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

[Stinkin Ref]

Just curious what huge facts you are referring to from MAM? Mind you, I haven't seen S2 yet, starting that tonight.

can't speak for Mr A....but S1 did not mention the "sweat DNA" on the hood latch (which can't be planted)....S1 also did not mention Dassey talking about how bad it smelled when her body was burning and the sounds she made trying to breathe when she was stabbed in the stomach....those are just a couple that stood out...

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

a few things from my notes in this thread regarding the "sweat DNA" 

new motion filed Monday(10/23/17)

summary of the key claims:

• Forensic testing of Avery’s DNA on the hood latch of Halbach’s car found that Avery would have had to have tried to open the latch around 90 times to leave the amount of DNA the Wisconsin State crime laboratory say they found on the latch.
  

Trial Transcript day 10 nuggets

• sample from the RAV4 hood latch, which wasn't blood, also matched SA's profile and nobody else's --meaning nobody else ever touched that hood latch, ever?? like not even a mechanic, or someone changing the oil? I know the Defense brings this up in the case (the whole "sweat DNA" conversation)
  

 

[parrot]

Nothing wrong with having an open mind. Not picking a side, but I think it’s okay to formulate an opinion based on some facts the documentary presented. Is the show biased? Absolutely. However, being close-minded to the possibility that Avery and Dassey are innocent is just as bad as assuming they’re 100% innocent. If anything, this documentary sheds a light on the possibility of corruption within law enforcement and government.

It would do a better job of shedding a light on it if there was any reason to believe it actually happened in this case;

There's no reason to believe Colborn was doing anything but verifying information with the plate call.  There's no reason to believe the Rav was planted on the Avery property.  There's no reason to believe Avery's blood was planted in the Rav, or his DNA on the hood latch.  There's no reason to believe the bones were planted in his fire pit.  There's no reason to believe the bullet from his gun with her DNA was planted in his garage.  I guess you can point to the key and say "That's weird how it was found..." but it's still no compelling reason to believe it was planted.  The only reason people believe any of this is because they were told to believe it by a one-sided propaganda piece.  It's pretty sad really.  Occam must be throwing up in his grave. 

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Did the documentary ever mention the stalking behavior exhibited by Avery prior to Teresa's disappearance? Did they mention the fears she expressed to others about going over to his property due to previous visit where he creeped her out because he came out wearing only a towel? Did they mention the fact Teresa told Auto Trader she didn't want to go back to the Avery property? Did they mention that Avery called Auto Trader and specifically requested Teresa to be who they sent to shoot his next car? Did they mention all the calls Avery made to Teresa to make sure she came to the property including trying to block his number using Star-67? Did they mention when Dassey's mom told police about Brendan ruining his jeans with bleach from the time he had to help clean Avery's garage around the time of Teresa's disappearance?

I lived in Wisconsin at the time and I distinctly remember most of the state having very little doubt Avery did it. That's because we lived it. We read and heard ALL the evidence. I say that reminding everyone that we all knew this was a guy who had wrongly been convicted prior. We all had a reason to be skeptical about the state yet it took very little time to see he was going to be convicted in this case. The evidence was there. If there was a huge conspiracy to pin this on Avery he sure did a heck of a job giving police an ample circumstantial opening with all of his attempts to get Teresa on his property at the time she went missing. I don't have everything at top of mind but I faintly remember Avery drawing torture chambers meant for women, talking about torturing women to other inmates, and even bragging how when he got out he now knew how to get away with it.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind based on my memories from a decade ago. People should know that the documentary withheld many things that would lead a rational person to believe Avery did it. And to me, what's the point in that? That's no longer a sound documentary when you don't provide a complete picture. To downright exclude known info to shape a narrative is such a tasteless and shameful production. It somewhat angered me that the producers got so much mileage out of such a deceptive piece.

 

[Don't Noonan]

Did the documentary ever mention the stalking behavior exhibited by Avery prior to Teresa's disappearance? Did they mention the fears she expressed to others about going over to his property due to previous visit where he creeped her out because he came out wearing only a towel? Did they mention the fact Teresa told Auto Trader she didn't want to go back to the Avery property? Did they mention that Avery called Auto Trader and specifically requested Teresa to be who they sent to shoot his next car? Did they mention all the calls Avery made to Teresa to make sure she came to the property including trying to block his number using Star-67? Did they mention when Dassey's mom told police about Brendan ruining his jeans with bleach from the time he had to help clean Avery's garage around the time of Teresa's disappearance?

