Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Mountainsandh

Just to say, the cut on his finger was from the week previous to all the events, there is a positive testimony for that.


Thing with the crazy "taking the blood from the sink" theory, is that Avery was saying that from very early on.

I think he was on about the missing blood from even before his attorneys proposed the "blood from the vial" theory, EDTA and all.

Commanchie

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Just to say, the cut on his finger was from the week previous to all the events, there is a positive testimony for that.


Thing with the crazy "taking the blood from the sink" theory, is that Avery was saying that from very early on.

I think he was on about the missing blood from even before his attorneys proposed the "blood from the vial" theory, EDTA and all.

He reported to his mother and father before she was murdered. Mentioned his door been prybarred

Tipsy McSwagger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Just to say, the cut on his finger was from the week previous to all the events, there is a positive testimony for that.


Thing with the crazy "taking the blood from the sink" theory, is that Avery was saying that from very early on.

I think he was on about the missing blood from even before his attorneys proposed the "blood from the vial" theory, EDTA and all.

Sure he was telling people the cops were setting him up while they were just doing a routine check on the 3 properties Teresa visited on the day she went missing.

Drumpot

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What % of Brendans confession is even corroborated by evidence? I'm talking about things that the police didn't actively feed to him.

This is what sticks out. There is no eveidence to back up his confession. He was spoon fed exactly what they wanted to say. It’s actually amazing that anybody could watch that and think otherwise.

As for Stephen, he has some lawyer. Watching each episode shows how a top Lawyer can make all the difference because there’s no way he gets convicted if she represents him in court. The state and all the vested parties involved know it and will keep doubling down until he dies. He’s never getting out.

The way the state has hidden evidence. The way the state has gone extra lengths to basically shut down any meaningful defence of either of the two is suspicious. Given the way the case itself was so badly handled, even intimidation of a coroner leaves an awful lot of questions , not just did Avery do it!

It’s funny because it looks like there is more motive and way more evidence to suggest evidence was planted, witnesss coerced/protected (Bobby cd) and cops covering their tracks then there is on what actually happened to that poor woman.

I think the word of a Avery’s original lawyers ring true. I hope that Avery did it and the state knew it but couldn’t prove it. Why? Because the alternative is horrifying. If Avery didn’t do it that’s twice they have locked up the wrong person and left rapist/murderer on the loose so they Could save face....

Tipsy McSwagger

Drumpot wrote: »

This is what sticks out. There is no eveidence to back up his confession. He was spoon fed exactly what they wanted to say. It’s actually amazing that anybody could watch that and think otherwise.

As for Stephen, he has some lawyer. Watching each episode shows how a top Lawyer can make all the difference because there’s no way he gets convicted if she represents him in court. The state and all the vested parties involved know it and will keep doubling down until he dies. He’s never getting out.

The way the state has hidden evidence. The way the state has gone extra lengths to basically shut down any meaningful defence of either of the two is suspicious. Given the way the case itself was so badly handled, even intimidation of a coroner leaves an awful lot of questions , not just did Avery do it!

It’s funny because it looks like there is more motive and way more evidence to suggest evidence was planted, witnesss coerced/protected (Bobby cd) and cops covering their tracks then there is on what actually happened to that poor woman.

I think the word of a Avery’s original lawyers ring true. I hope that Avery did it and the state knew it but couldn’t prove it. Why? Because the alternative is horrifying. If Avery didn’t do it that’s twice they have locked up the wrong person and left rapist/murderer on the loose so they Could save face....

Was he spoon fed what to say to Barb in their telephone conversation? You know the one where he admits to cleaning up reddish black liquid in the garage and SA molesting him.

Edit - he also admits to cleaning up the liquid in his trial testimony

Drumpot

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He’s obviously lying about this. Most people use their bathroom before going to bed, but Avery says he urinated outside and then went to bed. He then states he went into the bathroom in the morning (normal behavior) and noticed the blood had been cleaned from the sink. Would the cops not just take some of the blood and not clean the whole sink? This whole scenario makes no sense at all. Why are you lying Steven?

