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

[bucksoh]

Here's mine

SA 1%

Cops 1%

Ex 10%

Serial killer 18%

Some other SA/Tadych 30%

Zippered dad and son 40%

99% sure the brother and ex helped the cops to frame SA.

@ 40% and 99%The people calling out posters for thinking Avery is guilty better be jumping all over this.

The math checks out there bruh. He's talking about two different things.

I am not talking about the math side of it. I am talking about the fact that somebody is 99% certain that the brother, ex, and cops were in cahoots. I am talking about somebody saying it is most likely that somebody that is barely a blip on the screen did it.

Ryan Hillegas seems like a little more tan a blip on the screen.

He thinks Zipperer is most likely to have committed the crime. He is a blip.

Oh him... he's not really a blip either. Possibly the last person to see Halbach alive. Got belligerent with cops a couple times. Got his grow-op to protect. Definitely a POI

just for some wild speculation on Zipperer

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/42tud8/zipperer_family_member_makes_12516_mind_blowing/

Very good read, thanks. What I want to know is why the zipperer's were left out of the documentary, pretty big piece of info left out. Also why did Strang not push this evidence more very strange.

 

[MattFancy]

Here's mine

SA 1%

Cops 1%

Ex 10%

Serial killer 18%

Some other SA/Tadych 30%

Zippered dad and son 40%

99% sure the brother and ex helped the cops to frame SA.

@ 40% and 99%The people calling out posters for thinking Avery is guilty better be jumping all over this.

The math checks out there bruh. He's talking about two different things.

I am not talking about the math side of it. I am talking about the fact that somebody is 99% certain that the brother, ex, and cops were in cahoots. I am talking about somebody saying it is most likely that somebody that is barely a blip on the screen did it.

Ryan Hillegas seems like a little more tan a blip on the screen.

He thinks Zipperer is most likely to have committed the crime. He is a blip.

Oh him... he's not really a blip either. Possibly the last person to see Halbach alive. Got belligerent with cops a couple times. Got his grow-op to protect. Definitely a POI

just for some wild speculation on Zipperer

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/42tud8/zipperer_family_member_makes_12516_mind_blowing/

Very good read, thanks. What I want to know is why the zipperer's were left out of the documentary, pretty big piece of info left out. Also why did Strang not push this evidence more very strange.

I thought the State wouldn't let the defense go into possible other suspects during the trial, right?

 

[parasaurolophus]

Oh him... he's not really a blip either. Possibly the last person to see Halbach alive. Got belligerent with cops a couple times. Got his grow-op to protect. Definitely a POI

just for some wild speculation on Zipperer

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/42tud8/zipperer_family_member_makes_12516_mind_blowing/

Very good read, thanks. What I want to know is why the zipperer's were left out of the documentary, pretty big piece of info left out. Also why did Strang not push this evidence more very strange.

I thought the State wouldn't let the defense go into possible other suspects during the trial, right?

Correct. In Wisconsin I dont think you are allowed to present other theories/suspects without there being actual evidence or reasonable suspicion not just the simple possibility of something.

 

[parrot]

From the transcripts, from Eisenberg's testimony regarding the quarry bones;

Q. And as a matter of fact, as you sit here today, you cannot tell us that those bones, to a reasonable degree of anthropological or scientific certainty, are human, can you?

A. I cannot.

Also happened across this regarding the number of gunshot wounds;

Q All right. Now, in your work with these bone fragments, uh, you found evidence of two gunshot wounds I take it?

A Yes, sir.

Q You did not find evidence of 10 or 11 gunshot wounds in any of your work with these bone fragments?

A I did not.

 

[shuke]

Don't let "pretty sure" get in the way of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I didn't say I didn't have reasonable doubt based on the state's case. I said I am pretty sure Avery did it. Two different things.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Don't let "pretty sure" get in the way of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I didn't say I didn't have reasonable doubt based on the state's case. I said I am pretty sure Avery did it. Two different things.

What was Avery's motive?

 

[mr roboto]

Here's mine

SA 1%

Cops 1%

Ex 10%

Serial killer 18%

Some other SA/Tadych 30%

Zippered dad and son 40%

99% sure the brother and ex helped the cops to frame SA.

@ 40% and 99%The people calling out posters for thinking Avery is guilty better be jumping all over this.

The math checks out there bruh. He's talking about two different things.

I am not talking about the math side of it. I am talking about the fact that somebody is 99% certain that the brother, ex, and cops were in cahoots. I am talking about somebody saying it is most likely that somebody that is barely a blip on the screen did it.

