on the back when he walked into the interview. So so manipulative to a kid just needed somebody to help him. And the arrogance to say "Brendan, we came down here...on a Saturday because we were told you wanted to talk.' OMG a Saturday???!!!?!

This poor kid has spent 500 Saturdays in custody since they stabbed him in the back repeatedly.

Cops don't conduct interviews to tell the truth; their job is: 1) to get a confession; or 2) to get the suspect to say something to incriminate themselves and they're allowed to lie and mislead to accomplish those goals. ALWAYS LAWYER UP.

Although I agree the cops were loathsome, they were only doing their jobs and I believe they acted legally as it relates to BD.* BD had incompetent counsel.

*If the police didn't allow BD's mother to attend the interview and she wanted to or wasn't given a chance to, then I believe that's wrong.

 

[MattFancy]

If many of you are swayed by a bias documentary showing only one side and leaving out massive amounts of evidence, we are in trouble since many of you decide on something with so little "all around thinking".

Please allow yourselves at least three varying opinions on most any matter before coming to one conclusion on any topic. There are always three sides to every story.

Massive amounts of evidence? We've discussed all the evidence that wasn't shown in the documentary. There certainly wasn't "massive" amounts that were left out.

 

[mitchh1124]

Wasn't there only 3-5 things left out?

And most were pointless....

 

[MattFancy]

Wasn't there only 3-5 things left out?

And most were pointless....

Correct.

There was the fact that he called her a bunch of times and requested her to come out often. As well as using *67 a couple of times to call her. Yes, important, but doesn't necessarily point to him doing it.

Then you have the handcuffs and leg restraints. There was no trace of her DNA on them and the rape charge against Avery was dismissed, so those weren't important.

Oh and they found porn.

 

[TheMagus]

Kratz has talked to the media several times now and hasn't revealed any evidence that prove Avery committed murder. There were things that were definitely weird about the whole situation, but there has by no means been some smoking gun that was left out of the show.

 

[mitchh1124]

Even if he did it. Being on a juror I ask alarming questions

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why did it take 7 days to find the key in a tiny trailer?

Bullet six months later? And most of all

Where the #### is all her blood ?

 

[jamny]

I saw Judge Jennine (sp?) on tv before. She was screaming about how Avery is 100% guilty and there was no planted evidence. Hyping a special she's doing on the case. Don't know channel/time of her show.

I have heard how he drew up a torture chamber while in prison but she's saying Avery said how he would rape and kill a woman and burn her body. How the key had Avery's DNA (forgetting to mention how it didn't have Teresa's DNA), completely shouting down any counter to her claims. I've never seen her show but holy ####, who could listen to that voice?

 

[MattFancy]

I have heard how he drew up a torture chamber while in prison but she's saying Avery said how he would rape and kill a woman and burn her body.

This has been talked about a few times, but did the prosecution ever produce this or was it just hearsay?

 

[Billy Bats]

Wasn't there only 3-5 things left out?

And most were pointless....

You might think they had a home video of the murder the way some people act about the stuff not in the documentary.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Most people from Wisconsin don't even want to hear that there might be more than one side to the story. Why is that?

This is simply not true. What most people from Wisconsin don't want to hear is people from other states claiming he is obviously innocent, the case was thin, and he should be freed immediately. Then we really enjoy the IQ jokes too and the comments about manitowoc county, etc etc. My memories of Manitowoc are from when I have run the last two marathons through three of the neighboring cities and Manitowoc. My memories are of a beautiful maritime community. Not the way people from meccas such as Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots.

I fully realize there are always two sides to every story. I also realize that a lot of the details in this case are very head scratching.

But let's not pretend that the people from out of state are super open minded about this case. They explain away everything that doesn't fit the narrative that this was a frame job. To refer to this case as thin is the biggest joke. This case was nowhere near thin. The only way you can consider this case thin is is you think the cops set him up for all of it, which is certainly possible, but it is still not a slam dunk guarantee. Otherwise you have to clear your head of his past actions, ignore the *67 weirdness on the day of her disappearance, ignore her car on his property, ignore her remains on his property, believe that 100% of what Dassey said was his wild imagination, ignore the fact that he owned a gun and shouldn't have, ignore his dna in the car, ignore it on the latch, etc etc. So yes I get that you can explain these things away by calling it a frame up job, but that is the only way. And a 3 county frame up job that has never had even a whisper of proof is pretty rare. The only "proof" people offer are things that already assume it was a frame job, which of course makes them not proof.

