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

[mitchh1124]

The slow kid got beat around but the police...

How on a jury with the evidence say guilty?

Needle hole in test tube

No Teresa DNA on her keys..

Odd

 

[SIDA!]

Basically, the only thing the prosecution had saying that the crime happened the way Kratz said it did was the statements of Dassey.

That is the ONLY thing.

Even if the key found in Avery's room was actually put there by Avery....there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred in his room.

Oh, and a magic bullet that magically showed up four months later when conveniently Manitowoc County Sheriff's Detective Dave Remiker was present (and after he had already been apart of the search team back in November when the department wasn't even supposed to be on the property...like Lenk and Colborn who fond the key). And why were they at the scene four months later...because Dip#### Dassey's cousin said he said such and such (which she later recanted and said she lied about on the stand).

Up until Dassey's statements to investigators when I think he was basically first interviewed in February...the prosecution basically had the following:

A car with Teresa's and Avery's blood and sweat(?) DNA (that may have been planted)

Her body and the charred remains

And a key found under suspicious circumstances in Avery's bedroom.

That is it. Unless I am missing something.

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

There is no evidence that she was stabbed or had her throat slit in any way, be it the trailer or the garage.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the trailer.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the garage save for a "magic bullet" found months later with Teresa's DNA that should not have been allowed due to an invalid test.

I think that when you break down the "investigation" into two parts (pre and post Dassey interviews) it really sinks in how thin the prosecution's case was.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Apparently the ex boyfriend violated some laws by hacking her phone. Plus he, you know, killed her....maybe.

Pretty cool how he just guessed usernames and passwords to get into her account. "Ah well she's close with her sister so I figured it had something to do with that". Orly?

Him and the brother got awfully jumpy when the reporters asked them about being on the Avery grounds when talking about that chick finding the car in 20 minutes on a 40 acre lot filled with thousands of cars. Divine intervention, yeah.

Yup, he got very defensive very quick. Thought that was telling.

I just started watching this series and got to this episode. Me and the Mrs. both found that interview very strange. And the ex-boyfriend is leading the search of the missing/dead woman? That sets off alarm bells right there.

 

[GOB]

Think it was possession of a firearm or something like that

What's that, 30 day in jail at most?

Probably. But that's my point, if you're saying once the 1st charge was guilty, the other 2 didn't matter, then why find him guilty of the one that was the least amount of time?

Because if you found him guilty of the first - the third was obvious (he shot her, at least according to the prosecution). They didn't produce enough evidence for the 2nd charge.

I dunno, we'll have to agree to disagree here. I just don't get how saying he's killed her, with a gun he shouldn't have had, but he didn't burn the body, even though he had a bonfire that night. Something just doesn't add up other than the jury agreeing to murder but not mutilating the body.

Well, nothing in this case really "adds up". Apparently the prosecution presented a good enough argument that he killed her (via the gun), but they didn't have enough evidence to show that it was him that burned her (maybe something to do with bones being found at 3 locations)?

I thought I read that some jurors traded 1 charge for another.So they agreed to let him off on 1 charge, and they would vote guilty for count 1.

Obviously if that happened, it is pretty dumb on their part but that's what I've read.

I've been on a jury before and absolutely nothing would shock me. It was not a meeting of the minds.

 

[GOB]

Apparently the ex boyfriend violated some laws by hacking her phone. Plus he, you know, killed her....maybe.

Pretty cool how he just guessed usernames and passwords to get into her account. "Ah well she's close with her sister so I figured it had something to do with that". Orly?Him and the brother got awfully jumpy when the reporters asked them about being on the Avery grounds when talking about that chick finding the car in 20 minutes on a 40 acre lot filled with thousands of cars. Divine intervention, yeah.

Yup, he got very defensive very quick. Thought that was telling.

I just started watching this series and got to this episode. Me and the Mrs. both found that interview very strange. And the ex-boyfriend is leading the search of the missing/dead woman? That sets off alarm bells right there.

Eh I think if I went missing a bunch of my exes would be looking for me... Sure it would probably be just to confirm I'm removed from this Earth. Doesn't matter had sex.

 

[mitchh1124]

Boyfriend and roommate seem odd in court too...

I thought it was odd when the brother said I just wish we could start the grieving process...like he knew she was dead already

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To answer SIDA!'s question.

A. I think it's extremely unlikely that Avery or Dassey slit her throat in the trailer or shot her in the garage. Pretty close to zero percent chance.