Ryan Hillegas seems like a little more tan a blip on the screen.

He thinks Zipperer is most likely to have committed the crime. He is a blip.

Oh him... he's not really a blip either. Possibly the last person to see Halbach alive. Got belligerent with cops a couple times. Got his grow-op to protect. Definitely a POI

just for some wild speculation on Zipperer

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/42tud8/zipperer_family_member_makes_12516_mind_blowing/

Very good read, thanks. What I want to know is why the zipperer's were left out of the documentary, pretty big piece of info left out. Also why did Strang not push this evidence more very strange.

I thought the State wouldn't let the defense go into possible other suspects during the trial, right?

No, but if SA wasn't the last person to see TH alive that's a pretty big deal and I do believe Mrs Zipperer was called to testify.

 

[Politician Spock]

Don't let "pretty sure" get in the way of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I didn't say I didn't have reasonable doubt based on the state's case. I said I am pretty sure Avery did it. Two different things.

What was Avery's motive?

He watched Who Wants To Be A Millionaire and decided he didn't.

 

[shuke]

Don't let "pretty sure" get in the way of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I didn't say I didn't have reasonable doubt based on the state's case. I said I am pretty sure Avery did it. Two different things.

What was Avery's motive?

Good question. An infatuation with Teresa Halback to evolved into a sick desire to rape and torture her?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Don't let "pretty sure" get in the way of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I didn't say I didn't have reasonable doubt based on the state's case. I said I am pretty sure Avery did it. Two different things.

What was Avery's motive?

Good question. An infatuation with Teresa Halback to evolved into a sick desire to rape and torture her?

If you toss out Brandan's "confession" there really is no evidence of a sexual assault - is there? (I am only through episode 5). Also, is there anything in Avery's past to suggest he would sexually assault someone? I know Avery is a bit rough around the edges, but I haven't seen anything from him to suggest predator - but I could be missing some key details.

I think Ep 5 left off with the notion of Bobby Dassey's testimony that Halbach was headed toward Steve's trailer - but was there any forensic evidence that put her in the trailer?

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Don't let "pretty sure" get in the way of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I didn't say I didn't have reasonable doubt based on the state's case. I said I am pretty sure Avery did it. Two different things.

What was Avery's motive?

Good question. An infatuation with Teresa Halback to evolved into a sick desire to rape and torture her?

If you toss out Brandan's "confession" there really is no evidence of a sexual assault - is there? (I am only through episode 5). Also, is there anything in Avery's past to suggest he would sexually assault someone? I know Avery is a bit rough around the edges, but I haven't seen anything from him to suggest predator - but I could be missing some key details.

I think Ep 5 left off with the notion of Bobby Dassey's testimony that Halbach was headed toward Steve's trailer - but was there any forensic evidence that put her in the trailer?

Nope. Not that I've read. Haven't got to that point in the transcripts yet though.

 

[shuke]

Don't let "pretty sure" get in the way of "beyond a reasonable doubt"

I didn't say I didn't have reasonable doubt based on the state's case. I said I am pretty sure Avery did it. Two different things.

What was Avery's motive?

Good question. An infatuation with Teresa Halback to evolved into a sick desire to rape and torture her?

If you toss out Brandan's "confession" there really is no evidence of a sexual assault - is there? (I am only through episode 5). Also, is there anything in Avery's past to suggest he would sexually assault someone? I know Avery is a bit rough around the edges, but I haven't seen anything from him to suggest predator - but I could be missing some key details.

I think Ep 5 left off with the notion of Bobby Dassey's testimony that Halbach was headed toward Steve's trailer - but was there any forensic evidence that put her in the trailer?

Not definitely. Here is from Brendan's phone call with his mom. But I think this is after his lawyer had him meet with the investigators again and they wanted him to call her.

I'm not sure what to believe any more.

M. Did he make you do this?

B. Ya.

M. Then why didn't you tell him that.

B. Tell him what

M. That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.

B. Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.

M. What do you mean touching you?

B. He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.

M. Brendan I am your mother.

B. Ya.

M. Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?

B. What do you mean?

M. All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.

B. Ya.

M. Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.

B. Ya ..

M. Yes, and you would still be here with me.

B. Yes, Well you know I did it.

M. Huh

B. You know he always touched us and that.

M. I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.

B. Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.

M. What do you mean.

B. Well he would like fake pumping him

M. Goofing around

B. Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name... Jessicas sister.

M. Teresa?

B. Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.