I lived in Wisconsin at the time and I distinctly remember most of the state having very little doubt Avery did it. That's because we lived it. We read and heard ALL the evidence. I say that reminding everyone that we all knew this was a guy who had wrongly been convicted prior. We all had a reason to be skeptical about the state yet it took very little time to see he was going to be convicted in this case. The evidence was there. If there was a huge conspiracy to pin this on Avery he sure did a heck of a job giving police an ample circumstantial opening with all of his attempts to get Teresa on his property at the time she went missing. I don't have everything at top of mind but I faintly remember Avery drawing torture chambers meant for women, talking about torturing women to other inmates, and even bragging how when he got out he now knew how to get away with it.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind based on my memories from a decade ago. People should know that the documentary withheld many things that would lead a rational person to believe Avery did it. And to me, what's the point in that? That's no longer a sound documentary when you don't provide a complete picture. To downright exclude known info to shape a narrative is such a tasteless and shameful production. It somewhat angered me that the producers got so much mileage out of such a deceptive piece.

Perhaps you should watch MAM as they made some compelling arguments to show reasonable doubt.  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Perhaps you should watch MAM as they made some compelling arguments to show reasonable doubt.  

I did watch it, parts 1 and 2. That's how I know they left all those things out.

 

[Dickies]

Did the documentary ever mention the stalking behavior exhibited by Avery prior to Teresa's disappearance? Did they mention the fears she expressed to others about going over to his property due to previous visit where he creeped her out because he came out wearing only a towel? Did they mention the fact Teresa told Auto Trader she didn't want to go back to the Avery property? Did they mention that Avery called Auto Trader and specifically requested Teresa to be who they sent to shoot his next car? Did they mention all the calls Avery made to Teresa to make sure she came to the property including trying to block his number using Star-67? Did they mention when Dassey's mom told police about Brendan ruining his jeans with bleach from the time he had to help clean Avery's garage around the time of Teresa's disappearance?

I lived in Wisconsin at the time and I distinctly remember most of the state having very little doubt Avery did it. That's because we lived it. We read and heard ALL the evidence. I say that reminding everyone that we all knew this was a guy who had wrongly been convicted prior. We all had a reason to be skeptical about the state yet it took very little time to see he was going to be convicted in this case. The evidence was there. If there was a huge conspiracy to pin this on Avery he sure did a heck of a job giving police an ample circumstantial opening with all of his attempts to get Teresa on his property at the time she went missing. I don't have everything at top of mind but I faintly remember Avery drawing torture chambers meant for women, talking about torturing women to other inmates, and even bragging how when he got out he now knew how to get away with it.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind based on my memories from a decade ago. People should know that the documentary withheld many things that would lead a rational person to believe Avery did it. And to me, what's the point in that? That's no longer a sound documentary when you don't provide a complete picture. To downright exclude known info to shape a narrative is such a tasteless and shameful production. It somewhat angered me that the producers got so much mileage out of such a deceptive piece.

It's been a while since I watched S1, but I'm pretty sure most of this was covered.  I've read basically all of the court documents and looked over all the evidence presented.  It doesn't add up to me.  Sure it's possible that they could have done it, but there is plenty of doubt to go around.  Here are some of the things that don't sit well with me.

1. Kratz' press conference detailing how everything went down (even though there was no evidence supporting this besides Dassey's confession).  This should be illegal.  How on Earth can anyone expect a fair trail when the prosecutor makes announcements like this to the media.  The media is going to amplify it because shocking headlines sell.

2. The 'sweat' DNA was not swabbed from the RAV4 until April, so why would Fassbender and Wiegert feed Dassey on opening the hood of the RAV4 when the interrogation was in March?

3. Same goes for the bullet in the garage.  The interrogators fed Dassey this information before they had even found the bullet in the garage.

4. The key.  There is no possible way the key was not planted.  There are pictures showing it is clearly not where they found it, and if we believe that Colburn violently shook the nightstand before it fell out, the pictures show that nothing on the nightstand has moved.  Maybe the all the other evidence is legit and the police did this to seal their case, but for me it disqualifies their credibility.

I'm now about halfway through S2, and there are also some things I find interesting as it relates to the evidence.

1. There is no mixed DNA in the RAV4.  The blood inside is all separate and the hood latch has no other DNA on it.  I'm not saying this could never happen, but it seems unlikely.

2. The bullet has no bone fragments, but appears to have wood fibers and wax.  If they did seize Avery's chapstick as evidence I find it compelling that they used it to plant DNA on the bullet, since I can't think of any reason why there would be a waxy substance on the bullet.

3. None (at least so far) of the state's experts' tests have been able to be recreated.  I understand there are margins for error, but they aren't even in the same ballpark.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

None of that was covered in the doc, Dickies. You're familiar with that info because you clearly looked further into the case beyond the doc.

There's more as well. There's a bullet with Teresa's DNA that's a match for one of Avery's rifles. Again, not trying to make people take my word or expect to change minds. Simply trying to represent that there's much more out there and that it's a disservice to form an opinion or draw a conclusion from the doc alone. If it was a fair doc, the items I've mentioned would have been in it and they left all that out. The doc wouldn't have drawn such a reaction with those items, now would it though?

