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

[cockroach]

a couple of pictures of the key and a pic of the manual showing it was the "sub key" that wouldn't open the glove box

https://imgur.com/a/vgV9B

Holy crap, where did the other end of that key cord come from?!

What I want to know is why is the remote and paper resting there (along with the books) if Lenk shook it so violently?

 

[SacramentoBob]

a couple of pictures of the key and a pic of the manual showing it was the "sub key" that wouldn't open the glove box

https://imgur.com/a/vgV9B

Holy crap, where did the other end of that key cord come from?!

What I want to know is why is the remote and paper resting there (along with the books) if Lenk shook it so violently?

Super glue, obviously.

 

[17seconds]

I just finished it last night and I have no ####### clue if he did it or not. His attorneys were excellent I thought.

I was surprised Brendon was found guilty.

 

[LAUNCH]

http://www.fortthomasmatters.com/2016/01/making-murderer-interview-with-local-12.html

Angenette Levy interview. Starts around 15min.

 

[Sabertooth]

Question for Woz or any other lawyers still following this thread. How important is it to the case for a crime to have occurred as the prosecution presents it?

I guess it comes down to what the jury believes. Maybe I answered my own question.

So basically if none of the evidence adds up you are left putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives on a hunch. Obviously there is nothing in our system that prevents it, but it is not how things should work.

I don't disagree. We almost universally agree that the crime couldn't have happened in the trailer, but I guess that doesn't matter.

If family members had provided an alibi for SA ('he was with us the whole time"), would that have even mattered?

it didn't the first time. He had 22 alibis the first time.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Yeah, he had rock solid alibis along with receipts and other physical evidence and he was still convicted.

 

[Dickies]

Question for Woz or any other lawyers still following this thread. How important is it to the case for a crime to have occurred as the prosecution presents it?

I guess it comes down to what the jury believes. Maybe I answered my own question.

So basically if none of the evidence adds up you are left putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives on a hunch. Obviously there is nothing in our system that prevents it, but it is not how things should work.

I don't disagree. We almost universally agree that the crime couldn't have happened in the trailer, but I guess that doesn't matter.

If family members had provided an alibi for SA ('he was with us the whole time"), would that have even mattered?

His '85 rape conviction had multiple alibis that were solid, but he was still convicted.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Does anyone else feel like they're watching Fargo when the Avery family speaks?

 

[Cjw_55106]

Does anyone else feel like they're watching Fargo when the Avery family speaks?

I dont know...yeah.

 

[General Malaise]

Does anyone else feel like they're watching Fargo when the Avery family speaks?

I dont know...yeah.

Yeah? Yeah. Yeah.

 

[Sabertooth]

It seems like s caricature, but you have to remember these are just simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay of the new west.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Does anyone else feel like they're watching Fargo when the Avery family speaks?

"On ah account ah"?

 

[Outnumbered]

Question for Woz or any other lawyers still following this thread. How important is it to the case for a crime to have occurred as the prosecution presents it?

I guess it comes down to what the jury believes. Maybe I answered my own question.

So basically if none of the evidence adds up you are left putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives on a hunch. Obviously there is nothing in our system that prevents it, but it is not how things should work.

My wife had to interview a Defense attorney some years back...he said he'd rather see 100 guilty men be freed than one innocent man be jailed . . . a sentiment that I'd think most sane people share. Clearly this jury of his peers did not share the same sentiment.

 

[Cjw_55106]

It seems like s caricature, but you have to remember these are just simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay of the new west.

Dont get strange.

 

[Dickies]

Question for Woz or any other lawyers still following this thread. How important is it to the case for a crime to have occurred as the prosecution presents it?

I guess it comes down to what the jury believes. Maybe I answered my own question.

So basically if none of the evidence adds up you are left putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives on a hunch. Obviously there is nothing in our system that prevents it, but it is not how things should work.

My wife had to interview a Defense attorney some years back...he said he'd rather see 100 guilty men be freed than one innocent man be jailed . . . a sentiment that I'd think most sane people share. Clearly this jury of his peers did not share the same sentiment.

I definitely share that sentiment. Sitting in jail for the rest of my life for a crime I didn't commit is horrifying.

 

[Hooper31]

Chicago-Based Lawyers Await Judge's Decision on 'Making a Murderer' Case

Sounds like we may know soon (or maybe within the year?) whether or not Brendan's case will be heard in federal court.

Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth legal team based in Chicago has taken Dassey’s case to federal court in Wisconsin in the hopes that he will be granted a writ of Habeas corpus, which will force the government to examine his case and rule whether he has been imprisoned illegally. The petition is pending before Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin in Milwaukee.


It’s not clear when Duffin could make his decision. An attorney for Dassey says a ruling could come any day, but will likely happen within the year.

 

[Johnny Bing]

The thing that drove me nuts about all of it, is when the jurors first entered deliberations 7 jurors were voting non-guilty based on what the case presented them and what was said in closing arguments. It wasn't until 3 other jurors persuaded them that it came to a vote of guilty.

The system shouldn't be like that. Some people are easy to persuade when a more aggressive person is speaking directly to them or might just feel out numbered so they voted with everyone else.

I get that is how it has always been, but it isn't right. Too bad the one juror had to leave for a family emergency, because he sounded like he was voting not guilty all the way.

 

[Billy Bats]

Strang might once again represent Steven Avery in court and he says theres a mass of potential new evidence to consider if he does so.

Strang one of the defense attorneys featured in the infuriating and fascinating Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer told TheWrap on Friday that its possible he could take up Averys case in a new trial, and that he and fellow defense attorney Jerry Buting have remained informally involved in working for Steven since his appeals process was completed. While its ultimately up to Avery whether Strang and Buting represent him in a bid for a new trial, Strang said that theres a vast trove of new material to explore.

Should he formally represent Avery again, Strang said, Id be focused on possible newly discovered evidence. And that, at the moment, will require sifting through and ranking by priority the leads, ideas [and] possibilities that have arrived in a mass from emails and calls since the film came out.

The material includes leads and ideas on scientific advances, Strang said. And then factual leads, theories whether any of it turns out to be evidence in the useful sense of supporting a new trial, that just remains to be seen. But the attention to the film has produced a lot of potentially helpful information.

http://www.thewrap.com/steven-averys-lawyer-says-theres-a-mass-of-potential-new-evidence-since-making-a-murderer-premiere/

 

[17seconds]

http://www.fortthomasmatters.com/2016/01/making-murderer-interview-with-local-12.html

Angenette Levy interview. Starts around 15min.

I thought the reporters were hilarious. There was this chick and also this guy

Not only the emoting reporter faces but the constant looks like "we are the county's important, attractive people"

 

[parasaurolophus]

One thing that doesnt make sense to me is how does the judge determine that Dassey deserves a new lawyer once he learns that the lawyer let him meet with cops without him but not think the tapes, transcripts, etc from that meeting not be allowed?

I would think either it is unethical or it isn't. Cant have it both ways.

 

[cockroach]

http://www.fortthomasmatters.com/2016/01/making-murderer-interview-with-local-12.html

Angenette Levy interview. Starts around 15min.

Interesting how she was paid to cover it and found parts of the documentary surprising and revealing, yet there are some people who will staunchly argue Avery/Dassey guilt without having watched it. Being the street-wise big city girl out of Green Bay she seemed to see through the small town cronyism from the go though.

 

[MattFancy]

One thing that doesnt make sense to me is how does the judge determine that Dassey deserves a new lawyer once he learns that the lawyer let him meet with cops without him but not think the tapes, transcripts, etc from that meeting not be allowed?

I would think either it is unethical or it isn't. Cant have it both ways.

That's an interesting take. Wonder if Woz has some better insight into how all that goes down.

 

[mr roboto]

The Dasey conviction is total bull####. I can see why Avery was convicted but the whole case against Dassey was the coerced confession later recanted.

For the lawyers in here - the prosecutor in Dassey's case said 'innocent people don't confess.' Isn't that total crap? I thought false confessions happen more than most people would imagine.

 

[Billy Bats]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

 

[The Gator]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

 

[matttyl]

So I don't think this has been answered....

Lets say Avery is completely exonerated of the murder. As in the actual killer confesses, or something. Whatever the case, he's released from prison. Can he then go back and open up the lawsuit from the 1985 rape conviction claiming that he made took the $400k settlement under duress from the state due to the second (murder) case. Or was his accepting the $400k settlement totally wiping that situation "clean"?

Obviously he can sue for wrongful imprisonment on the murder charge, but can anything be brought up from the prior situation(s) or not?