The truth is almost always in between. I think he did it, but I also think the cops probably tried to bolster the case. I dislike that, but I have no proof of it. Neither does anybody else.

 

[TobiasFunke]

If many of you are swayed by a bias documentary showing only one side and leaving out massive amounts of evidence, we are in trouble since many of you decide on something with so little "all around thinking".

Please allow yourselves at least three varying opinions on most any matter before coming to one conclusion on any topic. There are always three sides to every story.

Massive amounts of evidence? We've discussed all the evidence that wasn't shown in the documentary. There certainly wasn't "massive" amounts that were left out.

Also I think there's more than one "conclusion" applicable here. There's the question of whether he did it or not- I don't think anyone can really come to a conclusion on that. But there's two other ones that I think you can fairly reach after watching the documentary. One, the actions of the police and the DA here were really awful. Two, that it's surprising that a jury ruled that there was no reasonable doubt as to Avery's guilt (absent some sort of smoking gun evidence left out of the doc).

I think the first one is kind of important and should be about more than Avery. There's bigger issues there. Should we trust police in evidentiary matters as much as we do? Do we have a choice? Is prosecutor as zealous advocate rather than truth-seeker really the best way to go?

 

[Cjw_55106]

Most people from Wisconsin don't even want to hear that there might be more than one side to the story. Why is that?

This is simply not true. What most people from Wisconsin don't want to hear is people from other states claiming he is obviously innocent, the case was thin, and he should be freed immediately. Then we really enjoy the IQ jokes too and the comments about manitowoc county, etc etc. My memories of Manitowoc are from when I have run the last two marathons through three of the neighboring cities and Manitowoc. My memories are of a beautiful maritime community. Not the way people from meccas such as Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots.

I fully realize there are always two sides to every story. I also realize that a lot of the details in this case are very head scratching.

But let's not pretend that the people from out of state are super open minded about this case. They explain away everything that doesn't fit the narrative that this was a frame job. To refer to this case as thin is the biggest joke. This case was nowhere near thin. The only way you can consider this case thin is is you think the cops set him up for all of it, which is certainly possible, but it is still not a slam dunk guarantee. Otherwise you have to clear your head of his past actions, ignore the *67 weirdness on the day of her disappearance, ignore her car on his property, ignore her remains on his property, believe that 100% of what Dassey said was his wild imagination, ignore the fact that he owned a gun and shouldn't have, ignore his dna in the car, ignore it on the latch, etc etc. So yes I get that you can explain these things away by calling it a frame up job, but that is the only way. And a 3 county frame up job that has never had even a whisper of proof is pretty rare. The only "proof" people offer are things that already assume it was a frame job, which of course makes them not proof.

The truth is almost always in between. I think he did it, but I also think the cops probably tried to bolster the case. I dislike that, but I have no proof of it. Neither does anybody else.

Seems you feel the same way as 90% of people posting in this thread.

 

[Billy Bats]

Most people from Wisconsin don't even want to hear that there might be more than one side to the story. Why is that?

This is simply not true. What most people from Wisconsin don't want to hear is people from other states claiming he is obviously innocent, the case was thin, and he should be freed immediately. Then we really enjoy the IQ jokes too and the comments about manitowoc county, etc etc. My memories of Manitowoc are from when I have run the last two marathons through three of the neighboring cities and Manitowoc. My memories are of a beautiful maritime community. Not the way people from meccas such as Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots.I fully realize there are always two sides to every story. I also realize that a lot of the details in this case are very head scratching.