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

None of that was covered in the doc, Dickies. You're familiar with that info because you clearly looked further into the case beyond the doc.

There's more as well. There's a bullet with Teresa's DNA that's a match for one of Avery's rifles. Again, not trying to make people take my word or expect to change minds. Simply trying to represent that there's much more out there and that it's a disservice to form an opinion or draw a conclusion from the doc alone. If it was a fair doc, the items I've mentioned would have been in it and they left all that out. The doc wouldn't have drawn such a reaction with those items, now would it though?

To be fair, it was a match for a rifle LIKE Avery's, which was a very common .22 rifle. That I recall, there was nothing saying it was an exact match for Avery's rifle. 

Just curious, since you mentioned being a local.. what was the local perception of Kratz before the documentary, if you're familiar with that? Obviously he's been proven since then to be a slimeball, but just curious what the buzz may have been prior to all that. 

 

[Rattle and Hum]

There's a bullet with Teresa's DNA that's a match for one of Avery's rifles. 

Is this a provable fact or simply the opinion of the prosecutor's witness? @Nathan R. Jessep ?

Could a .22 bullet travel through 2 sections of skull as well as lodge itself into cement like that? I'm not a gun guy so no clue.

What I find interesting about the show is how all of these "experts" are able to support the views of the team they are working for. WTH is a fact anymore?

I think the show did a good job of shining a light on:

1) How expensive and out of reach a thorough defense really is. Hopefully my family are never on the wrong end of this.

2) How biased people, experts, lawyers, family, onlookers, etc can be...to both sides (prob include me in this).

3) How facts seem to be less important than supporting your client...on both sides. Seems to me they should be able to to factually find out if she was initially burned on county property, if the bullet has TH's DNA why BD has gory images on his computer but the prosecution dismissed it, is sweat DNA possible to be left as stated, etc. etc etc.

4) While SA may be guilty, Mani County went about it the wrong way, IMO...their 5-0 should not have been anywhere near that crime scene based on their history with SA. Instead, from what I recall, they couldn't stay away and even found key evidence. 

It seems to me if someone is possibly going away for life that truth should be #1, all evidence should have been honestly examined, re-examined, shared, etc. Instead, we have prosecutors that want to win at all costs to boost their records/careers...sometimes on the backs of innocent people and that should not be happening in the USA, IMO. the system seems rigged against the majority of citizens it supposed to protect. This is MUCH bigger and problematic than TH, BD, SA, etc.

 

[parrot]

To be fair, it was a match for a rifle LIKE Avery's, which was a very common .22 rifle. That I recall, there was nothing saying it was an exact match for Avery's rifle. 

This has been covered in this thread.  One of the way the doc misleads people is the confusing way the two bullet fragments are addressed.  One fragment was matched only to the make of gun, the other fragment, the one with Halbach's DNA, was matched specifically to the .22 found in Avery's bedroom.  

William Newhouse trial testimony:

A. In this case, I was able to be more specific. And, in fact, because of markings on the bullet in State's Exhibit 277, I was able to conclude that this bullet had been fired from this specific gun.

Q. All right. So Exhibit 277 had been fired from Exhibit 247?

A. Yes, that's correct.

 

[parrot]

. The bullet has no bone fragments, but appears to have wood fibers and wax.  If they did seize Avery's chapstick as evidence I find it compelling that they used it to plant DNA on the bullet, since I can't think of any reason why there would be a waxy substance on the bullet.

Zellner's own expert said the wax could be left over from other ballistics testing.  Also, many .22 shells often have a waxy substance on them when you buy them.  

Why Are .22 LR Bullets Waxed?

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

This has been covered in this thread.  One of the way the doc misleads people is the confusing way the two bullet fragments are addressed.  One fragment was matched only to the make of gun, the other fragment, the one with Halbach's DNA, was matched specifically to the .22 found in Avery's bedroom.  

William Newhouse trial testimony:

A. In this case, I was able to be more specific. And, in fact, because of markings on the bullet in State's Exhibit 277, I was able to conclude that this bullet had been fired from this specific gun.

Q. All right. So Exhibit 277 had been fired from Exhibit 247?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Yes, I recall. I did not base it, or any of my opinions really, on the documentary. I read the entire court transcript. I'm sure what you presented is right. It's been a couple of years. I do recall there being discussion, and I also recall it being questionable testimony. Size of the bullet, the conclusion he came to based on questionable assumptions, etc.  Point being, it wasn't just cut and dry, but I suppose it probably never is in that line of work. 

 

[Dickies]

Zellner's own expert said the wax could be left over from other ballistics testing.  Also, many .22 shells often have a waxy substance on them when you buy them.  