You know there are question marks over some of his explanations but I wouldn’t pretend to know how a cop would stitch up a person. Perhaps clearing up all the blood creates doubt in Avery’s explanation? I mean we only have his word that this is what happened. If he noticed blood had been tampered then maybe he would also notice a missing tooth brush and record/mention it? This would potentially open the person looking to frame him to be exposed?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Sure he was telling people the cops were setting him up while they were just doing a routine check on the 3 properties Teresa visited on the day she went missing.

If you were wrongly imprisonmened by a police force you stood to make millions off and then all of a sudden the same police force are trying to rope you into a murder you would be paranoid. I mean even the murder being investigated down the road from where he lived would of had him John McClaining it “how can the same sh*t happen to the same guy twice!”

I don’t believe the documentary’s fully clear Avery or Dassey. But what they show is the evidence and methods used to convict them were shambolic and as unethical as it can possibly get. There is no way that a person should be imprisonmened for life in the manner the state and the authorities acted.

If you can park what you think about the suspects, There are so many things wrong with how they were convicted that I have no doubt these sort of practices will definitely lead to innocent people being wrongly convicted. I haven’t even had proper time to digest it all but I can’t understand anybody defending a categorical guilty verdict in either case to be honest...

I must also add that memory under stress plays a role here aswell. I couldn’t tell you what I was doing or who I saw where a few days ago. I wouldn’t want to be relying on my memory if I was being questioned by police. Our memories are very poor for regurgitating events because what we think and what actually is doesn’t always match.....

Tipsy McSwagger

Drumpot wrote: »

You know there are question marks over some of his explanations but I wouldn’t pretend to know how a cop would stitch up a person. Perhaps clearing up all the blood creates doubt in Avery’s explanation? I mean we only have his word that this is what happened. If he noticed blood had been tampered then maybe he would also notice a missing tooth brush and record/mention it? This would potentially open the person looking to frame him to be exposed?



If you were wrongly imprisonmened by a police force you stood to make millions off and then all of a sudden the same police force are trying to rope you into a murder you would be paranoid. I mean even the murder being investigated down the road from where he lived would of had him John McClaining it “how can the same sh*t happen to the same guy twice!”

I don’t believe the documentary’s fully clear Avery or Dassey. But what they show is the evidence and methods used to convict them were shambolic and as unethical as it can possibly get. There is no way that a person should be imprisonmened for life in the manner the state and the authorities acted.

If you can park what you think about the suspects, There are so many things wrong with how they were convicted that I have no doubt these sort of practices will definitely lead to innocent people being wrongly convicted. I haven’t even had proper time to digest it all but I can’t understand anybody defending a categorical guilty verdict in either case to be honest...

I must also add that memory under stress plays a role here aswell. I couldn’t tell you what I was doing or who I saw where a few days ago. I wouldn’t want to be relying on my memory if I was being questioned by police. Our memories are very poor for regurgitating events because what we think and what actually is doesn’t always match.....

Not even the Halbachs?

Mountainsandh

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Sure he was telling people the cops were setting him up while they were just doing a routine check on the 3 properties Teresa visited on the day she went missing.

Yes I think he had reason to feel persecuted, after being wrongly accused once, and spending 18 years behind bars as a consequence.


You know the article you linked to earlier, I re-read the Fabian reports and he was very confused on what happened on what day. That report was written really between himself and Earl, the two of them were trying to figure what date it was they went rabbit hunting. Once it was the Wednesday, once it was the Monday... (meaning, they were both separately interviewed around the same time, I think same day, or Earl a day after, then Fabian was re-interviewed some time later and some bits had changed ...)

Eventually it seems they both settled on a date they thought it was. There was a visit to an optician on the morning of that same hunting day, but the police do not confirm what day exactly it was. (surely they must have had that optician appointment checked ? couldn't find any record of it anywhere though)

They do describe Steven's behaviour as "stiff" and strange, staring at the ground when they pass by in the golf cart, and they reckon he changed his clothes.

Earl has got an axe to grind with his brother, so I'm not entirely sure I'd trust what he says, and Fabian seems a bit miffed that a joke that he always does with Steven falls flat that day.

