Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (4 Viewers)

[Politician Spock]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Here's what Brendan Dassey looks like now.

He's been incarcerated for 10 years now, due to his thoroughly convincing "confession" to Manitowoc's finest.

:(

Curious, did you read the confession, or just going off of what you saw on the show?

Do you mean this one ?

Sure, that's a good place to start.

Yes I've read it, I hope everyone reads it.

It makes my skin crawl to read that, it's disgusting. It's beyond disgusting. I can't believe a cop, or any human being, could do what they did to that kid.

They are doing this to a 16 year old kid with an IQ of 70.

Whose supposed defense lawyer, Kachinsky, has thrown to the wolves, practically literally.

This is a day or two after the guy hired by the Kachinsky has extracted a detailed "confession" from Brendan. Kind of weird thing for a defense lawyer to do, but that's what happened.

Then Kachinsky hands Brendan over to the cops, after Brendan has been groomed by hours of confession, complete with drawings that were coaxed out of him of how Teresa was chained to the bed.

Then the interview/confession...

...the blatant leading questions by the cops.

... the constant contradictory answers from Brenday (to previously "confessed information"), followed by the interviewing cops saying "No, you're not telling the truth, that's now what you said before, isn't it true that xxx yyy zzz is what happened?"

What about the bottom of 759 to the top of 760? That seems like a pretty long, uninterrupted description by Brendan alone.

 

[Das Boot]

there was three appointments made for TH that day, the police say that SA was the last but what about if it wasn't her last, she goes to I forget their name( in the transcripts they cross examined the wife who made the appointment name ends in erer.) but the husband put a bullet in TH head for trespassing cause he was a weed grower,(by the way father and son both had police records) shoved her body in the back of a her vehicle then put it in a field somewhere, where officer Colburn then finds and calls with his cell the license plate. So they have the body they just need to frame SA which they did.

You've hit upon another very interesting Reddit theory/possibility that I just read last night regarding her order of visits, the thread in the link has more discussion regarding some of the strengths and weaknesses of this line of thinking:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/42e9ff/who_really_saw_teresa_halbach_last_evidence_that/

Who Really Saw Teresa Halbach Last? Evidence That It May Not Have Been Steven Avery self.MakingaMurderer

Submitted 1 day ago * by CarlCarpenter

I was going over a timeline for October 31st and going over official records to verify times and I noticed something.

Looking at the times, I think that Teresa went to the Avery’s BEFORE going to the Zipperer photo shoot.

Here's Why...

Teresa leaves Steven Schmitz’s residence in New Holstein around 1:40 PM (about 10 minutes after arriving at 1:30). She’s on her way to take pictures at both Geroge Zipperer’s residence and at the Avery Salvage yard. She’s taken pictures at the Avery’s many times before and is familiar with the place.

Here's A Map ==>> http://i.imgur.com/DnthYIX.png

On her way there (at 2:12 PM) she calls the Zipperer’s and leaves a message that she can’t find their house and is running late.

Steven Avery calls her at (at 2:24 PM) and leaves a 7 second message.

Teresa would probably be going North on Highway B at this time around 10 minutes away from the Avery’s. She probably makes the decision to by-pass the Zipperer’s home and head straight for the Avery’s.

She knows exactly where it is and knows she can knock the photo out fast because the Avery’s know the procedure. And the Zipperer’s house is on her way back home.

Plus, the Avery’s are bigger clients and they have started calling because she’s late. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

She’s already told the Zipperer’s that she’s running late so a few extra minutes won’t matter much.

She calls the Auto Trader (at 2:27 PM) and tells them that she’s going to the Avery’s. This is just 3 minutes after Steve has called her.

Steven calls Teresa again (at 2:35 PM) but she doesn’t pick up. In fact it doesn’t even go to voicemail probably because she’s pulling in the driveway at that time.

Since Steve has been calling her every 10 minutes, why would he have stopped unless she showed up? If she had gone to the Zipperer’s first then Steven would have kept calling.

Bobby Dassey also says he woke up between 2:00 and 2:30 and when he looked out his window before taking a shower he saw Teresa taking pictures.