But let's not pretend that the people from out of state are super open minded about this case. They explain away everything that doesn't fit the narrative that this was a frame job. To refer to this case as thin is the biggest joke. This case was nowhere near thin. The only way you can consider this case thin is is you think the cops set him up for all of it, which is certainly possible, but it is still not a slam dunk guarantee. Otherwise you have to clear your head of his past actions, ignore the *67 weirdness on the day of her disappearance, ignore her car on his property, ignore her remains on his property, believe that 100% of what Dassey said was his wild imagination, ignore the fact that he owned a gun and shouldn't have, ignore his dna in the car, ignore it on the latch, etc etc. So yes I get that you can explain these things away by calling it a frame up job, but that is the only way. And a 3 county frame up job that has never had even a whisper of proof is pretty rare. The only "proof" people offer are things that already assume it was a frame job, which of course makes them not proof.

The truth is almost always in between. I think he did it, but I also think the cops probably tried to bolster the case. I dislike that, but I have no proof of it. Neither does anybody else.

Even you said "I THINK he did it". Reasonable doubt my friend. 58% of the jury voted not guilty at the start of deliberations. (70% without the two undecided)

I just don't see enough hard evidence that proves it was definitively him, along with all the other sketchy evidence they did provide would not be enough for me to vote guilty.

ETA: I've sat on an attempted murder trial. Case was so thin we couldn't even believe it got to a trial. An older lady was undecided, saying "I really think he did it". And this guy was a gang banging scumbag criminal. I wanted to put him away just for his past record. He should be in jail, and probably will be in due time. We asked her, did the prosecution convince you 110% that he did it? She said not even close. Reasonable doubt. You can't ruin someone's life on what you think. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My 2 cents.

 

[mitchh1124]

Same here

Rather a guilty man walk than innocent put in jail...

Where is her blood?

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why does the dna tube have a needle hole in the top?

These are all questions I would ask as part of a jury...

It doesn't add up.

 

[matttyl]

If you serve 18 years for a crime you didn't commit, you should be able to use those years to offset future crimes you're convicted of.

Sure, but he's got life in prison (infinite years).

Last time he called her he didn't hide his number.

Did she answer either of the first two? I haven't heard. If he wanted her there (and not in a "to kill her" kinda way, but that he thought she was attractive - which is creepy but not illegal), and called her using *67 but she didn't pick up either of the first two times, that could explain why he didn't use it the 3rd time (maybe she didn't pick up calls that came through as "blocked").

Where the #### is all her blood ?

I'm also curious about this. Mainly because I don't know the science of it. If she were burned in that burn pit, would any of her blood have gotten into the ground/soil and have been detectable? Is any evidence of blood "burned up" in an open-air fire?

 

[MattFancy]

Same here

Rather a guilty man walk than innocent put in jail...

Where is her blood?

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why does the dna tube have a needle hole in the top?

These are all questions I would ask as part of a jury...

It doesn't add up.

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

 

[bigmarc27]

If many of you are swayed by a bias documentary showing only one side and leaving out massive amounts of evidence, we are in trouble since many of you decide on something with so little "all around thinking".

Please allow yourselves at least three varying opinions on most any matter before coming to one conclusion on any topic. There are always three sides to every story.

I think everyone understands this. We're a bunch of people on a message board, not on a jury. Not sure how "we" are in trouble.

I get that this is a one-sided doc, but the videos of things like the kid's confession. I mean, there's no other way to view that. That's straight up coercion of a kid who's borderline-######ed.Edit: Re-ta-rd-ed. So it's not censored.

 

[GOB]

I think SA is guilty.

But I'm positive most of those cops involved are dirty as hell. They should be in prison as well.

Don't trust the police,

No justice, no peace.

 

[mitchh1124]

Same here

Rather a guilty man walk than innocent put in jail...

Where is her blood?

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why does the dna tube have a needle hole in the top?

These are all questions I would ask as part of a jury...

It doesn't add up.

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

 

[matttyl]

Same here

Rather a guilty man walk than innocent put in jail...

Where is her blood?

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why does the dna tube have a needle hole in the top?

These are all questions I would ask as part of a jury...

It doesn't add up.

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

I believe that's correct. Also, can they determine when that blood was put there (as in before the 31st of October or after)? I mean, I'm sure if you look hard enough you may find my own blood somewhere in my vehicle right now.

