What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

I think the argument that Avery's relatives were on their suspect list is a total straw man. Who gives a #### who is on that list? As far as I'm concerned it isn't the defenses job to rustle up a replacement suspect, only to advocate on behalf of their client. That they list Brendan is irrelevant. I also think it's offensive to say the Avery defense is saying the MCSD killed her. They forwarded the theory that the officers planted evidence to implicate Avery, not that they murdered Halbach. That's another misdirection.

 
I'd really like to see some serious follow up on the blood and sample. Has there been any cases since Avery that have used that test? Is it common practice now. I read that the company that did the test screwed up and that was one of the reasons OJ got off.

 
Was there ever an answer as to why the vial of SA's blood was opening and had a needle sized hole in the top of it?

I'd love to hear anyone defending the police in this matter try to explain that. There's only 1 explanation in my opinion.

 
Was there ever an answer as to why the vial of SA's blood was opening and had a needle sized hole in the top of it?

I'd love to hear anyone defending the police in this matter try to explain that. There's only 1 explanation in my opinion.
Steven Avery tampered with it?

 
It seems pretty clear to me that Bobby Dasset committed the murder. He was the last one to see Teresa alive and had murder weapon readily available.

 
Was there ever an answer as to why the vial of SA's blood was opening and had a needle sized hole in the top of it?

I'd love to hear anyone defending the police in this matter try to explain that. There's only 1 explanation in my opinion.
:goodposting:

Absent a massive, overwhelming amount of physical evidence, this + the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department being on the scene in the first place despite explicit instructions (and common sense) is enough to create a reasonable doubt. The coerced confession, the lack of a clear narrative about what happened, the body apparently having been moved from offsite, all that stuff creates further doubt, but I thought the tampering with the sample (along with the defense expert testimony about the EDTA test) along with the presence of clearly biased officers was clearly more than sufficient.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
More than sufficient for people with integrity on the juror. Not so apparently with a Deputy's father on the jury.

 
Willy said:
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
I said the same thing a couple of pages back but was attacked for it. I would wager you take any criminal case and present just the defense side of the case on Netflix as this series did and you'd rope in a whole lot of supporters of the defense as well. Many here fail to acknowledge (or don't understand) that this series took the defenses viewpoint and developed their series around it.
Again, you haven't even watched it so you have no idea what you are talking about. They present both sides, but they go more in-depth with the defense because the defense agreed to talk with them and the prosecution wanted no part in it. The local media was clearly biased in favor of the prosecution and the prosecution kept feeding them outrageous headlines because they knew the media would couldn't resist sensationalism.

 
Willy said:
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
With posts like these I think it's important to recognize that the local community has a significant and obvious bias. A miscarriage of justice like the one portrayed in this series makes a town/county/state look very bad. Because of "Making a Murderer" tens of millions of people who had previously never heard of Manitowoc County now consider it to be synonymous with corruption and injustice. Of course residents of that county or other nearby areas going to defend themselves from that perception.

 
The Flying Elvis said:
Decent article... http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

I agree with most of what is written, while I think Steven probably did it, I also think the police probably planted evidence and played fast and loose.
Hmmmm . . . interesting article about some of the evidence that was presented in the trial to help convict Avery but was not included in the documentary. I wonder why it wasn't included. Any guesses anyone?
1. It was included

2. It was included

3-5. Don't really understand what relevance this has. She had been out there numerous times and knew his address. If he was trying to trick her into coming out there she would know who it was once she was given the address.

6. Was not mentioned that the bullet came from Avery's gun, but keep in mind that his gun would have been seized as evidence by the police and the bullet was found MONTHS after they initially searched the garage. It was found by the very people that should have been nowhere near the crime scene.

7. They mentioned they found handcuffs and leg irons and that none of Halbach's DNA was found on either, but they did not mention the purchase date which seems irrelevant to me. You complain about bias a lot, and this article clearly shows some with this statement "like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before". If you watched the confession you would realize that Dassey did not mention these items until the police fed him the information.

8. Not included and would like to know more.

 
The Flying Elvis said:
Decent article... http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

I agree with most of what is written, while I think Steven probably did it, I also think the police probably planted evidence and played fast and loose.
Hmmmm . . . interesting article about some of the evidence that was presented in the trial to help convict Avery but was not included in the documentary. I wonder why it wasn't included. Any guesses anyone?
1. It was included

2. It was included

3-5. Don't really understand what relevance this has. She had been out there numerous times and knew his address. If he was trying to trick her into coming out there she would know who it was once she was given the address.