B & C. I feel like I don't have nearly enough to go on to say whether Avery killed her some other way. My gut feeling from listening to him throughout the show is that he doesn't sound like a guilty man -- but my gut feelings are wrong very often, so I'd rather rely on physical evidence. Unfortunately, there are extreme problems with the main pieces of physical evidence (the car, the key, the bullet, the bones). There's all kinds of reasonable doubt, so as a juror I'd certainly vote 'not guilty,' but there are plenty of unexplained questions if he's actually innocent. Where did she go after she left his property? Who killed her? Why did Brenden act like he was hiding something even when he wasn't busy incriminating himself with obviously false confessions? Probably the two biggest factors that point in the "guilty" direction, for me, are (1) the judge pretty clearly thought he was guilty, and he heard all the evidence and presumably isn't as easy to fool as the jurors, and (2) Strang, at the end, seems pretty open to the possibility that Avery is factually guilty (even though he's adamant that he shouldn't have been found legally guilty). Suicide seems unlikely. I really doubt the cops killed her. (The only really bad police, it seemed, were Lenk and Colburn. But how would they have known that Halbach was going to Avery's property? I think it's very likely that they did their dirty work after her death, not before.) There are some other characters we don't know enough about to rule out -- her brother, Avery's brothers, her roommate, to name a few. But there's no good evidence against any of them. I think I'm stuck punting this question and going with 50% B and 50% C for now.

 

[matttyl]

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

He wasn't charged with this, though.

 

[matttyl]

Lawyers:

Let's say that Avery is found totally innocent of the murder. Someone else did it and set up much of it - though Avery is still a creep.

If that happens, can anything from the $36m wrongful imprisonment suit be brought back up - or is that entire situation closed no matter what happened following his $400k settlement? I mean, can he later argue that he was forced to agree to that settlement under duress caused by the state yet again?

I mean, he could obviously sue for a wrongful conviction on the murder, sure - but was just curious if he could being up anything prior to his settlement.

 

[SIDA!]

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

He wasn't charged with this, though.

Actually he was...but only because of what Dassey said. The prosecution added three charges...quickly removed two of them but left the third that was later dismissed as well.

My point is...that the prosecution based their theory of the murder (which Kratz still sticks to) and how it happened based on what Dassey said. And he said they raped her.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Basically, the only thing the prosecution had saying that the crime happened the way Kratz said it did was the statements of Dassey.

That is the ONLY thing.

Even if the key found in Avery's room was actually put there by Avery....there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred in his room.

Oh, and a magic bullet that magically showed up four months later when conveniently Manitowoc County Sheriff's Detective Dave Remiker was present (and after he had already been apart of the search team back in November when the department wasn't even supposed to be on the property...like Lenk and Colborn who fond the key). And why were they at the scene four months later...because Dip#### Dassey's cousin said he said such and such (which she later recanted and said she lied about on the stand).

Up until Dassey's statements to investigators when I think he was basically first interviewed in February...the prosecution basically had the following:

A car with Teresa's and Avery's blood and sweat(?) DNA (that may have been planted)

Her body and the charred remains

And a key found under suspicious circumstances in Avery's bedroom.

That is it. Unless I am missing something.

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

There is no evidence that she was stabbed or had her throat slit in any way, be it the trailer or the garage.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the trailer.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the garage save for a "magic bullet" found months later with Teresa's DNA that should not have been allowed due to an invalid test.

I think that when you break down the "investigation" into two parts (pre and post Dassey interviews) it really sinks in how thin the prosecution's case was.

Finding the vics remains on Avery's property, her key in his trailer and his blood in her car isn't something I'd consider "thin".

 

[matttyl]

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

He wasn't charged with this, though.

Actually he was...but only because of what Dassey said. The prosecution added three charges...quickly removed two of them but left the third that was later dismissed as well.

My point is...that the prosecution based their theory of the murder (which Kratz still sticks to) and how it happened based on what Dassey said. And he said they raped her.

Right, I meant he wasn't found guilty of this, though. If he's exonerated he may be able to use for defamation of character or something by them saying it. But then they can just claim that's what Dassey said.

 

[Dickies]

Can someone just tell me the ending?

Just ask KingPrawn

 

[SIDA!]

Basically, the only thing the prosecution had saying that the crime happened the way Kratz said it did was the statements of Dassey.

That is the ONLY thing.

Even if the key found in Avery's room was actually put there by Avery....there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred in his room.