Maybe that's strange behaviour, maybe Steven was just a bit sick of your man always prying and making that stupid joke, iyswim.

I suppose the weirdest thing is that both Earl and Fabian say that Steven said the photographer hadn't called yet.

That's definitely strange.

As I said though, I'm not sure these two would be the most reliable to ask. Earl and Steven, well, their relationship always seems tense, and Fabian was living at the Avery's for a while, but I think he left after SA made a pass at his daughter or something.

What a fupped up family.

I'm still inclined to think SA didn't do it though, and that he has in fact been set up. Just that family seem so full of "tricks", and not in a nice way, that anyone in there could have scapegoated anyone else.

Mountainsandh

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Was he spoon fed what to say to Barb in their telephone conversation? You know the one where he admits to cleaning up reddish black liquid in the garage and SA molesting him.

Edit - he also admits to cleaning up the liquid in his trial testimony

Any link to the conversation with Barb ?

Tipsy McSwagger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Any link to the conversation with Barb ?

http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf

Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony. I honestly believe he is telling the truth. Have you listened to it?

orangerhyme

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Yeah, this didn't make any sense to me and I was surprised that Zellner even entertained it.

It stretches things WAY too much for me that someone forces their way into his trailer goes into the bathroom and thinks "oh, hey, blood, just what I need"!

I don't buy it.

It's one of the bigger things against Avery that people seem to overlook. He has a massive gash on his finger the same day that a woman goes missing on his land and his blood is then found on her car.

The stars REALLY have to align for Avery to bust his finger open and then a woman goes missing on his property and then the actual perpetrator decides "I'm gonna frame Avery" and manages to access his trailer and scoops up the blood and plants it on the victims car. All without leaving any evidence behind.

If the blood in the RAV4 is Averys then the only way that could have gotten there is that Avery bled in the car or the cops planted the blood evidence.

This is the bit i find far fetched also.
The cut was from a week previous and opened up that day so I doubt much blood came out.
The window of opportunity for someone to break into his trailer and colllect the blood was very small also. Blood dries quitckly also so did they scrape it off the sink and then mix it with water or something.
Really, there's no good explanation to how SA's blood got into the RAV4.

Drumpot

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Not even the Halbachs?

I don’t want to imagine what that family has been through. I can understand why they would want to believe that Avery and Dassey are guilty. The police gave them quick justice that allowed them to move on by feeling that her attacker’s were caught. Avery getting released opens up a terrible wound and could do as much damage as the initial crime. But that’s not a reason to not want to see all the evidence in court and Avery convicted when everything has been done properly and honestly.

Any objective observer of that show should be disturbed at how the authorities conducted themselves and what they did to get a conviction. I would hazzard a guess that some of The family have their own doubts after watching that even if they don’t express it publicly. Doubt doesn’t presume innocence but that’s the way the justice system is supposed to work. Beyond reasonable doubt.

Tipsy McSwagger

Drumpot wrote: »

I don’t want to imagine what that family has been through. I can understand why they would want to believe that Avery and Dassey are guilty. The police gave them quick justice that allowed them to move on by feeling that her attacker’s were caught. Avery getting released opens up a terrible wound and could do as much damage as the initial crime. But that’s not a reason to not want to see all the evidence in court and Avery convicted when everything has been done properly and honestly.

Any objective observer of that show should be disturbed at how the authorities conducted themselves and what they did to get a conviction. I would hazzard a guess that some of The family have their own doubts after watching that even if they don’t express it publicly. Doubt doesn’t presume innocence but that’s the way the justice system is supposed to work. Beyond reasonable doubt.

They don’t watch or have anything to do with the show. They sat through both trials so I would respect there beliefs. Having said that I would like them to soften up on Dassey, he’s a victim too. I know I keep saying it (he’s a victim) but that phone call from Avery at 7pm on Oct 31st ruined his life. You should listen to his trial testimony, no coercion, no I don’t knows, just the truth of what he did that night.

Mountainsandh

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf

Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony. I honestly believe he is telling the truth. Have you listened to it?

Probably have, can't remember much of it tbh. I'll watch it again some time.