 

[shuke]

Just reading that, and remembering how this was edited for the documentary, should show you how biased it was.

I thinks this is what they played (bolded):

M. Did he make you do this?

B. Ya.

M. Then why didn't you tell him that.

B. Tell him what

M. That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.

B. Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.

M. What do you mean touching you?

B. He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.

M. Brendan I am your mother.

B. Ya.

M. Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?

B. What do you mean?

M. All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.

B. Ya.

M. Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.

B. Ya ..

M. Yes, and you would still be here with me.

B. Yes, Well you know I did it.

M. Huh

B. You know he always touched us and that.

M. I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.

B. Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.

M. What do you mean.

B. Well he would like fake pumping him

M. Goofing around

B. Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name... Jessicas sister.

M. Teresa?

B. Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.

 

[MattFancy]

You have a link for all that?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

agree but that is still not forensic evidence that places her inside the trailer

 

[Franknbeans]

nor that she was tortured

 

[shuke]

You have a link for all that?

I copied it from another site. But here is the transcript of the second interview, page 91 talked about Steve trying to touch him.

Reading this is pretty disturbing. Brendan goes back and forth quite a bit with his answers, but not sure he's smart enough to make up some of these details.

 

[urbanhack]

what are we trying to solve here, guys?

 

[shuke]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

Brendan said that Steve was planning this for a few days. Steve's call to Auto Trader specifically requested Halbach. He also called her 3 times that day.

 

[shuke]

what are we trying to solve here, guys?

talking about <> solving

 

[Sinn Fein]

You have a link for all that?

I copied it from another site. But here is the transcript of the second interview, page 91 talked about Steve trying to touch him.

Reading this is pretty disturbing. Brendan goes back and forth quite a bit with his answers, but not sure he's smart enough to make up some of these details.

That reminds me of something I saw in episode 5 - Brendan's letter to the Judge. His version of events in that letter was nearly identical to the version he gave his attorney's investigator. Brandan does not strike me as someone who could keep a lie straight in two separate versions of a story - presumably months apart.

That, among other things, made me believe that version of events - he was never involved in anything.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

Brendan said that Steve was planning this for a few days. Steve's call to Auto Trader specifically requested Halbach. He also called her 3 times that day.

According to his new attorney, Halbach was the only rep that covered that area, so if true, that would explain why he requested her specifically. I'm not sure about the 3 calls...it was covered in the Zipperer theory though (saying that he called because she hadn't shown up when she was supposed to)

 

[shuke]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

Brendan said that Steve was planning this for a few days. Steve's call to Auto Trader specifically requested Halbach. He also called her 3 times that day.

According to his new attorney, Halbach was the only rep that covered that area, so if true, that would explain why he requested her specifically. I'm not sure about the 3 calls...it was covered in the Zipperer theory though (saying that he called because she hadn't shown up when she was supposed to)

He called twice earlier, using *67 to block caller ID. Then a third time, supposedly after the crime had been committed I think. I guess that may not mean anything.

 

[sartre]

Just reading that, and remembering how this was edited for the documentary, should show you how biased it was.

I thinks this is what they played (bolded):

M. Did he make you do this?

B. Ya.

M. Then why didn't you tell him that.

B. Tell him what

M. That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.

B. Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.

M. What do you mean touching you?

B. He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.

M. Brendan I am your mother.

B. Ya.

M. Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?

B. What do you mean?

M. All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.

B. Ya.

M. Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.

B. Ya ..

M. Yes, and you would still be here with me.

B. Yes, Well you know I did it.

M. Huh

B. You know he always touched us and that.

M. I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.

B. Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.

M. What do you mean.

B. Well he would like fake pumping him

M. Goofing around

B. Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name... Jessicas sister.

M. Teresa?

B. Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.

It's been a few weeks since I watched it, but I definitely recall the documentary playing the majority of that conversation, especially the 'touching'. It was not edited to exclude the unbolded.

In fact I seem to recall the Teresa bit at the end, because it confused me whether they were talking about Halbach and if so, why Brendan referred to her as "Jessica's sister".

 

[shuke]

Just reading that, and remembering how this was edited for the documentary, should show you how biased it was.

I thinks this is what they played (bolded):

M. Did he make you do this?

B. Ya.

M. Then why didn't you tell him that.

B. Tell him what

M. That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.

B. Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.

M. What do you mean touching you?

B. He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.

M. Brendan I am your mother.

B. Ya.

M. Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?

B. What do you mean?

M. All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.

B. Ya.

M. Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.