Oh, and a magic bullet that magically showed up four months later when conveniently Manitowoc County Sheriff's Detective Dave Remiker was present (and after he had already been apart of the search team back in November when the department wasn't even supposed to be on the property...like Lenk and Colborn who fond the key). And why were they at the scene four months later...because Dip#### Dassey's cousin said he said such and such (which she later recanted and said she lied about on the stand).

Up until Dassey's statements to investigators when I think he was basically first interviewed in February...the prosecution basically had the following:

A car with Teresa's and Avery's blood and sweat(?) DNA (that may have been planted)

Her body and the charred remains

And a key found under suspicious circumstances in Avery's bedroom.

That is it. Unless I am missing something.

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

There is no evidence that she was stabbed or had her throat slit in any way, be it the trailer or the garage.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the trailer.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the garage save for a "magic bullet" found months later with Teresa's DNA that should not have been allowed due to an invalid test.

I think that when you break down the "investigation" into two parts (pre and post Dassey interviews) it really sinks in how thin the prosecution's case was.

Finding the vics remains on Avery's property, her key in his trailer and his blood in her car isn't something I'd consider "thin".

Anytime authorities find a body on your property..it isn't a good thing.

When they find it on a 40 acre property where nearly a dozen people live and is also the site of a commercial business...not exactly the same.

If you believe the key and blood evidence was planted (which I do), what do you have before the Dassey statement?

A dead person on your property along with their car. That is thin in my eyes when it comes to proving somebody is guilty of murder.

Now, if you are of the opinion that the key and blood evidence wasn't planted...then I can agree that that isn't exactly thin.

 

[RUSF18]

Basically, the only thing the prosecution had saying that the crime happened the way Kratz said it did was the statements of Dassey.

That is the ONLY thing.

Even if the key found in Avery's room was actually put there by Avery....there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred in his room.

Oh, and a magic bullet that magically showed up four months later when conveniently Manitowoc County Sheriff's Detective Dave Remiker was present (and after he had already been apart of the search team back in November when the department wasn't even supposed to be on the property...like Lenk and Colborn who fond the key). And why were they at the scene four months later...because Dip#### Dassey's cousin said he said such and such (which she later recanted and said she lied about on the stand).

Up until Dassey's statements to investigators when I think he was basically first interviewed in February...the prosecution basically had the following:

A car with Teresa's and Avery's blood and sweat(?) DNA (that may have been planted)

Her body and the charred remains

And a key found under suspicious circumstances in Avery's bedroom.

That is it. Unless I am missing something.

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

There is no evidence that she was stabbed or had her throat slit in any way, be it the trailer or the garage.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the trailer.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the garage save for a "magic bullet" found months later with Teresa's DNA that should not have been allowed due to an invalid test.

I think that when you break down the "investigation" into two parts (pre and post Dassey interviews) it really sinks in how thin the prosecution's case was.

Finding the vics remains on Avery's property, her key in his trailer and his blood in her car isn't something I'd consider "thin".

I agree. If this was a story of a random guy with no history with the police, and there were never any accusations of planting of evidence, remains on his property + key + DNA linking him and her could be enough for a reasonable jury to convict. I'm not sure why SIDA said "Even if the key found in Avery's room was actually put there by Avery....there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred in his room." If this hypothetical person got up on the stand and admitted that he had a dead person's key hidden among his belongings, but couldn't explain why, again a reasonable jury could convict without much else.

It doesn't matter if there isn't any way to determine where the person was killed. The lawyers in here can correct me but I believe I've heard of cases where the prosecution never even offered up their own version of how murders took place and just referred to whatever evidence there was, and it resulted in convictions.

 

[SIDA!]

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

He wasn't charged with this, though.

Actually he was...but only because of what Dassey said. The prosecution added three charges...quickly removed two of them but left the third that was later dismissed as well.

My point is...that the prosecution based their theory of the murder (which Kratz still sticks to) and how it happened based on what Dassey said. And he said they raped her.

Right, I meant he wasn't found guilty of this, though. If he's exonerated he may be able to use for defamation of character or something by them saying it. But then they can just claim that's what Dassey said.

I am not sure if our wires are crossed here.

I was simply making the statement that the entire story of how the murder went down came from Dassey. That was all the prosecution had because none of the evidence supports Dassey's statements. Dassey also stated that the sexual assault happened in the trailer. And there was no evidence of that (semen, blood DNA, marks on the bed from shackles or handcuffs, etc).