6. Was not mentioned that the bullet came from Avery's gun, but keep in mind that his gun would have been seized as evidence by the police and the bullet was found MONTHS after they initially searched the garage. It was found by the very people that should have been nowhere near the crime scene.

7. They mentioned they found handcuffs and leg irons and that none of Halbach's DNA was found on either, but they did not mention the purchase date which seems irrelevant to me. You complain about bias a lot, and this article clearly shows some with this statement "like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before". If you watched the confession you would realize that Dassey did not mention these items until the police fed him the information.

8. Not included and would like to know more.
I would have liked to have known about him calling her repeatedly that day and using *67, and about the incident of her meeting her at the door wearing a towel. They're not huge omissions, but one of the many reasons I questioned the conviction was lack of motive, and anything indicating an obsession with the victim goes to that. Would have been nice to have that information.

But like i said, lack of motive was just one of the many reasons I was bothered by the conviction and sentencing.

 
I really enjoyed this column (linked in the Gawker article) from a local Milwaukee crime journalist. There's nothing earth-shattering in there but she does a great job of reviewing the questions raised by the series that demand answers, as well as some of the problems with the theory of Avery's innocence. She also brings a local focus- she previously had assumed they were guilty and now remembers stuff like that crazy "hide the kids for this" Kratz press conference with a much more critical eye.

 
Agreed. I think this is going to really blow up soon.
Yep.

Gawker has it now.

http://gawker.com/making-a-murderer-is-good-but-what-is-it-good-for-1749904524

Several celebs are tweeting on it. Including Alec Baldwin, Rosie and Andre from the League
This article, which was linked in your link, is as good a synopsis as I've seen about the questions raised in the documentary (and is written by a Wisconsinite who previously assumed them guilty). I'd recommend it to KingPrawn or any others who are assuming guilt based on the media coverage of the case. Hopefully it will prompt them to actually watch the documentary so they can comment on in intelligently instead of relying on innuendo and indignation.
:hifive:

 
I just finished this doc last night.

There are two things that kept coming to mind while I watched:

....I kept thinking, it's ironic that I still think the Memphis Three are guilty, yet there's multiple documentary productions that lean heavily to proving their innocence while with this documentary, I believe 100% Brendan Dassey had nothing to do with the death of Teresa Halbach.

...The other point that kept jumping up to me was that there has to be more to the story than what the documentary creator was including. No blood evidence in the trailer? How could that be possible, and then not have reasonable doubt? You watch this program and if you believe everything the creator wants you to believe, you can't help but scratch your head and wonder how in the world can any of this be true. I still think the Memphis Three are guilty, I still think Brendan Dassey is innocent, and Steve Avery, I have no idea if I believe him to be innocent or guilty.

A few other thoughts,

- I hate Ken Kratz. Whether he was working on the side of truth or not, he wreaked of sleaze.

- Len Kachinsky belongs in prison, and I would pay to watch closed circuit security coverage of his day to day life in jail.

- I love Delores Avery. She was a really interesting woman to watch.

- I'm saddened for the family of Teresa Halbach however I think I'd like to punch her brother in the face.

- the most profound statement to me was hearing Steve Avery's attorney, late in the series, say in a round table type conversation,

say, "Deep down, I hope he's guilty." - And that's sort of what I thought as well.

 
Avery suing the authorities potentially much bigger then money. Who knows what malfeasance would have come to the surface. And what that would meant to all past cases involving Manitowoc.

Money may be the least of the motives to make sure Avery is out of the picture.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Read it somewhere.

Anyone have a link/info on what Shelly Culhane testified to in the original rape trial of Avery? Something to do with hair samples linking Avery to the rape.

 
cockroach said:
KingPrawn said:
An interesting article (at least to me anyway) critical of the series and it's take:

http://stevenavery.org/who-killed-teresa-halbach
For me, the summary of this article is saying that the doc is bad because they don't point the finger at the rest of the Avery family. Instead they point the finger at the people surrounding the victim's personal life, despite only Avery's being on the list of alternative suspects.

Here is a quote:

"

What’s more, the Making a Murderer team did all this without mentioning that none of these three men were included on any list of alternative suspects. All we hear is that Avery’s original defence team was prevented from discussing other possible suspects in court. The filmmakers don’t tell us that those suspects were all related to the Avery clan and the salvage yard and that they included Steven Avery’s brothers, Earl Avery and Charles Avery, his brother-in law Scott Tadych, his nephew Bobby Dassey and — wait for it — Brendan Dassey.