Thing is, with a child who is that easy to influence, once a narrative is planted in his head and he's told that will help him get out of jail sooner, you can't really trust that he'll go against it, even under oath.

From the moment he's taken out to that interview in his High School, the child just seems completely confused, and he's simply not able to articulate that.

I have been in my job for the past 17 years and met children like Brendan, and I have absolutely no doubt a large proportion of them would be just as docile and easy to script.

(the ones that wouldn't are the more defiant ones)

Drumpot

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

They don’t watch or have anything to do with the show. They sat through both trials so I would respect there beliefs. Having said that I would like them to soften up on Dassey, he’s a victim too. I know I keep saying it (he’s a victim) but that phone call from Avery at 7pm on Oct 31st ruined his life. You should listen to his trial testimony, no coercion, no I don’t knows, just the truth of what he did that night.

Thanks I will have to listen to that....

Tipsy McSwagger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Probably have, can't remember much of it tbh. I'll watch it again some time.

Thing is, with a child who is that easy to influence, once a narrative is planted in his head and he's told that will help him get out of jail sooner, you can't really trust that he'll go against it, even under oath.

From the moment he's taken out to that interview in his High School, the child just seems completely confused, and he's simply not able to articulate that.

I have been in my job for the past 17 years and met children like Brendan, and I have absolutely no doubt a large proportion of them would be just as docile and easy to script.

(the ones that wouldn't are the more defiant ones)

You’re just making excuses now. The child excuse is pathetic tbh.

Mountainsandh

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

You’re just making excuses now. The child excuse is pathetic tbh.

Do you treat children as you do adults in your own life tipsy ?
My job entails communicating with children at age appropriate level. I don't see that as an excuse, it's a simple fact. The person you are dealing with has not reached the physiological or mental age you have, and you simply have to ajust your expectations accordingly.
That is a legal requirement too so really not excuses.

Not only was he a child when first interviewed, but also a child with special needs.

How you can turn an understanding of that into a list of excuses is your prerogative.

G1032

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Any link to the conversation with Barb ?

http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf

Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony.  I honestly believe he is telling the truth.  Have you listened to it?

Did Steven tell Brendan to clean up the reddish-black stuff in the garage?

G1032

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Any link to the conversation with Barb ?

http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf

Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony.  I honestly believe he is telling the truth.  Have you listened to it?

Did Steven tell Brendan to clean up the reddish-black stuff in the garage?

G1032

G1032 wrote: »

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Any link to the conversation with Barb ?

http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf

Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony.  I honestly believe he is telling the truth.  Have you listened to it?

Did Steven tell Brendan to clean up the reddish-black stuff in the garage?

OK. Looks like he asked him to help clean up the garage but Brendan also said it was not unusual for Steven to ask him to clean up a mess in the garage.......

Tipsy McSwagger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Do you treat children as you do adults in your own life tipsy ?
My job entails communicating with children at age appropriate level. I don't see that as an excuse, it's a simple fact. The person you are dealing with has not reached the physiological or mental age you have, and you simply have to ajust your expectations accordingly.
That is a legal requirement too so really not excuses.

Not only was he a child when first interviewed, but also a child with special needs.

How you can turn an understanding of that into a list of excuses is your prerogative.

He wasn’t a child, he was a teenager who was a little slow. I’m sure there are children who have gone through terrible mental/physical/sexual/emotional abuse who have creative a narrative to block it all out. Actually he claims he was sexually abused, by his uncle Steven. Would this sexual abuse be Avery’s way of controlling Brendan and using him to help clean up after Avery killed Teresa?

Tipsy McSwagger

G1032 wrote: »

OK. Looks like he asked him to help clean up the garage but Brendan also said it was not unusual for Steven to ask him to clean up a mess in the garage.......

https://youtu.be/6BzRrskjVt4

Watch this it’s Brendan’s trial testimony. You could skip the first few minutes.

inforfun

Commanchie wrote: »

A 2.2 bullet.

.22

I have shot those.
The standard ones make tiny holes. Deadly tiny holes but they will not blow complete heads of.