At the end of the day, Avery was found guilty of killing this woman, but not of dismembering her. And yet, there is basically no way they could have just thrown a whole human body in a fire pit and had it burn the way it did. At least I am of that opinion, but maybe I am wrong.

 

[SIDA!]

Basically, the only thing the prosecution had saying that the crime happened the way Kratz said it did was the statements of Dassey.

That is the ONLY thing.

Even if the key found in Avery's room was actually put there by Avery....there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred in his room.

Oh, and a magic bullet that magically showed up four months later when conveniently Manitowoc County Sheriff's Detective Dave Remiker was present (and after he had already been apart of the search team back in November when the department wasn't even supposed to be on the property...like Lenk and Colborn who fond the key). And why were they at the scene four months later...because Dip#### Dassey's cousin said he said such and such (which she later recanted and said she lied about on the stand).

Up until Dassey's statements to investigators when I think he was basically first interviewed in February...the prosecution basically had the following:

A car with Teresa's and Avery's blood and sweat(?) DNA (that may have been planted)

Her body and the charred remains

And a key found under suspicious circumstances in Avery's bedroom.

That is it. Unless I am missing something.

There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in any way. There is no evidence that she was raped or sexually assaulted in the bedroom.

There is no evidence that she was stabbed or had her throat slit in any way, be it the trailer or the garage.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the trailer.

There is no evidence that she was shot in the garage save for a "magic bullet" found months later with Teresa's DNA that should not have been allowed due to an invalid test.

I think that when you break down the "investigation" into two parts (pre and post Dassey interviews) it really sinks in how thin the prosecution's case was.

Finding the vics remains on Avery's property, her key in his trailer and his blood in her car isn't something I'd consider "thin".

I'm not sure why SIDA said "Even if the key found in Avery's room was actually put there by Avery....there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred in his room." If this hypothetical person got up on the stand and admitted that he had a dead person's key hidden among his belongings, but couldn't explain why, again a reasonable jury could convict without much else.

It doesn't matter if there isn't any way to determine where the person was killed. The lawyers in here can correct me but I believe I've heard of cases where the prosecution never even offered up their own version of how murders took place and just referred to whatever evidence there was, and it resulted in convictions.

I wasn't saying that a jury couldn't or wouldn't convict.

What I was saying was that by virtue of the key being there and even if we KNEW that Avery placed it there, there was no evidence that the crime occurred in the trailer...which is what the prosecution alleges. Kratz still believes that the crime happened in the trailer and the garage.

So, I was illustrating that before they interviewed Dassey in late February...all they had was the remains, car and key (that nearly everyone believes was planted by the cops).

 

[SacramentoBob]

I do find it odd that if Avery was the murderer, he was coherent enough to dispose of the body, but to not wipe down the obvious blood stain on the dashboard and leave her keys in his trailer. That seems pretty half-assed. If all they have is the cremains (such a weird word) as evidence it's a lot harder to convict because too many people live on the properly to single one person out.

 

[Wrigley]

I do find it odd that if Avery was the murderer, he was coherent enough to dispose of the body, but to not wipe down the obvious blood stain on the dashboard and leave her keys in his trailer. That seems pretty half-assed. If all they have is the cremains (such a weird word) as evidence it's a lot harder to convict because too many people live on the properly to single one person out.

Yet he was able to wipe all of his fingerprints from the car, somehow bleeding while doing it.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I don't really understand what Avery's motive could be here either. He just decides to kill some chick he does business with on a regular basis, while in the middle of a lawsuit with the county and going for a huge multi-million dollar pay day? It would've had to have been some kind of spur of the moment thing. Rape doesn't really make sense.

 

[gianmarco]

Right. Let's bleach my entire garage but let's not put any bleach on her car where we apparently put her in as a bloodied mess to haul her off somewhere. And instead of burning or crushing the car or not cleaning the car up at all, let's leave it on the lot and throw a few twigs on it.

Gimme a break.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Right. Let's bleach my entire garage but let's not put any bleach on her car where we apparently put her in as a bloodied mess to haul her off somewhere. And instead of burning or crushing the car or not cleaning the car up at all, let's leave it on the lot and throw a few twigs on it.

Gimme a break.

Bleach may ruin the paint job. Think things through next time.

 

[SIDA!]

Right. Let's bleach my entire garage but let's not put any bleach on her car where we apparently put her in as a bloodied mess to haul her off somewhere. And instead of burning or crushing the car or not cleaning the car up at all, let's leave it on the lot and throw a few twigs on it.