Yes, you read that correctly. All the while Making a Murderer is building a case that the prosecution of Brendan Dassey as a murderer alongside his uncle is a gross miscarriage of justice, they neglected to acknowledge that taht Avery’s very competent defence team was also prepared to throw Brendan under the bus. Turns out real life is way more complicated than even a 10-hour documentary."
Per the documentary:

"In a pre-trial hearing about third party liability, Judge Willis rules that the defense cannot offer any alternative suspects to the jury by name except Brendan."

And according to Avery's appeal ruling:

"While the court permitted Avery to offer evidence that Brendan Dassey was responsible for the charged crimes, Avery did not offer any such evidence."

https://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=70129

Sounds like they would still have been free to throw Brendan "under the bus" if that was their plan.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the things the main Anonymous guy is circling on is the damage to the front driver side of Halbach's car with the conclusion that the damage was likely due to towing straps (according to garages he's called around to)

He's now stating Colburn's family owned a towing company: https://twitter.com/0Hour1/status/681903177516494848

No idea if any of it is true, but just figured since this was the thread, it was a bit interesting (especially when you consider him calling in the plates on the vehicle)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The battery missing was odd too. Perhaps it went dead during her abduction. Door left open?. Someone fiddled with it. Thought maybe they left DNA then chucked it and decided to tow it.

Weird.

 
The battery missing was odd too. Perhaps it went dead during her abduction. Door left open?. Someone fiddled with it. Thought maybe they left DNA then chucked it and decided to tow it.

Weird.
It was a "pick and pull" place right? Guys probably couldn't help themselves - force of habit.

 
Sabertooth said:
I think the argument that Avery's relatives were on their suspect list is a total straw man. Who gives a #### who is on that list? As far as I'm concerned it isn't the defenses job to rustle up a replacement suspect, only to advocate on behalf of their client. That they list Brendan is irrelevant. I also think it's offensive to say the Avery defense is saying the MCSD killed her. They forwarded the theory that the officers planted evidence to implicate Avery, not that they murdered Halbach. That's another misdirection.
True... but you know what, it totally goes both ways as the prosecution didn't use Branden's confession as evidence against Avery. Now why would Kratz not include such damaging testimony? Because then maybe he could be called as a witness? *shrug*

 
Mike O'Kelly, the counselor type guy that worked Branden over for the confession and then was crying in the courtroom because he was in the same church as the murder victim seems as bad as a bunch of them.

Watching the last show now - binged watched since 7am this morning. A whole lot of police and legal system funny business going on.

 
Mike O'Kelly, the counselor type guy that worked Branden over for the confession and then was crying in the courtroom because he was in the same church as the murder victim seems as bad as a bunch of them.

Watching the last show now - binged watched since 7am this morning. A whole lot of police and legal system funny business going on.
Oh, in my opinion, he's the worst of them all.

Scumbag.

 
On The Rocks said:
I just finished this doc last night.

There are two things that kept coming to mind while I watched:

....I kept thinking, it's ironic that I still think the Memphis Three are guilty, yet there's multiple documentary productions that lean heavily to proving their innocence while with this documentary, I believe 100% Brendan Dassey had nothing to do with the death of Teresa Halbach.

...The other point that kept jumping up to me was that there has to be more to the story than what the documentary creator was including. No blood evidence in the trailer? How could that be possible, and then not have reasonable doubt? You watch this program and if you believe everything the creator wants you to believe, you can't help but scratch your head and wonder how in the world can any of this be true. I still think the Memphis Three are guilty, I still think Brendan Dassey is innocent, and Steve Avery, I have no idea if I believe him to be innocent or guilty.

A few other thoughts,

- I hate Ken Kratz. Whether he was working on the side of truth or not, he wreaked of sleaze.

- Len Kachinsky belongs in prison, and I would pay to watch closed circuit security coverage of his day to day life in jail.

- I love Delores Avery. She was a really interesting woman to watch.

- I'm saddened for the family of Teresa Halbach however I think I'd like to punch her brother in the face.

- the most profound statement to me was hearing Steve Avery's attorney, late in the series, say in a round table type conversation,

say, "Deep down, I hope he's guilty." - And that's sort of what I thought as well.
The West Memphis 3 are innocent. I dont see how you could possible believe they are guilty. I'm not going by just the documentaries either. Go out and learn all the evidence in the case and you will know they are innocent.

 
Mike O'Kelly, the counselor type guy that worked Branden over for the confession and then was crying in the courtroom because he was in the same church as the murder victim seems as bad as a bunch of them.

Watching the last show now - binged watched since 7am this morning. A whole lot of police and legal system funny business going on.
Oh, in my opinion, he's the worst of them all.

Scumbag.
Among about ten hateable scumbags, O'Kelly and Kachinsky manage to look the scummiest in a short window of time. As the people charged with helping Dassey they did everything they could to destroy his life.