Why Are .22 LR Bullets Waxed?

I debated not talking about the bullet as I was too tired to continue watching that episode last night and had to go to bed.  I still find the lack of bone fragments and the presence of wood curious.

 

[ren hoek]

What are the most compelling pieces of evidence, other than his own words and confession, that Brendan Dassey participated in Halbach's murder?  

 

[shuke]

a few things from my notes in this thread regarding the "sweat DNA" 

Just because it didn’t match any other profiles, does that mean it didn’t have other unidentified profiles?

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Just because it didn’t match any other profiles, does that mean it didn’t have other unidentified profiles?

Fair point. Don't remember the context they gave. 

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I think the main thing that has concerned me and several others about all this is that, based on facts beyond just the scope of the documentary, there seems to be a great deal of reasonable doubt. I'm not a lawyer, but a couple have chimed in over the course of this thread and they seem to agree, IIRC, on there being reasonable doubt.  Honestly, anyone dead set on either side of this has probably not done much research on it, outside of just watching the show. Just my

 

[shuke]

I think the main thing that has concerned me and several others about all this is that, based on facts beyond just the scope of the documentary, there seems to be a great deal of reasonable doubt. I'm not a lawyer, but a couple have chimed in over the course of this thread and they seem to agree, IIRC, on there being reasonable doubt.  Honestly, anyone dead set on either side of this has probably not done much research on it, outside of just watching the show. Just my

But do you think you would have come to that conclusion if you hadn’t watched the doc?  It obviously biased everyone’s opinion.  

 

[Dickies]

But do you think you would have come to that conclusion if you hadn’t watched the doc?  It obviously biased everyone’s opinion.  

I won't speak for NRJ, but I think I would have.  I've read all the court documents.  

Most of the people in here that are firmly in the guilty camp are locals that watched it happen in real time.  Do they think they would hold their conclusion if not for the Kratz press conference?

 

[shuke]

I won't speak for NRJ, but I think I would have.  I've read all the court documents.  

Most of the people in here that are firmly in the guilty camp are locals that watched it happen in real time.  Do they think they would hold their conclusion if not for the Kratz press conference?

I’m  not in that camp.  

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

But do you think you would have come to that conclusion if you hadn’t watched the doc?  It obviously biased everyone’s opinion.  

Hard to say, but I made a concerted effort to be objective when reading the transcripts. I didn't say "he's innocent!" after viewing S1, but it did pique my curiosity enough to think something could be amiss. 

 

[parrot]

I’m  not in that camp.  

Me neither.  Never heard of Steven Avery before Making a Murderer.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Me neither.  Never heard of Steven Avery before Making a Murderer.  

ditto

 

[ren hoek]

I think the insane $36 million dollar conflict of interest, the fact that they have framed Avery before, and the fact people like Lenk were crawling all over the crime scene lends enough reasonable doubt to Avery.  The state clearly had an existential hatred for him.  I believe they are innocent, although I probably shouldn’t state it as fact. 

Part of it for me is just how grossly pathetic and subservient to the state Len Kachinski was.  And how Dassey appeared to be fed certain details of his confession.  I’m just generally disgusted that any of this can work like that.  

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Again, people understandably get stuck in their way of thinking so I doubt it will have much impact, but living in Wisconsin at the time this all happened, I don't even remember Ken Kratz. Ken Kratz did not play any role in my determination of Steven Avery's guilt. Ken Kratz wasn't a figure I was even familiar with until I watched the MAM doc. For many of us who lived there we came to our conclusions from the facts presented on the local news and for myself especially in print. I probably saw bits and pieces of Ken Kratz on TV but he was not an influencing figure whatsoever. I didn't remember Avery's attorneys either. Prior to the doc I wouldn't have been able to pick Kratz or Avery's lawyers out of a lineup. I'm an avid reader so I'm 100% certain that I came to my conclusion on Avery from all of the evidence I read.

I think it comes down to two camps, those who lived through this when it was a local story and those who never heard of Steven Avery until the doc. The vast majority of people in Wisconsin thought Steven Avery was guilty at the time. The one-sided doc came out and there are now people outside of Wisconsin who think he might be innocent. What does that tell you? I know what it tells me. I will say this though, if that doc included all important known facts, it wouldn't have gained much notoriety, wouldn't have been widely viewed, and there wouldn't be hordes of people proclaiming Avery's innocence.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The vast majority of people in Wisconsin thought Steven Avery was guilty at the time.

Interesting, because presumably if you were not aware of the defense attorneys, almost everything you read was a one-sided version leaked from the prosecutors - and not the defense spin on things...

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Interesting, because presumably if you were not aware of the defense attorneys, almost everything you read was a one-sided version leaked from the prosecutors - and not the defense spin on things...