 

[mitchh1124]

From Reddit...I believe the same as this dude

"Remember that in order for Steven to be guilty, he had to have killed Teresa in the garage (as the prosecution claims), despite their being none of Teresa's blood in the garage other than on the bullet fragment "found" months later. Her bloody body was then placed in the back of her own car (where her blood was actually found), and driven the 20 FEET or so to the fire pit where she was supposedly burned.

THEN, in order for Brendan to be guilty, she had to have been tortured, raped, stabbed and had her throat cut in the trailer, leave absolutely no biological evidence there, then either drag her or drive her in own car (still alive) the 20 feet to the garage and shoot and kill her, then drag or drive her to the fire pit for burning.

This is insane. If you believe the prosecution in these two cases, you not only have to believe that these two guys somehow managed to clean up all that blood and leave no trace (which is frankly practically impossible) in an extremely short window of time, but you also have to believe that for some reason they had to place Teresa in the trunk of her car to transport her a matter of feet to either the garage or fire pit or both... which also makes absolutely no sense."

 

[RUSF18]

From Reddit...I believe the same as this dude

"Remember that in order for Steven to be guilty, he had to have killed Teresa in the garage (as the prosecution claims), despite their being none of Teresa's blood in the garage other than on the bullet fragment "found" months later. Her bloody body was then placed in the back of her own car (where her blood was actually found), and driven the 20 FEET or so to the fire pit where she was supposedly burned.

THEN, in order for Brendan to be guilty, she had to have been tortured, raped, stabbed and had her throat cut in the trailer, leave absolutely no biological evidence there, then either drag her or drive her in own car (still alive) the 20 feet to the garage and shoot and kill her, then drag or drive her to the fire pit for burning.

This is insane. If you believe the prosecution in these two cases, you not only have to believe that these two guys somehow managed to clean up all that blood and leave no trace (which is frankly practically impossible) in an extremely short window of time, but you also have to believe that for some reason they had to place Teresa in the trunk of her car to transport her a matter of feet to either the garage or fire pit or both... which also makes absolutely no sense."

None of that is true because he started from the faulty premise that the jury needs to believe the prosecution's story and timeline of events. That isn't a legal requirement.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Well, you can still be guilty of murder even if doesnt happen the way the prosecution claims.

I agree with the rest.

 

[JNox3]

Same here

Rather a guilty man walk than innocent put in jail...

Where is her blood?

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why does the dna tube have a needle hole in the top?

These are all questions I would ask as part of a jury...

It doesn't add up.

I'm just starting to watch this but have heard what happens for the most part. I was wondering does the JURY know about the dna tube with the needle hole in the top?

Maybe it'll come up in future episodes since I'm only on #3 I think.

 

[matttyl]

The only blood of her's they found was in the back of the SUV, IIRC.

Why was he blood not in the back as well?

And why did he put her in the trunk and then carry her back to his fire pit?

Lol

Lenk finds everything haha

Would make sense if she weren't killed in the trailer or garage. Say she was killed somewhere else on the 40 acres (or even off the 40 acre compound), and then he brought her back with the SUV.

How about this theory - which could explain his blood stain locations (if I'm remembering where they were), as well as hers. She meets with him at the trailer or garage to take pictures of the van. He somehow coerces her to drive him out somewhere (maybe he says we've got another vehicle we'd like you to photograph, let me show you where it is). The two of them hop into her RAV4 and drive off. If he's in the front passenger seat, and a finger on his right hand is cut/bleeding - that blood could end up on the seat movement lever between the passenger seat and the door (which I believe is where his blood was found, right). When they arrive at this "location" somewhere on the property, that's where he kills her. He then puts her body back in the back of the RAV4 (which is why her blood was found in the back) - and drives back to his trailer to later burn her. When he's starting her car at this point, his finger is still bleeding - so that blood would be found around the key ignition area - which again, it was. He burns the body in part or whole in each of 3 different burn locations in an effort to hide his tracks. Maybe he "stores" the body (likely wrapped up in plastic or something) in the garage for a period of time until it's dark out so he can move the body to the burn locations - which is why he later asked for Dassey's help in cleaning it up, fearing some of her DNA might have gotten out. He then stores the car near the car crusher (picture earlier in this thread shows that it was found near the crusher) waiting for a good time to crush it without anyone else knowing about it.