I thought the most moving part of the documentary was when Strang was driving talking about Dassey getting chewed up by the system and how no one was helping him, basically calling out Kachinsky without mentioning him by name.

 
Strang and Buting were straight-up impressive and fascinating to listen to. I'd watch a show just about them and their cases.

Loved the scene were Strang was taking notes watching news coverage with Jodi. They showed the clip where Sheriff Peterson said it'd be easier to just eliminate Avery than frame him. Strang is just kind of sitting there bewildered and finally says, "This is insane." Jodi sort of shrugs and doesn't know what to say like, "welcome to our world."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sabertooth said:
I think the argument that Avery's relatives were on their suspect list is a total straw man. Who gives a #### who is on that list? As far as I'm concerned it isn't the defenses job to rustle up a replacement suspect, only to advocate on behalf of their client. That they list Brendan is irrelevant. I also think it's offensive to say the Avery defense is saying the MCSD killed her. They forwarded the theory that the officers planted evidence to implicate Avery, not that they murdered Halbach. That's another misdirection.
True... but you know what, it totally goes both ways as the prosecution didn't use Branden's confession as evidence against Avery. Now why would Kratz not include such damaging testimony? Because then maybe he could be called as a witness? *shrug*
Probably because the defense would have had a field day tearing it apart because there is absolutely no evidence or common sense that could have supported Brendan's story.

 
Mike O'Kelly, the counselor type guy that worked Branden over for the confession and then was crying in the courtroom because he was in the same church as the murder victim seems as bad as a bunch of them.

Watching the last show now - binged watched since 7am this morning. A whole lot of police and legal system funny business going on.
The scene where O'Kelly testifies was the most bizarre sequence I can remember in a long time.

I didn't get it. He was so emotional about his personal conviction. I had to watch that multiple times to make sure I was watching what I thought I was watching.

Very strange.

 
His testimony was pretty suspicious. Some posters on reddit even pointed out the deep scratches on his hand a couple days after Teresa went missing.

They also point out that SA doesn't have that cut (bandage) on his finger when he gives an interview to the news crew in the days following the murder.

Sidenote: There are some crazy people out there. One user is so convinced Ryan is the killer he has flown from Portland to Manitowac in an attempt to confront Ryan. He is live blogging the trip and has started a go fund me page.

 
Mike O'Kelly, the counselor type guy that worked Branden over for the confession and then was crying in the courtroom because he was in the same church as the murder victim seems as bad as a bunch of them.

Watching the last show now - binged watched since 7am this morning. A whole lot of police and legal system funny business going on.
The scene where O'Kelly testifies was the most bizarre sequence I can remember in a long time.

I didn't get it. He was so emotional about his personal conviction. I had to watch that multiple times to make sure I was watching what I thought I was watching.

Very strange.
Yeah I don't get it either.

 
I'm curious how many people here really think Steven is innocent? Not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt, just what your gut tells you.

I think there was some hinky stuff on the police/prosecution side, I also think he is probably guilty.

 
I'm curious how many people here really think Steven is innocent? Not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt, just what your gut tells you.

I think there was some hinky stuff on the police/prosecution side, I also think he is probably guilty.
I certainly don't buy the prosecution's story of the rape, shooting, and burning. I am surprised they even kept with that tale after there was no blood or DNA anywhere in the trailor and garage.

I think she was probably killed by someone on the Avery compound, but I have significant doubts that Steven committed the crime. I know he isn't the brightest guy, but he had millions of dollars coming his way. That amount of money could have caused some real problems with family members if he wasn't going to share it.

Found an article about four (unnamed) alternative suspects the defense was looking at. It's a good look at how dark things were in the family... http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamurdereralternativesuspects.html

 
My gut says he didn't do it. Too much was on the line for him and there was a lot of funny business going on that wasn't reported by the police.

 
My gut says he didn't do it. Too much was on the line for him and there was a lot of funny business going on that wasn't reported by the police.
I don't really get the "too much on the line" argument. I get that he was in line for a large amount of money, but anyone who commits a crime like this has "too much on the line" specifically the prospect of life in prison or even death in some cases, yet it happens fairly regularly. Negative consequences often don't carry that much weight with people with poor impulse control.

Also, I'd say the flip side of this is that Avery may have felt somewhat bullet-proof with his case against the county. Maybe he felt that he could coerce, or even force Halbach into things and the county would be scared to come after him lest it look like a witch-hunt. But then it got out of hand and he killed her.

If you think Avery is innocent; what are your thoughts on the evidence; the car and body mostly? Was the car planted there, or did someone else on the Avery compound kill her and hide the car? And was the body burned behind Avery's trailer, or moved there? Was it just dumb luck Avery had a bonfire that night?