B. Ya ..

M. Yes, and you would still be here with me.

B. Yes, Well you know I did it.

M. Huh

B. You know he always touched us and that.

M. I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.

B. Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.

M. What do you mean.

B. Well he would like fake pumping him

M. Goofing around

B. Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what's her name... Jessicas sister.

M. Teresa?

B. Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.

It's been a few weeks since I watched it, but I definitely recall the documentary playing the majority of that conversation, especially the 'touching'. It was not edited to exclude the unbolded.

In fact I seem to recall the Teresa bit at the end, because it confused me whether they were talking about Halbach and if so, why Brendan referred to her as "Jessica's sister".

My bad.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

Brendan said that Steve was planning this for a few days. Steve's call to Auto Trader specifically requested Halbach. He also called her 3 times that day.

According to his new attorney, Halbach was the only rep that covered that area, so if true, that would explain why he requested her specifically. I'm not sure about the 3 calls...it was covered in the Zipperer theory though (saying that he called because she hadn't shown up when she was supposed to)

He called twice earlier, using *67 to block caller ID. Then a third time, supposedly after the crime had been committed I think. I guess that may not mean anything.

I know people brush off the *67 thing like it is nothing. The only reason to use it though is to conceal your number. That's it. She had been there 18 times. He requested her. She had his number. She didn't like him. I would bet he knew that she didn't like him.

Does it mean it is the smoking gun that he killed her and makes it 100% for certain? Of course not, but it certainly is not something that should be brushed off.

 

[shuke]

I am probably mixing up conversations. I just checked the transcripts of the show, and this particular conversation wasn't aired.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

If you guys liked this I think you may also like the Sword and Scale podcast. Good stuff in there

 

[cockroach]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

Brendan said that Steve was planning this for a few days. Steve's call to Auto Trader specifically requested Halbach. He also called her 3 times that day.

According to his new attorney, Halbach was the only rep that covered that area, so if true, that would explain why he requested her specifically. I'm not sure about the 3 calls...it was covered in the Zipperer theory though (saying that he called because she hadn't shown up when she was supposed to)

He called twice earlier, using *67 to block caller ID. Then a third time, supposedly after the crime had been committed I think. I guess that may not mean anything.

He testified that he called her the 3rd time (around 4pm-ish?) to see if she could take more pictures... specifically, of a loader or something.

The only way *67 is nefarious to me is if someone is calling with the intention of meeting up somewhere else or something. It does nothing to hide his identity once he speaks to her and tells her to come to Avery Salvage yard. Same as with him putting the appointment is Barb Janda's name.

 

[General Malaise]

I just still can't wrap my head around the fact that he was on the fast track to a large settlement that would have set him and his family up for multiple generations and all he had to do was not murder, not rape, not commit a felony. Even a guy with an IQ of 70 can comprehend that. Especially when he knows he'd be the prime suspect. It makes no sense. None.

 

[Dickies]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

Brendan said that Steve was planning this for a few days. Steve's call to Auto Trader specifically requested Halbach. He also called her 3 times that day.

According to his new attorney, Halbach was the only rep that covered that area, so if true, that would explain why he requested her specifically. I'm not sure about the 3 calls...it was covered in the Zipperer theory though (saying that he called because she hadn't shown up when she was supposed to)

He called twice earlier, using *67 to block caller ID. Then a third time, supposedly after the crime had been committed I think. I guess that may not mean anything.

I know people brush off the *67 thing like it is nothing. The only reason to use it though is to conceal your number. That's it. She had been there 18 times. He requested her. She had his number. She didn't like him. I would bet he knew that she didn't like him.

Does it mean it is the smoking gun that he killed her and makes it 100% for certain? Of course not, but it certainly is not something that should be brushed off.

I don't really understand why he would *67, but I also don't necessarily think it means anything either. If he used *67 and told her he wanted to meet at a random Starbucks then it seems more nefarious, but she had been to that location many times. As soon as she gets the address she knows who she is going to be dealing with.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

Brendan said that Steve was planning this for a few days. Steve's call to Auto Trader specifically requested Halbach. He also called her 3 times that day.

According to his new attorney, Halbach was the only rep that covered that area, so if true, that would explain why he requested her specifically. I'm not sure about the 3 calls...it was covered in the Zipperer theory though (saying that he called because she hadn't shown up when she was supposed to)

He called twice earlier, using *67 to block caller ID. Then a third time, supposedly after the crime had been committed I think. I guess that may not mean anything.

He testified that he called her the 3rd time (around 4pm-ish?) to see if she could take more pictures... specifically, of a loader or something.