Teresa spends 10 to 15 minutes taking pictures, and leaves. This would place her at the Zipperer’s around 3:00 PM, which is the time JoEllen Zipperer testifies she thinks Teresa arrives. She does say that it was mid-afternoon and 3:00 is her best guess but it could even be as late as 3:30 “or even a little later”.

This means that a witness places Teresa at the Avery’s home at just after 2:35 PM and then another witness places her at her next assignment at around 3:00 PM. This makes you wonder… Was Steven Avery the Last Known Person To See Teresa Alive?

Kratz did a good job on re-cross and got JoEllen Zipperer to say maybe 2:00 to 2:30.

To make this timeline even more interesting…

JoEllen Zipperer testified that she never saw Teresa leave.

Her adult grandson lives with her.

Corporal Lemieux from Calumet County Sheriff's Department called George Zipperer (JoEllen Zipperer’s Husband) at 5:00 PM on 11/3/05 and he became "belligerent".

Investigator John Dedering of the Calumet County Sheriff's Department called George Zipperer at 9:4:00 PM on 11/3/05 and George was "extremely belligerent".

And then in the court transcripts Strang says”

George Zipperer told, first, Corporal Lemieux and, then, Investigator Dedering, a series of lies about his own activities; about Jason's activities; about whether the Auto Trader photographer was a trespasser on the property. Threatened to have the dog eat anyone who would come on the property; wanting Teresa Halbach arrested even after being told that she was a missing person; denying that he had contacted Auto Trader or arranged for photographs of the car.

And yet this was NEVER investigated.

To Summerize:

Bobby Dassey Testifies Teresa arrived at Avery Salvage at a little after 2:30 PM

JoEllen Zipperer Testifies Teresa Was At Her Home Around 3:00 PM

JoEllen Testifies She Never Saw Teresa Leave

George Zipperer Says He Never Asked AutoTrader To Send A Photographer

George Zipperer Becomes Beligereint With Police When Asked About Teresa

George Zipperer Lied To Police About Circumstances Around The Time Teresa Disappears

but the bus driver testified that she saw theresa at avery's at 3:40.

The thread linked above had discussion about all the timeline and evidence that matched up or didn't with this theory, overall it seemed like a reasonably plausible theory.

If I recall correctly, the bus driver was quite a ways away from where Teresa would have been taking pictures, plus the driver wasn't completely sure of the day she thought she saw Teresa there.

I don't think all the evidence or timelines will ever match up exactly with any theory or even what actually happened due to memory and perception problems.

 

[Das Boot]

Here's what Brendan Dassey looks like now.

He's been incarcerated for 10 years now, due to his thoroughly convincing "confession" to Manitowoc's finest.

:(

Curious, did you read the confession, or just going off of what you saw on the show?

Do you mean this one ?

Sure, that's a good place to start.

Yes I've read it, I hope everyone reads it.

It makes my skin crawl to read that, it's disgusting. It's beyond disgusting. I can't believe a cop, or any human being, could do what they did to that kid.

They are doing this to a 16 year old kid with an IQ of 70.

Whose supposed defense lawyer, Kachinsky, has thrown to the wolves, practically literally.

This is a day or two after the guy hired by the Kachinsky has extracted a detailed "confession" from Brendan. Kind of weird thing for a defense lawyer to do, but that's what happened.

Then Kachinsky hands Brendan over to the cops, after Brendan has been groomed by hours of confession, complete with drawings that were coaxed out of him of how Teresa was chained to the bed.

Then the interview/confession...

...the blatant leading questions by the cops.

... the constant contradictory answers from Brenday (to previously "confessed information"), followed by the interviewing cops saying "No, you're not telling the truth, that's now what you said before, isn't it true that xxx yyy zzz is what happened?"

What about the bottom of 759 to the top of 760? That seems like a pretty long, uninterrupted description by Brendan alone.

I fully agree, that seems like a very long narrative for Brendan to lay out without prompting throughout it.

However, just the day before he had been coached/groomed by Kachinsky's PI Michael O’ Kelly, so the "story" was still fresh in Brendan's mind.

 

[Das Boot]

Good reddit thread, complete with comparison pics, overlay pics, and morphing gifs to show the similarities:

Did Gene Kusche actually trace Steven Avery's mugshot? You be the judge!