No I read the evidence, court transcripts, etc. I didn't watch press conferences. I saw both the prosecution and defense on TV during newscasts no doubt. What I was trying to convey was that neither swayed me. Neither Kratz nor Avery's attorneys made any lasting impression on me. I also stated that I didn't remember Kratz but you chose to pounce on my lack of recollection of Strang and Buting to conclude I must have been fed one side. And people who have their minds made up promptly liked your comment because they have their minds made up as well which is fine. My opinion was formed from the facts of the case. And for those whose primary exposure was the doc, I think you'd have a different opinion as well if the doc included all facts. But seriously, my goodness, I wish I hadn't chimed in. All I really wanted to get off my chest is my wish that more people would think critically about the information they're fed and do more than take the media or an agenda-driven doc's word for things.

 

[Sinn Fein]

My opinion was formed from the facts of the case.

Unless you were sitting in the courtroom, observing the witnesses for all the testimony - this is simply false.

Your point is valid - but it also applies to virtually everyone - not just the people who watched the documentary.  What you got, from whatever sources, was only a partial look at what happened.  Same, as people who watched the documentary.  They just saw different things than you.  Neither version is categorically right or wrong.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

What's really striking is rather than place some value in the fact that the vast majority of a state who lived it real time, believed in Avery's guilt, people's first inclination is to doubt the credibility or exposure of facts to said state residents and defer to a doc that is well known to have left out major facts. I've got people assuming I exposed myself to a one-sided presentation before they'll admit to themselves that maybe this doc they believe so fully in, might have led them astray.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

No I read the evidence, court transcripts, etc. I didn't watch press conferences. I saw both the prosecution and defense on TV during newscasts no doubt. What I was trying to convey was that neither swayed me. Neither Kratz nor Avery's attorneys made any lasting impression on me. I also stated that I didn't remember Kratz but you chose to pounce on my lack of recollection of Strang and Buting to conclude I must have been fed one side. And people who have their minds made up promptly liked your comment because they have their minds made up as well which is fine. My opinion was formed from the facts of the case. And for those whose primary exposure was the doc, I think you'd have a different opinion as well if the doc included all facts. But seriously, my goodness, I wish I hadn't chimed in. All I really wanted to get off my chest is my wish that more people would think critically about the information their fed and do more than take the media or an agenda-driven doc's word for things.

 I'll jump in here since I assume you are referring to me since I am one of the (currently) 2 people to like Sinn's comment.  You're being obtuse here, IMO. I have already stated, just like you did, that I was not swayed by the documentary, but by what I have read since then. Your recount is no different, save the homer bias which you admitted to, and I don't fault you for that. I also stated that I was only in the camp that there was reasonable doubt present.  I wasn't sure with your previous comments who you were addressing so I stayed out of it, mostly, but you made it pretty clear with that one. I agree with your point in general. More people (i.e. the general public) do need to do more study on this particular case before forming an opinion based solely on the TV show. But I also think that most, if not all, the people participating in discussion in this thread have done their research, if nothing else, on the factual articles and evidentiary documents posted in this thread. 

It is possible that different parties have viewed and reviewed the same evidence and documents that you have and arrived at different opinions. 

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Having read countless news articles, court docs, and all of the evidentiary documentation in real time, I got a much better look at what happened - when it happened. I've heard or read all evidence presented and saw both parts of the doc as well. To compare my exposure to those who saw a doc is laughable. My point about people eating up media content and determining they must know it all has clearly been proven and it's really sad. Those of you claiming you watched the doc and then took the time to read about all the things being left out are being dishonest. There's no way you read all the evidence in this case and think the doc is anything but a joke. To come in here and dishonestly represent yourselves as individuals who dug real deep into this case beyond the doc and chalk up your differing opinion to simply being a reasonable person who came to a different conclusion is pathetic. If you truly looked at everything beyond the doc, you wouldn't be trying to fabricate reasons as to why someone who lived the case when it happened would conclude differently than you. Like I said earlier, rather than question a doc known to have left out huge pieces of incriminating evidence, the messenger is assumed to have been biased, lazy, misled, or having been exposed to a one-sided presentation. When you start pointing the finger of naivety at someone who was exposed to all the evidence in defense of a biased doc you pretty much expose yourself as someone unwillingly to change your mind. I have no one to blame but myself for getting dragged into this. People's pride will always get in the way of admitting maybe they made up their minds on too little information. I do it myself. This isn't one of those times.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Wow. OK then. 

 

[cockroach]

What's really striking is rather than place some value in the fact that the vast majority of a state who lived it real time, believed in Avery's guilt...