Gimme a break.

Well..not the entire garage. He poured the bleach around the dozen or so shells that were on the ground...

 

[blend]

Here's an interesting topic in Reddit about bleach - https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3yu8ak/what_you_probably_dont_know_about_bleach/

I'm not sure about the validity of what is being claimed, but apparently, the bleach that would stain your clothes is not the type that would eliminate blood from a garage floor.

Chlorine bleach bleaches clothes but doesn't remove blood evidence. Oxygen bleaches removes blood evidence but doesn't bleach clothes. If SA had used oxygen bleach, BD's jeans wouldn't have white spots. If he had used chlorine bleach, that garage would've lit up like a Christmas tree when they looked for TH's blood.

 

[SIDA!]

As an aside for guys who may be more familiar with guns and ballistics than I am.

Is it possible to shoot a person through the head in such a manner as to kill her with one shot (thru and thru) using a 22?

If we are to believe the prosecution, the bullet went through her head and came out of her body thus allowing it to be found. If she had been shot more than once you would figure at a bullet would have still been lodged in her body and thus found in the cremains after they burned.

Of course, they didn't need to shoot her more than once as it could have been one shot in combination with stabbing, slitting or any number of different ways.

 

[Billy Bats]

I do find it odd that if Avery was the murderer, he was coherent enough to dispose of the body, but to not wipe down the obvious blood stain on the dashboard and leave her keys in his trailer. That seems pretty half-assed. If all they have is the cremains (such a weird word) as evidence it's a lot harder to convict because too many people live on the properly to single one person out.

If it was his blood from an open wound, then it's safe to assume he also left blood on the steering wheel and gear shift as well. If he cleaned that up so well, pretty surprising that he left some at the ignition.

 

[LAUNCH]

http://blog.siriusxm.com/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-addresses-5-big-questions-we-all-have/

Michael Smerconish asked former Calumet Country District Attorney Ken Kratz to address five issues

 

[General Malaise]

I don't really understand what Avery's motive could be here either. He just decides to kill some chick he does business with on a regular basis, while in the middle of a lawsuit with the county and going for a huge multi-million dollar pay day? It would've had to have been some kind of spur of the moment thing. Rape doesn't really make sense.

Yeah, this is where I'm at with this. If somebody told me that I was about to win a $36 Million judgement (which I think is tax free, but I don't know) and all I have to do is not murder or rape, I'm pretty sure I could hold out until my payday.

 

[matttyl]

As an aside for guys who may be more familiar with guns and ballistics than I am.

Is it possible to shoot a person through the head in such a manner as to kill her with one shot (thru and thru) using a 22?

If we are to believe the prosecution, the bullet went through her head and came out of her body thus allowing it to be found. If she had been shot more than once you would figure at a bullet would have still been lodged in her body and thus found in the cremains after they burned.

Of course, they didn't need to shoot her more than once as it could have been one shot in combination with stabbing, slitting or any number of different ways.

I highly doubt it. An actual .22 cal bullet is pretty small. Some wouldn't even go through a thick sheet of plywood.

 

[SIDA!]

http://blog.siriusxm.com/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-addresses-5-big-questions-we-all-have/

Michael Smerconish asked former Calumet Country District Attorney Ken Kratz to address five issues

Kratz is such a piece of ####.

He says that it all happened in the garage...including her being shot 10-11 times.

But only one bullet found? And we are supposed to believe that all the blood spatter from not just one round was cleaned up...but all 10-11 rounds?

No bullets embedded in the body found in the cremains. Yeah...I believe that.

 

[matttyl]

Apparently when Teresa originally went missing, her status was "Missing Endangered", which apparently is for someone who's missing who also has some mental health issues?

Might lend some credence to the suicide theory.

 

[ArbyMelt]

I don't really understand what Avery's motive could be here either. He just decides to kill some chick he does business with on a regular basis, while in the middle of a lawsuit with the county and going for a huge multi-million dollar pay day? It would've had to have been some kind of spur of the moment thing. Rape doesn't really make sense.

Yeah, this is where I'm at with this. If somebody told me that I was about to win a $36 Million judgement (which I think is tax free, but I don't know) and all I have to do is not murder or rape, I'm pretty sure I could hold out until my payday.