 

[shuke]

Strang and/or Buting said later as they came up on the trial (or after the trial) that it turned out that the blood vial was not such a great piece of evidence in their favor.

Buting is still going on about the vial in recent interviews, though. I think he feels pot committed at this point.

 

[shuke]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

 

[Billy Bats]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

The confusion starts with Kratz claiming they stabbed her then slit her neck back in 2005 during his hide the family presser, you would assume causing death, at least major blood issues. His narrative has since changed in 2016 to it being just a scratch on her neck, presumably to coincide with not finding blood in the bedroom. Whatever works for ya Ken.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I'm back to the transcripts, and in looking at the defense's opening statements, he mentions a smelter on the property. I had not read about this anywhere else previously, but found it interesting.

You are going to find out that

4 there are better places, even on the Avery

5 salvage yard property, in which to incinerate a

6 body. The burn area is relatively flat and

7 scooped out a little bit, but it's relatively

8 flat and open. It's a burn area, like many farms

9 or rural homes have, just folks have burn

10 barrels.

11 It doesn't have well developed sides to

12 focus heat back inward on the fuel or things

13 being burned. Neither does it have a ready

14 external source of fuel. But the aluminum

15 smelter, the aluminum smelter at the Avery Auto

16 Salvage property does. Big propane jets, an

17 enclosed area, it will take an aluminum

18 transmission down to liquid in a few minutes.

How do you think a smelter works?

I have no clue. Enlighten me? It just seemed like a logical place, if one was so inclined, to burn a body. Rather than an open burn pile, or even a burn barrel.

 

[Politician Spock]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

 

[glvsav37]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

this has been my original question all along.

The Avery's appeared to not be the cleanest people in the world. It would take a whole lot of effort to sterilize that trailer and bedroom of any traces of blood, DNA, hair, etc. and then re-funk in back up again to the previous hoarder conditions.

There was nothing on that property that looked like it was scrubbed in 10+ years. There is no way you are doing the level of cleaning required to remove evidence and not leave behind a glaring clean spot in the mist of that junkyard.

 

[parrot]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

 

[MattFancy]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

Takes more than a mop to remove blood stains

 

[RUSF18]

If the Dassey "confession" never took place, do you think Kratz would have attempted to pitch any kind of story to the jury? Or would he just have pointed at the physical evidence and left it at that?

 

[MattFancy]

If the Dassey "confession" never took place, do you think Kratz would have attempted to pitch any kind of story to the jury? Or would he just have pointed at the physical evidence and left it at that?

Good question. You would think he would have pointed all to the physical evidence. Though, I don't think the physical evidence was overwhelming.

The Dassey "confession" pretty much won the case for Kratz. That press conference but a horrible picture in the minds of everyone and think that is what skewed the jury in the end.

 

[Politician Spock]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

Good. Then you understand how much easier cleaning up ashes is than blood. Thank you for making my point even clearer.

 

[parrot]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

Good. Then you understand how much easier cleaning up ashes is than blood. Thank you for making my point even clearer.

I don't know of any evidence that he ever attempted to "clean up" the ashes, other than burning some down a little further in the burn barrel, so I don't know why you say he "botched" it.

 

[parrot]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

Takes more than a mop to remove blood stains

Stuff like bleach, paint thinner, and gasoline?

 

[Politician Spock]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

Good. Then you understand how much easier cleaning up ashes is than blood. Thank you for making my point even clearer.

I don't know of any evidence that he ever attempted to "clean up" the ashes, other than burning some down a little further in the burn barrel, so I don't know why you say he "botched" it.

Keep thinking through the bolded.

 

[parrot]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

Good. Then you understand how much easier cleaning up ashes is than blood. Thank you for making my point even clearer.

I don't know of any evidence that he ever attempted to "clean up" the ashes, other than burning some down a little further in the burn barrel, so I don't know why you say he "botched" it.

Keep thinking through the bolded.

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

 

[Politician Spock]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

 

[parrot]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

 

[Politician Spock]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

 

[MattFancy]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

Takes more than a mop to remove blood stains

Stuff like bleach, paint thinner, and gasoline?