What about the first time he was framed?  Maybe people don't place their value there because they've been betrayed before. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

What's really striking is rather than place some value in the fact that the vast majority of a state who lived it real time, believed in Avery's guilt, people's first inclination is to doubt the credibility or exposure of facts to said state residents and defer to a doc that is well known to have left out major facts. I've got people assuming I exposed myself to a one-sided presentation before they'll admit to themselves that maybe this doc they believe so fully in, might have led them astray.

I was working in the executive suite at AutoTrader at the time of the murder...I have been following the case since then...I also have family that lives in Manitowoc, and surrounding areas - I have picked their brains on this long before the Documentary.  There are reasonable positions on many sides of this debate - nobody has a monopoly on the "facts" nor on how they were presented, nor on how they were viewed.

 

[Dickies]

Again, people understandably get stuck in their way of thinking so I doubt it will have much impact, but living in Wisconsin at the time this all happened, I don't even remember Ken Kratz. Ken Kratz did not play any role in my determination of Steven Avery's guilt. Ken Kratz wasn't a figure I was even familiar with until I watched the MAM doc. For many of us who lived there we came to our conclusions from the facts presented on the local news and for myself especially in print. I probably saw bits and pieces of Ken Kratz on TV but he was not an influencing figure whatsoever. I didn't remember Avery's attorneys either. Prior to the doc I wouldn't have been able to pick Kratz or Avery's lawyers out of a lineup. I'm an avid reader so I'm 100% certain that I came to my conclusion on Avery from all of the evidence I read.

I think it comes down to two camps, those who lived through this when it was a local story and those who never heard of Steven Avery until the doc. The vast majority of people in Wisconsin thought Steven Avery was guilty at the time. The one-sided doc came out and there are now people outside of Wisconsin who think he might be innocent. What does that tell you? I know what it tells me. I will say this though, if that doc included all important known facts, it wouldn't have gained much notoriety, wouldn't have been widely viewed, and there wouldn't be hordes of people proclaiming Avery's innocence.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think the local news is unbiased, but the documentary is one-sided (it is).  The "overwhelming evidence" that is cited as being omitted from the documentary doesn't really move the needle for me. 

The "sweat DNA" and the bullet were found after the Dassey interview.  Why would the interrogators, having previously found no evidence of bullets have asked Dassey after he provides a series of unsatisfactory answers "All right, I'm just gonna come out and ask you. Who shot her in the head?"?  He then describes what happened (they shot her outside of the garage and threw her directly in the fire) which they go over a handful of times before Fassbender circles back and says "we know that some things happened in that garage and in that car, we know that.  You need to tell us about this so we know you're tellin' us the truth.  I'm not gonna tell you what to say, you need to tell us"  Again, they had found no evidence in the garage, no evidence that she had been shot, but they bring this up to him.  I don't feel like continuing to go through his interview, but the same thing happened with the hood latch.  It would still be poor form to lead him like this if they had already searched and found this evidence, but without searching I just find the leading statements to make zero sense.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think the local news is unbiased, but the documentary is one-sided (it is).  The "overwhelming evidence" that is cited as being omitted from the documentary doesn't really move the needle for me. 

The "sweat DNA" and the bullet were found after the Dassey interview.  Why would the interrogators, having previously found no evidence of bullets have asked Dassey after he provides a series of unsatisfactory answers "All right, I'm just gonna come out and ask you. Who shot her in the head?"?  He then describes what happened (they shot her outside of the garage and threw her directly in the fire) which they go over a handful of times before Fassbender circles back and says "we know that some things happened in that garage and in that car, we know that.  You need to tell us about this so we know you're tellin' us the truth.  I'm not gonna tell you what to say, you need to tell us"  Again, they had found no evidence in the garage, no evidence that she had been shot, but they bring this up to him.  I don't feel like continuing to go through his interview, but the same thing happened with the hood latch.  It would still be poor form to lead him like this if they had already searched and found this evidence, but without searching I just find the leading statements to make zero sense.

What about Dassey saying how bad it smelled when her body was burning and how it sounded when she was trying to breathe after being stabbed in the stomach?  These were things we never saw in the S1 documentary but were two of the primary things that were focused on when the case went in front of the 7th circuit in S2, and probably a huge part of why his conviction wasn’t overturned. The documentary conveniently didn’t talk/show this other then playing the audio tape of it being a prominent part of the prosecutions arguement in front of the 7th circuit. These are pretty incriminating and what seems to be uncoerced comments that the Dassey/Avery defense has no explanation for.  If these comments were part of the Dassey confession that we have all seen, and were intentionally left out of the documentary...there is probably a very good reason why. The prosecution found these admissions by Dassey to be so overwhelming that they used them as their primary arguement in the short time they had to argue the case in front of the 7th circuit. 

ETA: I don’t even know if they were part of the initial Dassey confession we saw in the documentary, it could have been some later questioning for all I know, but it is something the documentaries never showed or talked about.