There have been plenty of rich people who have murdered. If a person is sick, they are sick, regardless if there is a pay day coming. Look at Robert Durst, guy had billions and was heir to a fortune but he kept killing people (allegedly) and the family settled with him and tossed him aside.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I don't really understand what Avery's motive could be here either. He just decides to kill some chick he does business with on a regular basis, while in the middle of a lawsuit with the county and going for a huge multi-million dollar pay day? It would've had to have been some kind of spur of the moment thing. Rape doesn't really make sense.

Yeah, this is where I'm at with this. If somebody told me that I was about to win a $36 Million judgement (which I think is tax free, but I don't know) and all I have to do is not murder or rape, I'm pretty sure I could hold out until my payday.

...and then pay someone to murder and rape for me.

 

[bigmarc27]

So what is the likely endgame here?

Any chance this documentary actually spurs a retrial?

The publicity dies down in a few months and everyone forgets about this by March?

 

[General Malaise]

I don't really understand what Avery's motive could be here either. He just decides to kill some chick he does business with on a regular basis, while in the middle of a lawsuit with the county and going for a huge multi-million dollar pay day? It would've had to have been some kind of spur of the moment thing. Rape doesn't really make sense.

Yeah, this is where I'm at with this. If somebody told me that I was about to win a $36 Million judgement (which I think is tax free, but I don't know) and all I have to do is not murder or rape, I'm pretty sure I could hold out until my payday.

There have been plenty of rich people who have murdered. If a person is sick, they are sick, regardless if there is a pay day coming. Look at Robert Durst, guy had billions and was heir to a fortune but he kept killing people (allegedly) and the family settled with him and tossed him aside.

But Avery had never murdered before and we KNOW he was wrongfully accused of rape. Did he have a history of raping women we don't know about? You honestly think a dirt poor person with no history of murder or rape - who KNOWS he is about to be paid big time - just ups and kills a woman because he is all murdery? That makes no sense. Robert Durst and Steven Avery aren't similar at all.

 

[General Malaise]

I don't really understand what Avery's motive could be here either. He just decides to kill some chick he does business with on a regular basis, while in the middle of a lawsuit with the county and going for a huge multi-million dollar pay day? It would've had to have been some kind of spur of the moment thing. Rape doesn't really make sense.

Yeah, this is where I'm at with this. If somebody told me that I was about to win a $36 Million judgement (which I think is tax free, but I don't know) and all I have to do is not murder or rape, I'm pretty sure I could hold out until my payday.

...and then pay someone to murder and rape for me.

This guy gets it.

 

[Sabertooth]

So what is the likely endgame here?

Any chance this documentary actually spurs a retrial?

The publicity dies down in a few months and everyone forgets about this by March?

I'm think Dassey will get a new trial. As he should.

 

[matttyl]

So what is the likely endgame here?

Any chance this documentary actually spurs a retrial?

The publicity dies down in a few months and everyone forgets about this by March?

I think some new "evidence" comes forth. Some other cop comes forward and says he heard such and such. Someone from the area comes forward and says "I actually saw that car in such and such a place." Something new comes to light in the next few months.

 

[Billy Bats]

http://blog.siriusxm.com/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-addresses-5-big-questions-we-all-have/

Michael Smerconish asked former Calumet Country District Attorney Ken Kratz to address five issues

Kratz is such a piece of ####.He says that it all happened in the garage...including her being shot 10-11 times.

But only one bullet found? And we are supposed to believe that all the blood spatter from not just one round was cleaned up...but all 10-11 rounds?

No bullets embedded in the body found in the cremains. Yeah...I believe that.

Answering one question, he states the cut on his finger is from when he hid the car. In another answer, he repeatedly states that the DNA on the hood latch is sweat DNA, non-blood DNA. So he cut his finger while hiding the car, then they did more cleanup of blood after that? This guy cleaned up a whole lot of blood but didnt give to ####s about hiding the car, car key and the cleanup of all bullet remains.

 

[Cjw_55106]

http://blog.siriusxm.com/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-addresses-5-big-questions-we-all-have/

Michael Smerconish asked former Calumet Country District Attorney Ken Kratz to address five issues

Kratz is such a piece of ####.

He says that it all happened in the garage...including her being shot 10-11 times.

But only one bullet found? And we are supposed to believe that all the blood spatter from not just one round was cleaned up...but all 10-11 rounds?

No bullets embedded in the body found in the cremains. Yeah...I believe that.

Im obviously not a fan of Kratz, but I thought the way he answered the questions was fine overall.

 

[Dickies]

To answer SIDA!'s question.