So a guy who lived like a hoarder suddenly became a master cleaner at a murder scene, yet forgot to remove his blood stains from the car? And just left the car on his property?

 

[parrot]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

 

[parrot]

This case is so interesting because the evidence makes no sense. Can Avery really be that stupid to clean up the garage and bedroom but leave all the bullets lying on the ground, the clean the car key but then somehow leave his DNA on it and leave it in his house, to not leave any fingerprints on the car but leave obvious blood in the car, to burn the body either in his bonfire and transport some remains in a barrell to the quarry, or perhaps burn her at the quarry and move the majority in the barrell right next to his garage? So many things make no sense.

That's what gets me. We're supposed to assume he is an expert cleaner and scrubbed every last bit of evidence up. But then, he leaves behind blood in the car and leaves the key in his bedroom? And that instead of using the car crusher at the yard, he just throws a couple pieces of wood on the car and leaves on the lot? I don't by it.

Don't forget that guy who supposedly cleaned every trace of evidence from the alleged bloody murder location in his house somehow botched cleaning up the bone evidence in his yard... not once, but twice.

Prosecution claimed that the murder occurred in the garage.

Then replace the word "house" in my statement with the word "garage". It doesn't change my point at all.

Of course it does. Mopping up a relatively small amount of blood from a concrete floor is completely different than getting it out of carpet, bedding, etc.

Takes more than a mop to remove blood stains

Stuff like bleach, paint thinner, and gasoline?

So a guy who lived like a hoarder suddenly became a master cleaner at a murder scene, yet forgot to remove his blood stains from the car? And just left the car on his property?

A "master cleaner" because he smeared some cleaning agents on a blood stain? If he was such a master cleaner he would have found the bullet.

 

[Billy Bats]

Sounds like completely removing DNA and blood evidence from concrete is as easy as wiping up a drop of water off of a tile floor.

I guess shooting someone 11 times just leaves an easy stain to wipe up. The more ya know.

 

[MattFancy]

Sounds like completely removing DNA and blood evidence from concrete is as easy as wiping up a drop of water off of a tile floor.

I guess shooting someone 11 times just leaves an easy stain to wipe up. The more ya know.

Maybe it use a Swiffer then?

 

[parrot]

Sounds like completely removing DNA and blood evidence from concrete is as easy as wiping up a drop of water off of a tile floor.

Not at all, this is why they used multiple cleaning agents including bleach, paint thinner, and gasoline. But no, you're probably right... just reject that a bullet with Halbach's DNA was found in the garage, reject that Barb Dassey told police that Brendan told her he had helped Steven clean up in his garage with bleach that day, reject that Brendan told police the same thing, reject that they recovered the pants with the bleach stains, reject that Kayla Avery asked the school counselor if blood could come up from concrete, and reject that luminol lit up on a large area in the garage, but it couldn't be confirmed as blood, though bleach is another substance that causes a luminol reaction. Clearly nothing nefarious occurred in that garage.

I guess shooting someone 11 times just leaves an easy stain to wipe up. The more ya know.

There is no evidence of 11 shots. There were 11 shell casings found in the garage which led to predictable speculation from Kratz, but the ME testified to evidence of TWO bullet wounds. ONE bullet was found with Halbach's DNA. We also know Halbach bled in the RAV4 so it's completely feasible that at least one of the bullet wounds was preexisting prior to the garage. The more you know.

 

[Politician Spock]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

 

[parrot]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

 

[MattFancy]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

So how did he clean up the carpet in his bedroom without bleach stains?

 

[Politician Spock]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

It's possible I could hit a grand slam in the world series too.

I however am not looking for what's possible. I'm looking for what the evidence suggests. The theory that Avery cleaned up the garage well but cleaned up the fire pit poorly lacks consistency. Inconsistence suggests that theory is unlikely.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Sounds like completely removing DNA and blood evidence from concrete is as easy as wiping up a drop of water off of a tile floor.