 
An article was posted on the previous page that goes through some of the other "suspects" the defense wanted to present. The Avery and Lassey clans were pretty sketchy and had some violent pasts. And some of them have rather odd alibis for that day. They all either lived on or next to the property. If Steven didn't do it, one of them did.

 
An article was posted on the previous page that goes through some of the other "suspects" the defense wanted to present. The Avery and Lassey clans were pretty sketchy and had some violent pasts. And some of them have rather odd alibis for that day. They all either lived on or next to the property. If Steven didn't do it, one of them did.
I agree they are the only other realistic possibilities.

 
My gut says he didn't do it. Too much was on the line for him and there was a lot of funny business going on that wasn't reported by the police.
I don't really get the "too much on the line" argument. I get that he was in line for a large amount of money, but anyone who commits a crime like this has "too much on the line" specifically the prospect of life in prison or even death in some cases, yet it happens fairly regularly. Negative consequences often don't carry that much weight with people with poor impulse control.

Also, I'd say the flip side of this is that Avery may have felt somewhat bullet-proof with his case against the county. Maybe he felt that he could coerce, or even force Halbach into things and the county would be scared to come after him lest it look like a witch-hunt. But then it got out of hand and he killed her.

If you think Avery is innocent; what are your thoughts on the evidence; the car and body mostly? Was the car planted there, or did someone else on the Avery compound kill her and hide the car? And was the body burned behind Avery's trailer, or moved there? Was it just dumb luck Avery had a bonfire that night?
I think it would've been very easy for another Avery or anyone else to pick that huge junk yard as a place to put the car.

As for the dumb luck of the bonfire, it was Halloween. Every single person I know in the midwest has a bonfire on Halloween. Hardly unusual.

 
My gut says he didn't do it. Too much was on the line for him and there was a lot of funny business going on that wasn't reported by the police.
I don't really get the "too much on the line" argument. I get that he was in line for a large amount of money, but anyone who commits a crime like this has "too much on the line" specifically the prospect of life in prison or even death in some cases, yet it happens fairly regularly. Negative consequences often don't carry that much weight with people with poor impulse control.

Also, I'd say the flip side of this is that Avery may have felt somewhat bullet-proof with his case against the county. Maybe he felt that he could coerce, or even force Halbach into things and the county would be scared to come after him lest it look like a witch-hunt. But then it got out of hand and he killed her.

If you think Avery is innocent; what are your thoughts on the evidence; the car and body mostly? Was the car planted there, or did someone else on the Avery compound kill her and hide the car? And was the body burned behind Avery's trailer, or moved there? Was it just dumb luck Avery had a bonfire that night?
The impluse control may be a huge factor. That is one aspect that I'll never personally be able to wrap my head around, but do agree that it happens far too often. SA may have shown signs of poor impulse control in the past as well. Maybe he did just snap in the heat of the moment. But to be fair, I think that can also be said for other potential suspects that the police failed to follow through with.

So the evidence itself does not make any sense. Crime scenes are either the garage or SA's bedroom according to the State's case. I'm almost 100% positive it happened somewhere else. By who or when.... no idea.

The blood smear in the back of the RAV 4 indicated that Teresa was bleeding from the head and transported in the vehicle. This alone doesn't support the killing in the garage or bedroom and then moved to the burn pit initially. The burn pit was right off of Avery's garage and house IIRC.

As far as the two locations in which bones were found, I can't see a reason why SA would kill her on his property. Drive her out to the gravel pit. Try to burn the body there, just to bring pieces back to his own property. If SA killed her, he would have tried to burn her in his own pit first and move the remains off site. But that goes back to my last part. Why use a car to move a dead body 20 feet?

Back to the RAV 4, someone noted that the tires had dried sand between the wheel tread. I'm personally curious to see if there are forensics that can confirm the RAV 4 was actually being driven within the gravel pit area.

 
An article was posted on the previous page that goes through some of the other "suspects" the defense wanted to present. The Avery and Lassey clans were pretty sketchy and had some violent pasts. And some of them have rather odd alibis for that day. They all either lived on or next to the property. If Steven didn't do it, one of them did.
I agree they are the only other realistic possibilities.
Just doesnt make sense, Avery gets huge payday and everyone is on his side and he was starting new life. Anythings possible but only time he acted out in the past was when the deputys wife was talking about him jacking it in the yard and toward cars. I really think it was Bobby Dassey and his step dad. Would make sense why Brendan made confession to protect his brother. Also explains stepdads lying under oath to implicate Steven and his huge smile after the guilty verdict.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top