Thoughts? Fits all the blood evidence together.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Most people from Wisconsin don't even want to hear that there might be more than one side to the story. Why is that?

This is simply not true. What most people from Wisconsin don't want to hear is people from other states claiming he is obviously innocent, the case was thin, and he should be freed immediately. Then we really enjoy the IQ jokes too and the comments about manitowoc county, etc etc. My memories of Manitowoc are from when I have run the last two marathons through three of the neighboring cities and Manitowoc. My memories are of a beautiful maritime community. Not the way people from meccas such as Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots.I fully realize there are always two sides to every story. I also realize that a lot of the details in this case are very head scratching.

But let's not pretend that the people from out of state are super open minded about this case. They explain away everything that doesn't fit the narrative that this was a frame job. To refer to this case as thin is the biggest joke. This case was nowhere near thin. The only way you can consider this case thin is is you think the cops set him up for all of it, which is certainly possible, but it is still not a slam dunk guarantee. Otherwise you have to clear your head of his past actions, ignore the *67 weirdness on the day of her disappearance, ignore her car on his property, ignore her remains on his property, believe that 100% of what Dassey said was his wild imagination, ignore the fact that he owned a gun and shouldn't have, ignore his dna in the car, ignore it on the latch, etc etc. So yes I get that you can explain these things away by calling it a frame up job, but that is the only way. And a 3 county frame up job that has never had even a whisper of proof is pretty rare. The only "proof" people offer are things that already assume it was a frame job, which of course makes them not proof.

The truth is almost always in between. I think he did it, but I also think the cops probably tried to bolster the case. I dislike that, but I have no proof of it. Neither does anybody else.

Even you said "I THINK he did it". Reasonable doubt my friend.58% of the jury voted not guilty at the start of deliberations. (70% without the two undecided)

I just don't see enough hard evidence that proves it was definitively him, along with all the other sketchy evidence they did provide would not be enough for me to vote guilty.

ETA: I've sat on an attempted murder trial. Case was so thin we couldn't even believe it got to a trial. An older lady was undecided, saying "I really think he did it". And this guy was a gang banging scumbag criminal. I wanted to put him away just for his past record. He should be in jail, and probably will be in due time. We asked her, did the prosecution convince you 110% that he did it? She said not even close. Reasonable doubt. You can't ruin someone's life on what you think. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My 2 cents.

You have an incorrect perception of guilt.

I imagine 99% of murder convictions that go to trial all the way to jury deliberations involve "I think he did it". The only way you would know for sure is if you had absolute clear video evidence or if you were a witness. Otherwise there is always the chance that cops planted evidence or other people did.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Most people from Wisconsin don't even want to hear that there might be more than one side to the story. Why is that?

This is simply not true. What most people from Wisconsin don't want to hear is people from other states claiming he is obviously innocent, the case was thin, and he should be freed immediately. Then we really enjoy the IQ jokes too and the comments about manitowoc county, etc etc. My memories of Manitowoc are from when I have run the last two marathons through three of the neighboring cities and Manitowoc. My memories are of a beautiful maritime community. Not the way people from meccas such as Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots.

I fully realize there are always two sides to every story. I also realize that a lot of the details in this case are very head scratching.

But let's not pretend that the people from out of state are super open minded about this case. They explain away everything that doesn't fit the narrative that this was a frame job. To refer to this case as thin is the biggest joke. This case was nowhere near thin. The only way you can consider this case thin is is you think the cops set him up for all of it, which is certainly possible, but it is still not a slam dunk guarantee. Otherwise you have to clear your head of his past actions, ignore the *67 weirdness on the day of her disappearance, ignore her car on his property, ignore her remains on his property, believe that 100% of what Dassey said was his wild imagination, ignore the fact that he owned a gun and shouldn't have, ignore his dna in the car, ignore it on the latch, etc etc. So yes I get that you can explain these things away by calling it a frame up job, but that is the only way. And a 3 county frame up job that has never had even a whisper of proof is pretty rare. The only "proof" people offer are things that already assume it was a frame job, which of course makes them not proof.