Not at all, this is why they used multiple cleaning agents including bleach, paint thinner, and gasoline. But no, you're probably right... just reject that a bullet with Halbach's DNA was found in the garage, reject that Barb Dassey told police that Brendan told her he had helped Steven clean up in his garage with bleach that day, reject that Brendan told police the same thing, reject that they recovered the pants with the bleach stains, reject that Kayla Avery asked the school counselor if blood could come up from concrete, and reject that luminol lit up on a large area in the garage, but it couldn't be confirmed as blood, though bleach is another substance that causes a luminol reaction. Clearly nothing nefarious occurred in that garage.

I guess shooting someone 11 times just leaves an easy stain to wipe up. The more ya know.

There is no evidence of 11 shots. There were 11 shell casings found in the garage which led to predictable speculation from Kratz, but the ME testified to evidence of TWO bullet wounds. ONE bullet was found with Halbach's DNA. We also know Halbach bled in the RAV4 so it's completely feasible that at least one of the bullet wounds was preexisting prior to the garage. The more you know.

I guess the problem I have is if the garage was so clean as some would say why was there still deer blood on all over the place.

On the “Kelly Files” interview, Dean Strang mentioned that there were little drops of deer blood all over Avery’s garage, essentially debunking the theory that they could have cleaned all the blood evidence out of the garage, since had they cleaned it that thoroughly, there wouldn’t have been any deer blood.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Sounds like completely removing DNA and blood evidence from concrete is as easy as wiping up a drop of water off of a tile floor.

I guess shooting someone 11 times just leaves an easy stain to wipe up. The more ya know.

So wait is DNA so fragile that it is destroyed when a lab tech touches it with other DNA or is DNA so indestructible that some windex wouldnt take care of it?

 

[Loan Sharks]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

But going through the garage and cleaning around droplets of deer blood and only removing human blood kinds makes its true.

 

[parrot]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

So how did he clean up the carpet in his bedroom without bleach stains?

I don't believe anything occurred in the bedroom. I don't know anyone who has paid any real attention to the case at all who seriously believes anything happened in the bedroom.

 

[MattFancy]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

So how did he clean up the carpet in his bedroom without bleach stains?

I don't believe anything occurred in the bedroom. I don't know anyone who has paid any real attention to the case at all who seriously believes anything happened in the bedroom.

So Dassey was charged with raping her where then?

 

[parrot]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

So how did he clean up the carpet in his bedroom without bleach stains?

I don't believe anything occurred in the bedroom. I don't know anyone who has paid any real attention to the case at all who seriously believes anything happened in the bedroom.

So Dassey was charged with raping her where then?

He was charged with raping her based on a highly questionable confession not supported by any of the physical evidence, unlike all the physical evidence of something occurring in the garage. I believe that's the big miscarriage of justice here; the railroading of Brendan Dassey, not the conviction of Steven Avery.

 

[shuke]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

It's possible I could hit a grand slam in the world series too.

I however am not looking for what's possible. I'm looking for what the evidence suggests. The theory that Avery cleaned up the garage well but cleaned up the fire pit poorly lacks consistency. Inconsistence suggests that theory is unlikely.

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

 

[MattFancy]

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

So how did he clean up the carpet in his bedroom without bleach stains?

I don't believe anything occurred in the bedroom. I don't know anyone who has paid any real attention to the case at all who seriously believes anything happened in the bedroom.

So Dassey was charged with raping her where then?

He was charged with raping her based on a highly questionable confession not supported by any of the physical evidence, unlike all the physical evidence of something occurring in the garage. I believe that's the big miscarriage of justice here; the railroading of Brendan Dassey, not the conviction of Steven Avery.

The physical evidence of something happening in the garage is 1 bullet with her DNA that was missed in numerous other searches prior to finding it.

And the whole cleaning the garage theory doesn't explain why he would clean the garage, but then leave her blood in the back of the SUV.

 

[Politician Spock]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

 

[MattFancy]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

 

[Politician Spock]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

 

[parrot]

So I'm guessing you don't know of any evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes either, and now it's time to switch horses?

The fact there's no evidence he attempted to clean up the ashes supports my point chief. No one who can do such an awesome job cleaning up a murder scene would then just leave the ashes out there.

Like I said, horse switch, from botched it, to didn't do it. The best friend of the conspiracy theorist. It's funny how people demand that everything indicating guilt follow a perfectly logical pattern, but have no problem with the tortured logical leaps it takes to turn this into a frame job, and/or have no problem disregarding evidence based on the flimsiest of rationalizations. It's a case study in confirmation bias, sport.