The only way *67 is nefarious to me is if someone is calling with the intention of meeting up somewhere else or something. It does nothing to hide his identity once he speaks to her and tells her to come to Avery Salvage yard. Same as with him putting the appointment is Barb Janda's name.

*67 isn't normal behavior. You have to reach to make any other conclusion other than he DID NOT want her to know it was him calling. You can't even come up with something reasonable.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

He testified that he called her the 3rd time (around 4pm-ish?) to see if she could take more pictures... specifically, of a loader or something.

The only way *67 is nefarious to me is if someone is calling with the intention of meeting up somewhere else or something. It does nothing to hide his identity once he speaks to her and tells her to come to Avery Salvage yard. Same as with him putting the appointment is Barb Janda's name.

he never testified did he? do you mean in an interview or something? I haven't seen that one anywhere

 

[General Malaise]

Maybe he needed her to pick-up and figured she wouldn't if he didn't *67. I only answer about 15% of my incoming calls and if I see 'unlisted' I'll pick up out of curiosity. Maybe he knew she despised him but they had a symbiotic business relationship. I dunno...

 

[cockroach]

He testified that he called her the 3rd time (around 4pm-ish?) to see if she could take more pictures... specifically, of a loader or something.

The only way *67 is nefarious to me is if someone is calling with the intention of meeting up somewhere else or something. It does nothing to hide his identity once he speaks to her and tells her to come to Avery Salvage yard. Same as with him putting the appointment is Barb Janda's name.

he never testified did he? do you mean in an interview or something? I haven't seen that one anywhere

Correct... my bad. It was in an interrogation or something. I can source it if needed.

 

[SacramentoBob]

It seems clear to me that he *67 because he knew she was creeped out by him. It's definitely not a point in favor of Avery.

 

[tonydead]

Not sure if someone already posted this or not but;

I saw a commercial for Dateline this Friday, it's going to be a new update to this story.

ETA: Link

 

[cockroach]

Yeah - pretty biased editing.

Still not sure that rises to the level of going after Halbach - but I have not yet heard the evidence of Steve's infatuation with her - I think it was alluded to in episode 5 by one of her co-workers.

Brendan said that Steve was planning this for a few days. Steve's call to Auto Trader specifically requested Halbach. He also called her 3 times that day.

According to his new attorney, Halbach was the only rep that covered that area, so if true, that would explain why he requested her specifically. I'm not sure about the 3 calls...it was covered in the Zipperer theory though (saying that he called because she hadn't shown up when she was supposed to)

He called twice earlier, using *67 to block caller ID. Then a third time, supposedly after the crime had been committed I think. I guess that may not mean anything.

He testified that he called her the 3rd time (around 4pm-ish?) to see if she could take more pictures... specifically, of a loader or something.

The only way *67 is nefarious to me is if someone is calling with the intention of meeting up somewhere else or something. It does nothing to hide his identity once he speaks to her and tells her to come to Avery Salvage yard. Same as with him putting the appointment is Barb Janda's name.

*67 isn't normal behavior. You have to reach to make any other conclusion other than he DID NOT want her to know it was him calling. You can't even come up with something reasonable.

That's just not true. As I've said before, *67 was normal dialing protocol for me in the late 90s and early 00s. There is nothing inherently suspicious about using *67. If she answered was he going to use a voice changer or something? Say go somewhere other than Avery Auto? It's really not hiding anything.

 

[cockroach]

It seems clear to me that he *67 because he knew she was creeped out by him. It's definitely not a point in favor of Avery.

Definitely not... but such an insignificant point against him it's hardly worth mentioning.

It's Avery Salvage yard... she didn't have to go if she didn't want to. It's not like he was pulling a fast one on her by making the call anonymously.

 

[cockroach]

Also to put the calls into context.... the two calls came around 2:30-2:40 and their appointment was scheduled at 2pm.... ????... I don't see what *67 accomplishes or why it's inherently suspicious. It in no way aids him in this crime... (is this where you chime in with his IQ and say he's stupid and that's why he did it?)

 

[shuke]

There is nothing inherently suspicious about using *67.

I think there is if he only used it for the first two calls and not the third.

 

[parasaurolophus]

*67 isn't normal behavior. You have to reach to make any other conclusion other than he DID NOT want her to know it was him calling. You can't even come up with something reasonable.

That's just not true. As I've said before, *67 was normal dialing protocol for me in the late 90s and early 00s. There is nothing inherently suspicious about using *67. If she answered was he going to use a voice changer or something? Say go somewhere other than Avery Auto? It's really not hiding anything.