 

[Dickies]

What about Dassey saying how bad it smelled when her body was burning and how it sounded when she was trying to breathe after being stabbed in the stomach?  These were things we never saw in the S1 documentary but were two of the primary things that were focused on when the case went in front of the 7th circuit in S2, and probably a huge part of why his conviction wasn’t overturned. The documentary conveniently didn’t talk/show this other then playing the audio tape of it being a prominent part of the prosecutions arguement in front of the 7th circuit. These are pretty incriminating and what seems to be uncoerced comments that the Dassey/Avery defense has no explanation for.  If these comments were part of the Dassey confession that we have all seen, and were intentionally left out of the documentary...there is probably a very good reason why. The prosecution found these admissions by Dassey to be so overwhelming that they used them as their primary arguement in the short time they had to argue the case in front of the 7th circuit. 

His story was consistent that he had nothing to do with the murder until they started feeding him and assuring him that they are looking out for his best interests.  Once the door opens to him being involved in the murder he is all over the place.  There are plenty of nauseating descriptions, but then they change.  Even if he was involved in her murder, the final version of events that they coerced out of him is the least believable, but there are key pieces of evidence that match the most blatant moments where the interrogators lead him.

There's a chance he was involved, but if you read the entire interrogation (as I have done) you'll see what a disgrace it is.  Do you think the entirety of his confession 100% proves he is guilty of the charges against him without a shred of doubt?

 

[parrot]

Why would the interrogators, having previously found no evidence of bullets have asked Dassey after he provides a series of unsatisfactory answers "All right, I'm just gonna come out and ask you. Who shot her in the head?"?  He then describes what happened (they shot her outside of the garage and threw her directly in the fire) which they go over a handful of times before Fassbender circles back and says "we know that some things happened in that garage and in that car, we know that.  You need to tell us about this so we know you're tellin' us the truth.  I'm not gonna tell you what to say, you need to tell us"  Again, they had found no evidence in the garage, no evidence that she had been shot, but they bring this up to him.  

That's not accurate.  Going into the interview they knew from Eisenberg that there was evidence of at least one gunshot wound to the head.  This was testified to at trial.  They didn't just pull it out of the air. 

And don't forget the part where without any kind of leading Brendan then immediately identifies the gun eventually linked to the killing and the garage as the place where the shooting took place, leading to the eventual finding of the bullet fragment.  

 

[Stinkin Ref]

His story was consistent that he had nothing to do with the murder until they started feeding him and assuring him that they are looking out for his best interests.  Once the door opens to him being involved in the murder he is all over the place.  There are plenty of nauseating descriptions, but then they change.  Even if he was involved in her murder, the final version of events that they coerced out of him is the least believable, but there are key pieces of evidence that match the most blatant moments where the interrogators lead him.

There's a chance he was involved, but if you read the entire interrogation (as I have done) you'll see what a disgrace it is.  Do you think the entirety of his confession 100% proves he is guilty of the charges against him without a shred of doubt?

I guess I don't really think you get bonus points for "your story being consistent" at the beginning when you are involved in something so bad.  I think most people would "stay consistent" in their denial at the beginning.  I agree that the investigators pieced together a scenario of the way they think things may have went down and maybe led Dassey in that direction, when in fact things may have happened differently.  Although the end result was the same and the people involved could be the same.  I do however think that comments like him complaining about how bad the body smelled when it was being burned and how weird it sounded when she was stabbed in the stomach and trying to breathe....are pretty raw.  Those are sensory type admissions offered up that are pretty compelling.  I haven't actually seen/heard the context of those two particular comments.  I do not know if it was during the initial interview when he was on the sofa or if it was from something later. S1 sure didn't show it. I do not know if the investigators said "hey, did it smell bad when she was being burned?"...and he just said "yeah"....or if Dassey just offered that up on his own.   It sounds as if it was more that he offered it up instead of being led there when it comes to these two specific comments.  And if he offered those comments up, it feels pretty incriminating to me.  And again, these comments were a huge part of what was presented to the 7th circuit so they seem to carry a ton of weight and there must not have been much concern that they were coerced comments. 

Personally I think Avery recruited Dassey to be his wing man.  I don't feel Dassey had a huge role in the actual raping/shooting/stabbing/killing, etc. (whatever actually happened that resulted in her death) But I think he was there for a lot what went down and for the cleanup/disposal/etc. 

 

[Dickies]

That's not accurate.  Going into the interview they knew from Eisenberg that there was evidence of at least one gunshot wound to the head.  This was testified to at trial.  They didn't just pull it out of the air. 

And don't forget the part where without any kind of leading Brendan then immediately identifies the gun eventually linked to the killing and the garage as the place where the shooting took place, leading to the eventual finding of the bullet fragment.  