A. I think it's extremely unlikely that Avery or Dassey slit her throat in the trailer or shot her in the garage. Pretty close to zero percent chance.

B & C. I feel like I don't have nearly enough to go on to say whether Avery killed her some other way. My gut feeling from listening to him throughout the show is that he doesn't sound like a guilty man -- but my gut feelings are wrong very often, so I'd rather rely on physical evidence. Unfortunately, there are extreme problems with the main pieces of physical evidence (the car, the key, the bullet, the bones). There's all kinds of reasonable doubt, so as a juror I'd certainly vote 'not guilty,' but there are plenty of unexplained questions if he's actually innocent. Where did she go after she left his property? Who killed her? Why did Brenden act like he was hiding something even when he wasn't busy incriminating himself with obviously false confessions? Probably the two biggest factors that point in the "guilty" direction, for me, are (1) the judge pretty clearly thought he was guilty, and he heard all the evidence and presumably isn't as easy to fool as the jurors, and (2) Strang, at the end, seems pretty open to the possibility that Avery is factually guilty (even though he's adamant that he shouldn't have been found legally guilty). Suicide seems unlikely. I really doubt the cops killed her. (The only really bad police, it seemed, were Lenk and Colburn. But how would they have known that Halbach was going to Avery's property? I think it's very likely that they did their dirty work after her death, not before.) There are some other characters we don't know enough about to rule out -- her brother, Avery's brothers, her roommate, to name a few. But there's no good evidence against any of them. I think I'm stuck punting this question and going with 50% B and 50% C for now.

" the judge pretty clearly thought he was guilty, and he heard all the evidence and presumably isn't as easy to fool as the jurors,"

In my mind he is just an extension of the police with just as much motive to find him guilty as they do. In my limited experience the judges are biased; I fought a traffic ticket for being clocked 85 in a 65. i had cruise control on set at 70. I did not contest that I was speeding, but most certainly not going 85 and was also clearly not near the fastest car on the highway that night. The cop responded to the judge that he indeed clocked me at 85 and I was toast. Nothing I could have said would overcome what the cop said.

"There are some other characters we don't know enough about to rule out -- her brother, Avery's brothers, her roommate, to name a few. But there's no good evidence against any of them. "

The sheriffs department did not investigate ANY other suspects. It could have been anyone living at the compound or even someone outside the compound, but we will never know. I think this is my biggest problem with the entire investigation. No questioning of the roommate who did not report her missing for days? No questioning her family members? No questioning ex-boyfriends? No questioning of other Averys?

 

[Joe T]

http://blog.siriusxm.com/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-addresses-5-big-questions-we-all-have/

Michael Smerconish asked former Calumet Country District Attorney Ken Kratz to address five issues

garbage

 

[parrot]

As mentioned in I think episode 8 - being found guilty on charge 1 made everything else meaningless. Guilty on that alone meant life in prison. Not really a compromise to find him guilty of one thing that puts him in prison for life but not another that does the same thing. I just think they didn't produce enough evidence to show he did in fact "mutilate" her.

But then Brendan was found guilty of that charge.

If you're saying he murdered her, but didn't burn her body, then who burned the body? Brendan?

Well, he confessed to it.

Maybe I missed that part, but he specifically said that he burned the body and not Steven?

Either way, I definitely think the jury compromised on that charge. If you say he was guilty of the murder and was seen as the main mastermind behind the whole thing, how do you not find him guilty of mutilating the body also? Just doesn't make sense to me.

If you're saying they didn't find him guilty of it because it didn't matter because of the 1st degree murder charge, then why find him guilty on the firearm one too?

What was that charge?

Think it was possession of a firearm or something like that

What's that, 30 day in jail at most?

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is pretty major I believe.

What felonies were on his record at the time (before anything involving Teresa)?

The incident where he ran the cousin off the road and pulled a gun on her was a felony. I'm not sure if the burglary or cruelty to animals were or not.

ETA: After rewatching part of episode 1, at least one of the previous incidents must have been a felony as well, as he was also charged with "felon in possession of a firearm" when he ran his cousin's car off the road.

 

[matttyl]

What felonies were on his record at the time (before anything involving Teresa)?

The incident where he ran the cousin off the road and pulled a gun on her was a felony. I'm not sure if the burglary or cruelty to animals were or not.

Wait a second. Who did he run off the road? Was it his own cousin, or the wife of a county deputy (or are those two the same person)?

