Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I'm not saying 100% anything. I'm saying they'd have to be found to have committed illegal acts to be on the hook.

Ok, I get it, so they may have been worried.

Mantis Toboggan

Why go to the bother of spotlessly cleaning up after the murder and burning the body but leave her car in the yard? Especially when you've got a crusher, just doesn't make sense!

marklazarcovic

The woman who 'discovered the rav4,by the grace of god' was also a private investigator as her job,and just happened to be the only one serching to be handed a camera to take pictures if she found something

marklazarcovic

Also,it matters not if avery bought chains and hancuffs,there is zero evidence or proof that the lady was tied up,assaulted in any way..even raped,no proof..just an accusation,and the confession from brendan that she was strapped to the bed and raped ,stabbed,throat slit etc...


The bedroom where guess what,zero evidence of anything taking place happened,nothing...


Bit mad ted i think

Kev1001

I got the feeling that Strang felt that Steven Avery might have done it. In his closing statements he made the point that he thought that the police had moved to create evidence against the man that they thought was guilty. He also said that Brendan Dassey was almost certainly innocent, and said that he hoped Steven had done it (instead of saying Steven was innocent too) in the post trial interview.

I like the theory put forward here:(can't post Url with so few posts)
.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xvpvv/alternate_theorytimeline_assuming_steven_avery/

Missymoohaa

OK binged the whole series in 24 hrs. Fantastic gripping documentary. Here's my tuppence worth, neither Steven or Brendan should have been convicted because there no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion. You want to be damn sure someone has committed this heinous crime against an innocent woman before you take away their liberty and potential. Police interference aside the following points stood out

1. Steven had a very calm and laidback conversation with his girlfriend whilst supposedly in the middle of this horrible crime. I don't buy that, he had a 70 IQ and cannot buy into him "acting cool as a cucumber"
2. With the facilities of a crusher and incinerator at his disposal why leave so much visible evidence. He knew he would be noted as last to see her, so disposing of the Rav4 was crucial.
3. He was on the cusp of great happiness in his life, marriage, money, new found freedom after years of incarceration, why on earth would he risk that knowing the injustices of the judicial system first hand.
4. That poor poor child Brendon was brutally treated by the system, it's astounding how he couldn't even get a retrial. The child had probably the mental age of a 10yr old. Yet was tried and questioned like a responsible adult.

Lastly the American judicial system has been shown for its inadequacies and that hopefully is a good thing. Whether Steve did or didn't commit this crime, none of us knows for sure and that's the whole point. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt was not achieved by the prosecution.

Sunflower 27

Missymoohaa wrote: »

OK binged the whole series in 24 hrs. Fantastic gripping documentary. Here's my tuppence worth, neither Steven or Brendan should have been convicted because there no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion. You want to be damn sure someone has committed this heinous crime against an innocent woman before you take away their liberty and potential. Police interference aside the following points stood out

1. Steven had a very calm and laidback conversation with his girlfriend whilst supposedly in the middle of this horrible crime. I don't buy that, he had a 70 IQ and cannot buy into him "acting cool as a cucumber"
2. With the facilities of a crusher and incinerator at his disposal why leave so much visible evidence. He knew he would be noted as last to see her, so disposing of the Rav4 was crucial.
3. He was on the cusp of great happiness in his life, marriage, money, new found freedom after years of incarceration, why on earth would he risk that knowing the injustices of the judicial system first hand.
4. That poor poor child Brendon was brutally treated by the system, it's astounding how he couldn't even get a retrial. The child had probably the mental age of a 10yr old. Yet was tried and questioned like a responsible adult.

Lastly the American judicial system has been shown for its inadequacies and that hopefully is a good thing. Whether Steve did or didn't commit this crime, none of us knows for sure and that's the whole point. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt was not achieved by the prosecution.

100% agree.

I'm curious to why neither of them can get a retrial. Who actually makes that decision and on what grounds?

I can't help but think Avery made a right show of that county's law enforcers and they wanted him to pay. It didn't matter if the real killer went free, as long as they got Avery. Where else would no-one else in tbe vicinity of a crime not at least considered a suspect?