Assuming he can't bring up anything from the prior case, is there some limit in what he can sue for on the second wrongful imprisonment (something like $1m per year like he sued for the first time)?

 

[Plorfu]

So I don't think this has been answered....

Lets say Avery is completely exonerated of the murder. As in the actual killer confesses, or something. Whatever the case, he's released from prison. Can he then go back and open up the lawsuit from the 1985 rape conviction claiming that he made took the $400k settlement under duress from the state due to the second (murder) case. Or was his accepting the $400k settlement totally wiping that situation "clean"?

Obviously he can sue for wrongful imprisonment on the murder charge, but can anything be brought up from the prior situation(s) or not?

Assuming he can't bring up anything from the prior case, is there some limit in what he can sue for on the second wrongful imprisonment (something like $1m per year like he sued for the first time)?

In this day and age, he can probably get several million with a gofundme or something. I can absolutely see that happening in this scenario. I know that doesn't answer the question, but that's only because I'm generally not very helpful.

 

[Billy Bats]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

 

[The Gator]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

Not yet

 

[matttyl]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....

If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

 

[Sabertooth]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

Thats right there is enough reasonable doubt.

 

[Sabertooth]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

Might have been the aliens that planted the key.

 

[The Gator]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

One of my favorite narratives is the not so smart guy is super awesome at cleaning up DNA or any trace of Teresa in his home/garage

 

[MattFancy]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

One of my favorite narratives is the not so smart guy is super awesome at cleaning up DNA or any trace of Teresa in his home/garage

But then not smart enough to remember to clean up his own DNA somehow

 

[The Gator]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

One of my favorite narratives is the not so smart guy is super awesome at cleaning up DNA or any trace of Teresa in his home/garage

But then not smart enough to remember to clean up his own DNA somehow

Thanks, Lenk

 

[matttyl]

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

One of my favorite narratives is the not so smart guy is super awesome at cleaning up DNA or any trace of Teresa in his home/garage

I don't think she was ever in either of them, no matter if he was the killer or not. Remember, though - her never being in either of them doesn't mean that he didn't kill her. Just means he didn't kill her in the way the prosecution presented it.

 

[MattFancy]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

One of my favorite narratives is the not so smart guy is super awesome at cleaning up DNA or any trace of Teresa in his home/garage

But then not smart enough to remember to clean up his own DNA somehow

Thanks, Lenk

I was being sarcastic.

It's funny that the prosecution accuses him of cleaning up the crime scene, but then somehow still leaving his own DNA. The cleaning the crime scene argument just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Dickies]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....

If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

I read that it would take many hours to burn the body to the state it is in, and the fire pit in his backyard would not suffice. So if he burned her in the burn barrel offsite, it would have had to have been for a number of hours which seems like it would seriously limit his ability to bring her back to dump in his bonfire.

 

[Dickies]

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

One of my favorite narratives is the not so smart guy is super awesome at cleaning up DNA or any trace of Teresa in his home/garage

I don't think she was ever in either of them, no matter if he was the killer or not. Remember, though - her never being in either of them doesn't mean that he didn't kill her. Just means he didn't kill her in the way the prosecution presented it.

Obviously this is true, but it also should make it near impossible for a jury to convict him. If none of the evidence adds up then you are just guessing that he is guilty.

 

[Road Warriors]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....

If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

I read that it would take many hours to burn the body to the state it is in, and the fire pit in his backyard would not suffice. So if he burned her in the burn barrel offsite, it would have had to have been for a number of hours which seems like it would seriously limit his ability to bring her back to dump in his bonfire.

Wasn't the "bomb-fire" approximately 3 hours after the supposed killing time? I thought the Halloween fire was the same night that Theresa came out to take the photos.

 

[Vipers]

I don't know if he is guilty or not but I do know that this documentary is completely slanted towards the defense side of things.

I am from the Milwaukee area and it is interesting that a lot of media types from the newspapers and tv come up with the same conclusion that there was a whole lot more involved than the 10 hours of what "Making a Murderer" shows the public.

Here is a link from a local reporter who provides what was left out of the documentary.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

 

[Dickies]

A recent interview with Dean Strang I found interesting.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/08/making-a-murderer-attorney-dean-strang-reveals-what-sparked-horrible-sense-steven-avery-may-be-stone-cold-innocent/

I don't remember the doc covering this point too much. But at the 11:00 minute mark Dean tells of the strongest point the defense argued was that he felt they proved that she wasn't cremated in Averys burn pit. That it had to happen in an enclosed space to get the results that the remains were found. And if that's the case then it makes zero sense that he would then incriminate himself by bringing the remains back to his own property.