For such a huge community, seems a whole lot of people are related to someone on the police force, including Avery himself.

 

[MattFancy]

What felonies were on his record at the time (before anything involving Teresa)?

The incident where he ran the cousin off the road and pulled a gun on her was a felony. I'm not sure if the burglary or cruelty to animals were or not.

Wait a second. Who did he run off the road? Was it his own cousin, or the wife of a county deputy (or are those two the same person)?

For such a huge community, seems a whole lot of people are related to someone on the police force, including Avery himself.

Believe they are the same person

 

[SacramentoBob]

What felonies were on his record at the time (before anything involving Teresa)?

The incident where he ran the cousin off the road and pulled a gun on her was a felony. I'm not sure if the burglary or cruelty to animals were or not.

Wait a second. Who did he run off the road? Was it his own cousin, or the wife of a county deputy (or are those two the same person)?

For such a huge community, seems a whole lot of people are related to someone on the police force, including Avery himself.

I noticed this as well. Seems like a lot of inbreeding going on in Manitowoc County.

 

[parrot]

What felonies were on his record at the time (before anything involving Teresa)?

The incident where he ran the cousin off the road and pulled a gun on her was a felony. I'm not sure if the burglary or cruelty to animals were or not.

Wait a second. Who did he run off the road? Was it his own cousin, or the wife of a county deputy (or are those two the same person)?

For such a huge community, seems a whole lot of people are related to someone on the police force, including Avery himself.

Believe they are the same person

Yes, Sandra Morris. I don't think she was married to a deputy. She had a friend, Judy Dvorak, who was a deputy, and was also married to a deputy.

It was Judy Dvorak who took Penny Bernsten's statement and suggested that it "sounds like Steven Avery".

ETA: My bad, Sandra Morris was married to a deputy as well.

 

[SacramentoBob]

He obviously has a history of poor decisions and probably an issue with his temper as well (considering he ran someone off the road and pulled a gun on them). This goes back to my statement that a rape motive makes no sense, but it could've been something that made him angry.

 

[Road Warriors]

As mentioned in I think episode 8 - being found guilty on charge 1 made everything else meaningless. Guilty on that alone meant life in prison. Not really a compromise to find him guilty of one thing that puts him in prison for life but not another that does the same thing. I just think they didn't produce enough evidence to show he did in fact "mutilate" her.

But then Brendan was found guilty of that charge.

If you're saying he murdered her, but didn't burn her body, then who burned the body? Brendan?

Well, he confessed to it.

Maybe I missed that part, but he specifically said that he burned the body and not Steven?

Either way, I definitely think the jury compromised on that charge. If you say he was guilty of the murder and was seen as the main mastermind behind the whole thing, how do you not find him guilty of mutilating the body also? Just doesn't make sense to me.

If you're saying they didn't find him guilty of it because it didn't matter because of the 1st degree murder charge, then why find him guilty on the firearm one too?

What was that charge?

Think it was possession of a firearm or something like that

What's that, 30 day in jail at most?

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is pretty major I believe.

Of course, the convicted felon was erroneously convicted, and the conviction was overturned. At what point, if ever, would he have not been a "convicted felon" prior to the Theresa Halback case?

ETA: oops, never mind. Read the rest after this.

 

[parrot]

As mentioned in I think episode 8 - being found guilty on charge 1 made everything else meaningless. Guilty on that alone meant life in prison. Not really a compromise to find him guilty of one thing that puts him in prison for life but not another that does the same thing. I just think they didn't produce enough evidence to show he did in fact "mutilate" her.

But then Brendan was found guilty of that charge.

If you're saying he murdered her, but didn't burn her body, then who burned the body? Brendan?

Well, he confessed to it.

Maybe I missed that part, but he specifically said that he burned the body and not Steven?

Either way, I definitely think the jury compromised on that charge. If you say he was guilty of the murder and was seen as the main mastermind behind the whole thing, how do you not find him guilty of mutilating the body also? Just doesn't make sense to me.

If you're saying they didn't find him guilty of it because it didn't matter because of the 1st degree murder charge, then why find him guilty on the firearm one too?

What was that charge?

Think it was possession of a firearm or something like that

What's that, 30 day in jail at most?

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is pretty major I believe.

Of course, the convicted felon was erroneously convicted, and the conviction was overturned. At what point, if ever, would he have not been a "convicted felon" prior to the Theresa Halback case?

The rape conviction was overturned. He had other previous felony convictions.