I know you said this before. You are either making it up or you didn't want people to know you were calling. So like I said, you have to reach to come up with some sort of reason other than he wanted his identity concealed by using *67.

It really is the only possible conclusion. Doesn't mean he is guilty. But he didn't want her to know. That's it.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

There is nothing inherently suspicious about using *67.

I think there is if he only used it for the first two calls and not the third.

Exactly.

Safe to say if Cockroach were an NFL/NBA official he would be known for "letting them play".

 

[shuke]

Also to put the calls into context.... the two calls came around 2:30-2:40 and their appointment was scheduled at 2pm.... ????... I don't see what *67 accomplishes or why it's inherently suspicious. It in no way aids him in this crime... (is this where you chime in with his IQ and say he's stupid and that's why he did it?)

Calling someone and not wanting them to know who is calling is suspicious. I'm not saying it proves anything, but it's suspicious.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Maybe he needed her to pick-up and figured she wouldn't if he didn't *67. I only answer about 15% of my incoming calls and if I see 'unlisted' I'll pick up out of curiosity. Maybe he knew she despised him but they had a symbiotic business relationship. I dunno...

 

[cockroach]

*67 isn't normal behavior. You have to reach to make any other conclusion other than he DID NOT want her to know it was him calling. You can't even come up with something reasonable.

That's just not true. As I've said before, *67 was normal dialing protocol for me in the late 90s and early 00s. There is nothing inherently suspicious about using *67. If she answered was he going to use a voice changer or something? Say go somewhere other than Avery Auto? It's really not hiding anything.

I know you said this before. You are either making it up or you didn't want people to know you were calling. So like I said, you have to reach to come up with some sort of reason other than he wanted his identity concealed by using *67.

It really is the only possible conclusion. Doesn't mean he is guilty. But he didn't want her to know. That's it.

But how is he concealing his identity if she answers and he says, "Where are you at? We have an appointment!"

Or do you think there was another motive for his call aside from the business they were scheduled to carry out? (to lure her a place where she's already scheduled to go?? :( )

 

[cockroach]

*67 isn't normal behavior. You have to reach to make any other conclusion other than he DID NOT want her to know it was him calling. You can't even come up with something reasonable.

That's just not true. As I've said before, *67 was normal dialing protocol for me in the late 90s and early 00s. There is nothing inherently suspicious about using *67. If she answered was he going to use a voice changer or something? Say go somewhere other than Avery Auto? It's really not hiding anything.

I know you said this before. You are either making it up or you didn't want people to know you were calling.

From a reddit user: "I posted this on another thread somewhere, but back in the early 2000s I used *67 EVERY time I called someone who wasn't my parents or my very best friends. It wasn't because I was trying to be sneaky, but because when caller ID first became a common thing, it felt like a big invasion of privacy for people to be able to see who was calling before answering. It seems silly now, but times were different then."

Another practical reason I remember using it was that lots of people shared a phone back then... I can remember some people you would call and if they didn't answer you just hung up.

Fact of the matter is, Avery using *67 to call someone who is late for an appointment (and called earlier asking him to call) means very little... if she answers do you assume he's going to be deceptive about who/where he is? If not then it's a non story, IMO.

The 3rd call not having *67 is also pretty unspectacular as he admits she came and went.... if he said she never showed and it was to establish an alibi or w/e like Kratz claimed, THEN the whole series would be significant... but no Avery admits to doing their biz.

So *shrug*

None of it accomplishes anything deviant and fits the scenario of business as usual just fine.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Also to put the calls into context.... the two calls came around 2:30-2:40 and their appointment was scheduled at 2pm.... ????... I don't see what *67 accomplishes or why it's inherently suspicious. It in no way aids him in this crime... (is this where you chime in with his IQ and say he's stupid and that's why he did it?)

Calling someone and not wanting them to know who is calling is suspicious. I'm not saying it proves anything, but it's suspicious.

it could have been something he did a lot. he was a local celebrity and everyone in the community knew his name and had opinions about him. i bet back in those days celebrities used *67 all the time to block their identity.

Why didn't he use it the 3rd time, who knows and it's almost pointless to speculate. maybe he forgot, maybe she was just there so didn't bother doing it, etc.

The *67 is basically irrelevant to me, there are so many reasons why he might use it, lots of people did back then for various reasons.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

wonder if there's anyone else who Avery telephoned that might testify whether he did/did not *67 them when he called