Mantis Toboggan

What ever about Steve, I'd fully expect Brendan to be awarded a retrial following the documentary.

Missymoohaa

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

100% agree.

I'm curious to why neither of them can get a retrial. Who actually makes that decision and on what grounds?

I can't help but think Avery made a right show of that county's law enforcers and they wanted him to pay. It didn't matter if the real killer went free, as long as they got Avery. Where else would no-one else in tbe vicinity of a crime not at least considered a suspect?

Indeed, the fact that both have been refused any chance at appealing sentences is unfair while questions still remain unanswered. I believe that the reason there is no evidence against anyone else is because it simply wasn't looked for. They had their man and that was it. It would have been only right to investigate other members of Stevens family and also members of Ms. Alhachs family and close circle of friends, in the interests of fairness and justice. If after those meticulous investigations you can then eliminate them, then fine but this wasn't the case.

Thelomen Toblackai

Tyson Fury wrote: »

What ever about Steve, I'd fully expect Brendan to be awarded a retrial following the documentary.

I don't think the tv show will have any bearing on whether there's a retrial. It's already been to the appeals court and supreme court citing the issues in the show as reasons for a retrial. The show itself is just an outside look in, its nothing new. A bit of extra publicity and angry people online isn't going to swing it.

I'd hope though whatever route they were taking to make a federal case for a retrial pays off.

fin12

Missymoohaa wrote: »

OK binged the whole series in 24 hrs. Fantastic gripping documentary. Here's my tuppence worth, neither Steven or Brendan should have been convicted because there no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion. You want to be damn sure someone has committed this heinous crime against an innocent woman before you take away their liberty and potential. Police interference aside the following points stood out

1. Steven had a very calm and laidback conversation with his girlfriend whilst supposedly in the middle of this horrible crime. I don't buy that, he had a 70 IQ and cannot buy into him "acting cool as a cucumber"
2. With the facilities of a crusher and incinerator at his disposal why leave so much visible evidence. He knew he would be noted as last to see her, so disposing of the Rav4 was crucial.
3. He was on the cusp of great happiness in his life, marriage, money, new found freedom after years of incarceration, why on earth would he risk that knowing the injustices of the judicial system first hand.
4. That poor poor child Brendon was brutally treated by the system, it's astounding how he couldn't even get a retrial. The child had probably the mental age of a 10yr old. Yet was tried and questioned like a responsible adult.

Lastly the American judicial system has been shown for its inadequacies and that hopefully is a good thing. Whether Steve did or didn't commit this crime, none of us knows for sure and that's the whole point. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt was not achieved by the prosecution.

Because he's a psycho, I actually think he murdered her because I think he thought after them wrongfully convicting him in the first place for the rape and admitting it that the cops wouldn't come after him for this crime. And he also tortured and killed animals in his youth, usually that's a sign that they will then progress on to humans... I agree with the cops that if he was never wrongly accused in the first place he probably would have killed someone before that. And anyway no matter how hard someone tries to rid of every bit of evidence, its actually now a days virtually impossible, forensics will always find something even years later, and some people are also just really stupid and sloppy trying to get rid of evidence....

Sunflower 27

Missymoohaa wrote: »

Indeed, the fact that both have been refused any chance at appealing sentences is unfair while questions still remain unanswered. I believe that the reason there is no evidence against anyone else is because it simply wasn't looked for. They had their man and that was it. It would have been only right to investigate other members of Stevens family and also members of Ms. Alhachs family and close circle of friends, in the interests of fairness and justice. If after those meticulous investigations you can then eliminate them, then fine but this wasn't the case.

Yes, they did not want anyone else investigated. What would have happened if they had say, investigated Bobby as a suspect? What would that have meant for Avery?

Is part of the reason that there can't be a retrial because there was deemed to be no other suspects?

Drexel

mad to watch this but for some reason it just wont play right for me. Everything else working fine. What a bollox

marklazarcovic

fin12 wrote:

And anyway no matter how hard someone tries to rid of every bit of evidence, its actually now a days virtually impossible, forensics will always find something even years later, and some people are also just really stupid and sloppy trying to get rid of evidence....

Especially all that blood,wonder where all that went from the matress,walls ..