Nope.  He said nothing went on in the garage.  He repeatedly described it as happening outside the garage and then the interrogators told him they knew it all went down in the garage, so Dassey agrees and changes his story from it happening outside the garage to inside.  Before they told him that she was shot in the head he was saying that they knifed her and carried her body to the burn barrel, but the police told him that the body was put in the back of the RAV4.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Nope.  He said nothing went on in the garage.  He repeatedly described it as happening outside the garage and then the interrogators told him they knew it all went down in the garage, so Dassey agrees and changes his story from it happening outside the garage to inside.  Before they told him that she was shot in the head he was saying that they knifed her and carried her body to the burn barrel, but the police told him that the body was put in the back of the RAV4.

I think they were eventually in the garage with the RAV also in the garage...she was stabbed in the stomach (thus Dassey talking about how it sounded with her trying to breathe)....and also how the blood splatter got onto the inside of the backdoor of the RAV (it was made by the swinging of the knife, not a hammer like they showed in S2) ...that didn't kill her....so she was shot in the head....put into the back of the RAV possibly mostly wrapped in tarps or something so limited blood in the RAV....and then transported to the burn barrels where the burning started (Dassey comments about how that smelled)....before then taking the remains from the burn barrels to the burn pit....RAV driven to other location on property...

 

[Dickies]

I guess I don't really think you get bonus points for "your story being consistent" at the beginning when you are involved in something so bad.  I think most people would "stay consistent" in their denial at the beginning.  I agree that the investigators pieced together a scenario of the way they think things may have went down and maybe led Dassey in that direction, when in fact things may have happened differently.  Although the end result was the same and the people involved could be the same.  I do however think that comments like him complaining about how bad the body smelled when it was being burned and how weird it sounded when she was stabbed in the stomach and trying to breathe....are pretty raw.  Those are sensory type admissions offered up that are pretty compelling.  I haven't actually seen/heard the context of those two particular comments.  I do not know if it was during the initial interview when he was on the sofa or if it was from something later. S1 sure didn't show it. I do not know if the investigators said "hey, did it smell bad when she was being burned?"...and he just said "yeah"....or if Dassey just offered that up on his own.   It sounds as if it was more that he offered it up instead of being led there when it comes to these two specific comments.  And if he offered those comments up, it feels pretty incriminating to me.  And again, these comments were a huge part of what was presented to the 7th circuit so they seem to carry a ton of weight and there must not have been much concern that they were coerced comments. 

Personally I think Avery recruited Dassey to be his wing man.  I don't feel Dassey had a huge role in the actual raping/shooting/stabbing/killing, etc. (whatever actually happened that resulted in her death) But I think he was there for a lot what went down and for the cleanup/disposal/etc. 

None of it is consistent except for the beginning.  Even with the police feeding him answers he eventually strays away from them and has to be led back by them.

 

[parrot]

Nope.  He said nothing went on in the garage.  He repeatedly described it as happening outside the garage and then the interrogators told him they knew it all went down in the garage, so Dassey agrees and changes his story from it happening outside the garage to inside.  Before they told him that she was shot in the head he was saying that they knifed her and carried her body to the burn barrel, but the police told him that the body was put in the back of the RAV4.

He wasn't led on identifying the gun used to shoot her at all.   

 

[Dickies]

He wasn't led on identifying the gun used to shoot her at all.   

Ok?

 

[parrot]

Ok?

So at that point he knows something about the crime that was in no way fed to him since no one else knew it yet.  

 

[JShare87]

One of the most interesting things from the documentary was the fact that there was no blood found in the garage. That garage was littered with stuff from wall to wall. It would’ve been impossible to clean every drop of blood out of there. Also, the fact that they found no blood in the concrete. This is all assuming she was killed in the garage. 

 

[IC FBGCav]

What are the most compelling pieces of evidence, other than his own words and confession, that Brendan Dassey participated in Halbach's murder?  

Planted evidence.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

One of the most interesting things from the documentary was the fact that there was no blood found in the garage. That garage was littered with stuff from wall to wall. It would’ve been impossible to clean every drop of blood out of there. Also, the fact that they found no blood in the concrete. This is all assuming she was killed in the garage. 

Tarps

 

[ILUVBEER99]

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think the local news is unbiased, but the documentary is one-sided (it is).  The "overwhelming evidence" that is cited as being omitted from the documentary doesn't really move the needle for me. 

Agree.  The media bought into everything the prosecution told them during the case.  The local media in WI aren't some investigative journalists.  They take what they are told and print it.

I like in WI, just taking what the local media spit out at face value is the same as taking the documentary at face value.

Because someone lived in WI doesn't give them some kind of inside info on the case.  We knew what was said on the news or in the papers (which was 95% what the prosecution told them).  The documentary gave tons more info on the case than we got in WI.