The truth is almost always in between. I think he did it, but I also think the cops probably tried to bolster the case. I dislike that, but I have no proof of it. Neither does anybody else.

Seems you feel the same way as 90% of people posting in this thread.

Kind of my point. That's why I responded to Sabertooth's silly claim.

 

[SacramentoBob]

From Reddit...I believe the same as this dude

"Remember that in order for Steven to be guilty, he had to have killed Teresa in the garage (as the prosecution claims), despite their being none of Teresa's blood in the garage other than on the bullet fragment "found" months later. Her bloody body was then placed in the back of her own car (where her blood was actually found), and driven the 20 FEET or so to the fire pit where she was supposedly burned.

THEN, in order for Brendan to be guilty, she had to have been tortured, raped, stabbed and had her throat cut in the trailer, leave absolutely no biological evidence there, then either drag her or drive her in own car (still alive) the 20 feet to the garage and shoot and kill her, then drag or drive her to the fire pit for burning.

This is insane. If you believe the prosecution in these two cases, you not only have to believe that these two guys somehow managed to clean up all that blood and leave no trace (which is frankly practically impossible) in an extremely short window of time, but you also have to believe that for some reason they had to place Teresa in the trunk of her car to transport her a matter of feet to either the garage or fire pit or both... which also makes absolutely no sense."

None of that is true because he started from the faulty premise that the jury needs to believe the prosecution's story and timeline of events. That isn't a legal requirement.

Right, but if you don't believe the prosecution's story/timeline of events, that should raise some serious doubts.

 

[SIDA!]

From Reddit...I believe the same as this dude

"Remember that in order for Steven to be guilty, he had to have killed Teresa in the garage (as the prosecution claims), despite their being none of Teresa's blood in the garage other than on the bullet fragment "found" months later. Her bloody body was then placed in the back of her own car (where her blood was actually found), and driven the 20 FEET or so to the fire pit where she was supposedly burned.

THEN, in order for Brendan to be guilty, she had to have been tortured, raped, stabbed and had her throat cut in the trailer, leave absolutely no biological evidence there, then either drag her or drive her in own car (still alive) the 20 feet to the garage and shoot and kill her, then drag or drive her to the fire pit for burning.

This is insane. If you believe the prosecution in these two cases, you not only have to believe that these two guys somehow managed to clean up all that blood and leave no trace (which is frankly practically impossible) in an extremely short window of time, but you also have to believe that for some reason they had to place Teresa in the trunk of her car to transport her a matter of feet to either the garage or fire pit or both... which also makes absolutely no sense."

None of that is true because he started from the faulty premise that the jury needs to believe the prosecution's story and timeline of events. That isn't a legal requirement.

True. In theory. We have established that fact.

How do you get around reasonable doubt though if you believe the murder went down another way?

*and the reddit dude's timeline doesn't even have the call to/from jodi.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Most people from Wisconsin don't even want to hear that there might be more than one side to the story. Why is that?

This is simply not true. What most people from Wisconsin don't want to hear is people from other states claiming he is obviously innocent, the case was thin, and he should be freed immediately. Then we really enjoy the IQ jokes too and the comments about manitowoc county, etc etc. My memories of Manitowoc are from when I have run the last two marathons through three of the neighboring cities and Manitowoc. My memories are of a beautiful maritime community. Not the way people from meccas such as Bakersfield describe it as a breeding ground for low IQ maggots.I fully realize there are always two sides to every story. I also realize that a lot of the details in this case are very head scratching.

But let's not pretend that the people from out of state are super open minded about this case. They explain away everything that doesn't fit the narrative that this was a frame job. To refer to this case as thin is the biggest joke. This case was nowhere near thin. The only way you can consider this case thin is is you think the cops set him up for all of it, which is certainly possible, but it is still not a slam dunk guarantee. Otherwise you have to clear your head of his past actions, ignore the *67 weirdness on the day of her disappearance, ignore her car on his property, ignore her remains on his property, believe that 100% of what Dassey said was his wild imagination, ignore the fact that he owned a gun and shouldn't have, ignore his dna in the car, ignore it on the latch, etc etc. So yes I get that you can explain these things away by calling it a frame up job, but that is the only way. And a 3 county frame up job that has never had even a whisper of proof is pretty rare. The only "proof" people offer are things that already assume it was a frame job, which of course makes them not proof.