So you went off on this tangent because you didn't like that I used the word "botched"?

No, I don't really care what word you used. The point was that you're trying to apply a level of logic to Steven Avery's actions that doesn't seem to apply anywhere else in case. Steven Avery was a not-terribly-bright killer who did the bare minimum to cover up his crime; cleaning a blood stain in his garage, while leaving behind a bullet, and destroying the body in a not particularly effective manner. That seems plenty consistent to me.

The evidence indicates he was AWESOME at cleaning up blood, assuming we accept the premise that a bloody murder occurred somewhere on his property.

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

But going through the garage and cleaning around droplets of deer blood and only removing human blood kinds makes its true.

This is assuming they were at all interspersed. The luminol lit up on a relatively confined area of approximately 3ft x 3ft, or 9 square feet. That garage is probably somewhere around 400 square feet. Completely feasible that there was deer blood present elsewhere in the garage.

 

[parrot]

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

So how did he clean up the carpet in his bedroom without bleach stains?

I don't believe anything occurred in the bedroom. I don't know anyone who has paid any real attention to the case at all who seriously believes anything happened in the bedroom.

So Dassey was charged with raping her where then?

He was charged with raping her based on a highly questionable confession not supported by any of the physical evidence, unlike all the physical evidence of something occurring in the garage. I believe that's the big miscarriage of justice here; the railroading of Brendan Dassey, not the conviction of Steven Avery.

The physical evidence of something happening in the garage is 1 bullet with her DNA that was missed in numerous other searches prior to finding it.

And the whole cleaning the garage theory doesn't explain why he would clean the garage, but then leave her blood in the back of the SUV.

So a criminal tried to cover up his actions but did an incomplete and ham-handed job of it? That's got to be a first.

 

[parrot]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

What I see is that many seem to think "consistency", or lack thereof, on the part of a moronic criminal, is more important than mountains of evidence that point squarely at him. Some of us don't. Sorry.

 

[MattFancy]

It's possible to clean up blood - and/or obfuscate proof of it's presence - using common household cleaners, especially from a surface like concrete. It's not at all unheard of in the annals of crime. People pretending that's not the case doesn't make it true

So how did he clean up the carpet in his bedroom without bleach stains?

I don't believe anything occurred in the bedroom. I don't know anyone who has paid any real attention to the case at all who seriously believes anything happened in the bedroom.

So Dassey was charged with raping her where then?

He was charged with raping her based on a highly questionable confession not supported by any of the physical evidence, unlike all the physical evidence of something occurring in the garage. I believe that's the big miscarriage of justice here; the railroading of Brendan Dassey, not the conviction of Steven Avery.

The physical evidence of something happening in the garage is 1 bullet with her DNA that was missed in numerous other searches prior to finding it.

And the whole cleaning the garage theory doesn't explain why he would clean the garage, but then leave her blood in the back of the SUV.

So a criminal tried to cover up his actions but did an incomplete and ham-handed job of it? That's got to be a first.

So you honestly believed he made sure to just clean up human blood in the garage, all while leaving the deer blood behind. And just ignoring the SUV that he tried to cover up with a couple pieces of wood and a branch while leaving it next to all the other cars in the salvage yard?

It doesn't make sense.

 

[Politician Spock]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

What I see is that many seem to think "consistency" is more important than mountains of evidence. Some of us don't. Sorry.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

 

[parrot]

Who said he tried to "clean up" the fire pit?

No one. That's my point. Why would he go through the effort of cleaning up the murder scene but just leave the ashes of her body there?

Or leave the car with his and her blood in it on his property

Let's take this one step at a time. If they can't see one inconsistency, they won't see the many.

What I see is that many seem to think "consistency" is more important than mountains of evidence. Some of us don't. Sorry.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" requires more than just a mountain of evidence. Doubt that results from inconsistency is reasonable.

What you call inconsistency I call incompetence. Steven Avery made a half-assed attempt to cover up certain glaring elements of his crime, and completely dropped the ball on other elements. I don't see anything inconsistent about that.