Sunflower 27

This link below is quite interesting. It says that Avery's attorneys had to provide evidence that another person had motive and intent 30 days before the trial. Tbey provided a document that is very detailed but tbe judge rejected it so no other person in the trial could be considered a suspect.

Having read the document it's madness the other suspects were not considered. It is very detailed.

That judge probably despised Avery as well, bringing his professional jurisdiction into the spotlight in an incredibly negative way. That place is dodge city so can't say I'm overly surprised.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/131698-was-steven-avery-the-only-suspect-in-teresa-halbachs-death-making-a-murderer-only-showed-part

Sunflower 27

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Especially all that blood,wonder where all that went from the matress,walls ..

It was bleach. He had it on his pyjamas

marklazarcovic

Sunflower 27 wrote:

It was bleach. He had it on his pyjamas

Open and shut so ðŸ˜

fin12

Guys is one of the lawyers for Stephen Avery, did he represent Jeffrey Dahmer?

PressRun

fin12 wrote: »

Guys is one of the lawyers for Stephen Avery, did he represent Jeffrey Dahmer?

Quick Google search says no. Dahmer was defended by a man by the name of Gerald Boyle.

fin12

PressRun wrote: »

Quick Google search says no. Dahmer was defended by a man by the name of Gerald Boyle.

Oh right thanks, he just looks really like him.

DrumSteve

The guy who did the theme for this did the OST for The Last of Us...

Unbelievable stuff so far.

Missymoohaa

fin12 wrote: »

Because he's a psycho, I actually think he murdered her because I think he thought after them wrongfully convicting him in the first place for the rape and admitting it that the cops wouldn't come after him for this crime. And he also tortured and killed animals in his youth, usually that's a sign that they will then progress on to humans... I agree with the cops that if he was never wrongly accused in the first place he probably would have killed someone before that. And anyway no matter how hard someone tries to rid of every bit of evidence, its actually now a days virtually impossible, forensics will always find something even years later, and some people are also just really stupid and sloppy trying to get rid of evidence....

OK then, insightful, into your mind maybe, into the case maybe not so much. On point, I would argue, I grew up in the 70s, had two older male cousins who used to torment the family cat by throwing large stones at her, if I were to mention it to them both now they would be highly embarrassed, one a very high flying accountant who has worked all over the world and an absolute sweetheart the other an architect and a big helper with Vincent De Paul. Another friend of mine grew up in tallaght and went joy riding one night which ended up in a young women and man dying, she was devastated obviously but joyriding was quite normal in her neighbourhood. So be judgemental all you like doesn't make you a murderer.

fin12

Missymoohaa wrote: »

OK then, insightful, into your mind maybe, into the case maybe not so much. On point, I would argue, I grew up in the 70s, had two older male cousins who used to torment the family cat by throwing large stones at her, if I were to mention it to them both now they would be highly embarrassed, one a very high flying accountant who has worked all over the world and an absolute sweetheart the other an architect and a big helper with Vincent De Paul. Another friend of mine grew up in tallaght and went joy riding one night which ended up in a young women and man dying, she was devastated obviously but joyriding was quite normal in her neighbourhood. So be judgemental all you like doesn't make you a murderer.

Who am I being judgemental against people who kill and torture animals? I think most people would have a low opinion of people who do that. Obviously not everyone who does that will go on to muder humans but it is a common behavioral trait amongst alot of killers, and there's a big difference between throwing rocks at a cat then pouring gasoline on it and burning it alive, most of these killers would mutilate the animals bodies also big difference then throwing rocks at an animal.I don't really understand either what someone's career or if there involved in charity work has got to do with anything either. Are you trying to say that killers can't have high flying careers or do charity work?

Most killers/serial killers have gone undetected for such a long time because they appear normal like everyone else, they have a family, they help out in their community, have a job.

I have actually changed my opinion since I last posted, now I don't know whether he is guilty or not but the fact that he did torture and kill animals is a red flag for me.

Elmo

fin12 wrote: »

And anyway no matter how hard someone tries to rid of every bit of evidence, its actually now a days virtually impossible, forensics will always find something even years later, and some people are also just really stupid and sloppy trying to get rid of evidence....