The truth is almost always in between. I think he did it, but I also think the cops probably tried to bolster the case. I dislike that, but I have no proof of it. Neither does anybody else.

Even you said "I THINK he did it". Reasonable doubt my friend.58% of the jury voted not guilty at the start of deliberations. (70% without the two undecided)

I just don't see enough hard evidence that proves it was definitively him, along with all the other sketchy evidence they did provide would not be enough for me to vote guilty.

ETA: I've sat on an attempted murder trial. Case was so thin we couldn't even believe it got to a trial. An older lady was undecided, saying "I really think he did it". And this guy was a gang banging scumbag criminal. I wanted to put him away just for his past record. He should be in jail, and probably will be in due time. We asked her, did the prosecution convince you 110% that he did it? She said not even close. Reasonable doubt. You can't ruin someone's life on what you think. It has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My 2 cents.

You have an incorrect perception of guilt.

I imagine 99% of murder convictions that go to trial all the way to jury deliberations involve "I think he did it". The only way you would know for sure is if you had absolute clear video evidence or if you were a witness. Otherwise there is always the chance that cops planted evidence or other people did.

Yes, there's always a chance that the cops plant evidence in every case. But there's actually some reason to believe it did occur in this case.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was found out that evidence is planted/tampered with in >75% of cases.

 

[mitchh1124]

What is most amazing...the lady randomly finds the car within 10 mins of searching 40 acres...haha

For perspective, 1 acre is the size of a football field

40 football fields and found the car in 10 mins

 

[Mors Venit]

Would a blocked number come up *69?

Perhaps he was just using different phones.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I was surprised the cop testified so matter of factly that the spot where the keys were later found in plain sight had been searched thoroughly before. It was like he was trying to distance himself from any fall out that would come later.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I was surprised the cop testified so matter of factly that the spot where the keys were later found in plain sight had been searched thoroughly before. It was like he was trying to distance himself from any fall out that would come later.

Or, he was just telling the truth.

 

[mitchh1124]

I was surprised the cop testified so matter of factly that the spot where the keys were later found in plain sight had been searched thoroughly before. It was like he was trying to distance himself from any fall out that would come later.

Or, he was just telling the truth.

Yeah, the county that put him in prison for false rape..has two officers find all the evidence. Meanwhile, the real experts ( FBI) sweep the area and find nothing....

Ironic?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Of course, if you believe the keys were planted, that raises the question of... where did they actually find the keys? And why did they wait so long to plant them?

 

[SacramentoBob]

It seemed like from the beginning the police filmed their search of the Avery compound, likely to bolster themselves against any claims of tampering later. Are there tapes of the initial search of Avery's trailer where the keys were eventually found?

 

[JNox3]

Same here

Rather a guilty man walk than innocent put in jail...

Where is her blood?

Why is lenk finding everything?

Why does the dna tube have a needle hole in the top?

These are all questions I would ask as part of a jury...

It doesn't add up.

I'm just starting to watch this but have heard what happens for the most part. I was wondering does the JURY know about the dna tube with the needle hole in the top?

Maybe it'll come up in future episodes since I'm only on #3 I think.

 

[parrot]

I was surprised the cop testified so matter of factly that the spot where the keys were later found in plain sight had been searched thoroughly before. It was like he was trying to distance himself from any fall out that would come later.

What I found weird about the keys was Colborn's(?) statement to the effect of "I'll admit I treated that bookcase pretty roughly." Why do you treat a bookcase roughly?

 

[MattFancy]

Of course, if you believe the keys were planted, that raises the question of... where did they actually find the keys? And why did they wait so long to plant them?

Could Lenk or Colburn have found them in the car and then waited until they got a chance to be unsupervised in the trailer and drop them?