I seem to remember discussion on how hot the fire would need to be in order to result in the remains they found

This

She wasn't burned there

Cool, I wasn't sure where I had definitely heard that info. Has the Avery-is-guilty party ever tried to explain that one?

I'm not an "Avery is guilty" guy - however....

If we're assuming she was burned elsewhere - maybe a barrel that would retain the heat to the point of cremation? Is that one of the other "burn locations" mentioned (I think remains were found in two other locations, correct)? Once he does that, he's got all her bones in a small space (in the barrel). He's not the smartest guy in the world, so he thinks burning them again in the bonfire he's having Halloween night will further destroy that evidence?

Also, if her body is burned to the point of cremation in a barrel or similar, I would think it would take some time for it to cool to the point where those remains can then be moved - and the bonfire at his house was later that same evening?

I read that it would take many hours to burn the body to the state it is in, and the fire pit in his backyard would not suffice. So if he burned her in the burn barrel offsite, it would have had to have been for a number of hours which seems like it would seriously limit his ability to bring her back to dump in his bonfire.

Wasn't the "bomb-fire" approximately 3 hours after the supposed killing time? I thought the Halloween fire was the same night that Theresa came out to take the photos.

Yes, and from what I have read it would take much longer than 3 hours for the bones to be in that state.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't know if he is guilty or not but I do know that this documentary is completely slanted towards the defense side of things.

I am from the Milwaukee area and it is interesting that a lot of media types from the newspapers and tv come up with the same conclusion that there was a whole lot more involved than the 10 hours of what "Making a Murderer" shows the public.

Here is a link from a local reporter who provides what was left out of the documentary.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

That is one awful piece of journalism. If anything it helps the case being made by the documentary by showing that people favor emotion (especially if that emotion is anger) and assumptions over facts and justice.

I think this passage was the worst:

The show, however, doesn’t focus at all on the fact that Avery and Beernsten’s actual rapist, Gregory Allen, bear a striking resemblance to each other and that when Beernsten was describing her attacker—a man with shaggy blond hair and a beard—she was describing a man with whom investigators were already familiar; a man who had sexually harassed his cousin and then violently threatened her when she dared talk about it, a man who had brutally killed his family’s cat, a man who had been convicted of two burglaries all within the past few years.

You could make a 10 hour documentary just about how terrible that paragraph is.
There are several fair and decently written articles linked in this thread that summarize some of the information left out of Making a Murderer. Those are definitely worth a read. This is not.

 

[Statorama]

The only thing we know for sure is if you lose your keys for 8 days, call the Manitowac police. They'll show you it was right behind your shoes the whole time.

 

[mr roboto]

I don't know if he is guilty or not but I do know that this documentary is completely slanted towards the defense side of things.

I am from the Milwaukee area and it is interesting that a lot of media types from the newspapers and tv come up with the same conclusion that there was a whole lot more involved than the 10 hours of what "Making a Murderer" shows the public.

Here is a link from a local reporter who provides what was left out of the documentary.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

Thankgoodness. None of these have been posted in the last 32 pages.

 

[shadyridr]

I don't know if he is guilty or not but I do know that this documentary is completely slanted towards the defense side of things.

I am from the Milwaukee area and it is interesting that a lot of media types from the newspapers and tv come up with the same conclusion that there was a whole lot more involved than the 10 hours of what "Making a Murderer" shows the public.

Here is a link from a local reporter who provides what was left out of the documentary.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

Shocked I tell ya

 

[shadyridr]

This thread and that documentary tell me all I need to know about never stepping foot in Wisconsin

 

[Don't Noonan]

It is interesting to me that most people from Wisconsin that post in this thread do not like the documentary and feel that Steve Avery is guilty. I did not follow this case and watching the documentary was the first I heard about it. Obviously the local media in Wisconsin was very anti Steve Avery

 

[Dickies]

It is interesting to me that most people from Wisconsin that post in this thread do not like the documentary and feel that Steve Avery is guilty. I did not follow this case and watching the documentary was the first I heard about it. Obviously the local media in Wisconsin was very anti Steve Avery

They are the ones most adamant that the documentary is biased, refuse to watch it, and are 100% confident he is guilty.