Did you see how sloppy the Avery's are, Stephen's bedroom hadn't been tidied in months. There is no way on this earth that the murder took place in the property, absolutely no way.

The only bit of blood found was on a bullet that went through the victims head, there should have been traces of blood everywhere. According to the state this was a bloody murder.

bridgettedon

Elmo wrote: »

Did you see how sloppy the Avery's are, Stephen's bedroom hadn't been tidied in months. There is no way on this earth that the murder took place in the property, absolutely no way.

The only bit of blood found was on a bullet that went through someones head, there should have been traces of blood everywhere. According to the state this was a bloody murder.

But why was her blood on the bullet?

And second why did Brendan have bleach stains from cleaning Steven's garage that night.

Thelomen Toblackai

Missymoohaa wrote: »

OK then, insightful, into your mind maybe, into the case maybe not so much. On point, I would argue, I grew up in the 70s, had two older male cousins who used to torment the family cat by throwing large stones at her, if I were to mention it to them both now they would be highly embarrassed, one a very high flying accountant who has worked all over the world and an absolute sweetheart the other an architect and a big helper with Vincent De Paul. Another friend of mine grew up in tallaght and went joy riding one night which ended up in a young women and man dying, she was devastated obviously but joyriding was quite normal in her neighbourhood. So be judgemental all you like doesn't make you a murderer.

Not saying I agree with the other poster but his actions and history seem a world apart form the people you talk about.

Avery was 20 when he poured petrol on a cat and threw it onto a bonfire to watch it die. He served a prison sentence for it and his second stint in prison after 10 months for burglary when he was 18. He subsequently served 6 years for assaulting his cousin and possession of a firearm. He ran her off the road, pointed a gun at her head and tried to force her into his vehicle, after she accused him of exposing himself to her and neighbours. After his release for the false conviction and at the time of the murder he was being investigated for sexually abusing his niece.

One thing the judge mentioned in his sentencing was that the majority of his adult life he was committing steadily more serious crimes. This isn't some poor guy who did some regretful things when he was a kid.

fin12

Elmo wrote: »

Did you see how sloppy the Avery's are, Stephen's bedroom hadn't been tidied in months. There is no way on this earth that the murder took place in the property, absolutely no way.

The only bit of blood found was on a bullet that went through someones head, there should have been traces of blood everywhere. According to the state this was a bloody murder.

Ya I agree, I don't think the murder took place there either, the cops are obviously planted evidence there to collaborate Brendens statement. But how do we know that Stephen didn't kill her somewhere else?

bridgettedon

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Not saying I agree with the other poster but his actions and history seem a world apart form the people you talk about.

Avery was 20 when he poured petrol on a cat and threw it onto a bonfire to watch it die. He served a prison sentence for it and his second stint in prison after 10 months for burglary when he was 18. He subsequently served 6 years for assaulting his cousin and possession of a firearm. He ran her off the road, pointed a gun at her head and tried to force her into his vehicle, after she accused him of exposing himself to her and neighbours. After his release for the false conviction and at the time of the murder he was being investigated for sexually abusing his niece.

One thing the judge mentioned in his sentencing was that the majority of his adult life he was committing steadily more serious crimes. This isn't some poor guy who did some regretful things when he was a kid.

I have seen this mentioned before however I couldn't find a reliable source to verify it. Do you have one.

Elmo

bridgettedon wrote: »

But why was her blood on the bullet?

And second why did Brendan have bleach stains from cleaning Steven's garage that night.

The bullet was used on her at some stage. And planted in the garage. If the bullet was actually found under something in the garage then there would have been blood surrounding it on the ground on the wall, on the under neat of what is was found under. Even if the garage had been moped that day to clean up blood, as pointed out its hard to remove evidence and I don't think the Avery's would have been capable.

I don't know if he did it or not. Or any of the Avery Family.

I think the police did a bad job, because the desperately want Stephen on something. If they were more honest it might have been different.

Thelomen Toblackai

bridgettedon wrote: »

I have seen this mentioned before however I couldn't find a reliable source to verify it. Do you have one.

There was a post on reddit with a source and details but the link doesn't seem to be working now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3yf48y/steve_averys_2004_alleged_sexual_assault_threat/