What the different calibres do to a watermelon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMWB7VygMCc

Maxpfizer

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

http://jenniferjslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DasseyBarbPhoneCall_5.13.06.pdf

Ive just listened to Brendan’s trial testimony. I honestly believe he is telling the truth. Have you listened to it?

Yeah, I tend to agree that he is being honest here too and in the trial testimony.

I mean, with the testimony you are removing a lot of the crazy elements and it's just like a regular day where he happened to help clean up some spillage or something in the garage.

To try and look at it another way, if the story here was that Brendan was saying these things about Bobby and saying Bobby made him clean up a mess in the garage then for sure we would be saying that Bobby is the one who really did it.

Then I don't really understand why the state went after Brendan like they did and won't go back on that even now. It's clear as day that his confession is a bunch of made up nonsense.

What would the charge be if literally the only thing he was being charged with was cleaning up blood that his abusive uncle told him was some other spillage (oil, or whatever)?

Maxpfizer

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He wasn’t a child, he was a teenager who was a little slow. I’m sure there are children who have gone through terrible mental/physical/sexual/emotional abuse who have creative a narrative to block it all out. Actually he claims he was sexually abused, by his uncle Steven. Would this sexual abuse be Avery’s way of controlling Brendan and using him to help clean up after Avery killed Teresa?

To be fair here I think the poster is talking about the full confession that got him sent to prison for life.

OK, you've got the trial testimony and that sounds fine but looking at the police interview it's clear that the cops are basically just taking advantage of a vulnerable person in order to get at Avery. Then when Brendan tries to go back on that story they throw the book at him.

The prosecution f-d up when they had that press conference because they couldn't publicly go back on that. So they wouldn't be able to just dial it back to "Brendan helped Steven clean up some blood in the garage on the night that TH went missing".

So you end up with a 17 year old going to prison because they cops forced him to tell a made up story that the prosecution then presented as truth on national TV and they can't go back on that because maybe then they don't get Avery.

Almost every aspect of this case has some kind of red flag associated with it and it's almost always something that points to corruption within the system.

Tipsy McSwagger

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Yeah, I tend to agree that he is being honest here too and in the trial testimony.

I mean, with the testimony you are removing a lot of the crazy elements and it's just like a regular day where he happened to help clean up some spillage or something in the garage.

To try and look at it another way, if the story here was that Brendan was saying these things about Bobby and saying Bobby made him clean up a mess in the garage then for sure we would be saying that Bobby is the one who really did it.

Then I don't really understand why the state went after Brendan like they did and won't go back on that even now. It's clear as day that his confession is a bunch of made up nonsense.

What would the charge be if literally the only thing he was being charged with was cleaning up blood that his abusive uncle told him was some other spillage (oil, or whatever)?

He actually asks that question to his mother in their telephone call. I’m sure he would have got a light sentence if any sentence at all. I mean he probably had no idea what he was doing. Personally I believe he should not have been tried at all. He should have just been a witness in Avery’s trial.

Tipsy McSwagger

Maxpfizer wrote: »

To be fair here I think the poster is talking about the full confession that got him sent to prison for life.

OK, you've got the trial testimony and that sounds fine but looking at the police interview it's clear that the cops are basically just taking advantage of a vulnerable person in order to get at Avery. Then when Brendan tries to go back on that story they throw the book at him.

The prosecution f-d up when they had that press conference because they couldn't publicly go back on that. So they wouldn't be able to just dial it back to "Brendan helped Steven clean up some blood in the garage on the night that TH went missing".

So you end up with a 17 year old going to prison because they cops forced him to tell a made up story that the prosecution then presented as truth on national TV and they can't go back on that because maybe then they don't get Avery.

Almost every aspect of this case has some kind of red flag associated with it and it's almost always something that points to corruption within the system.

Nope the poster is talking about the confessions creating a narrative in Brendan’s head which he believed. So when he’s talking to his mother or on the stand he’s following that narrative. He’s not and he’s also admitting Avery molosted him, which isn’t in the narrative.

Maxpfizer

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Nope the poster is talking about the confessions creating a narrative in Brendan’s head which he believed. So when he’s talking to his mother or on the stand he’s following that narrative. He’s not and he’s also admitting Avery molosted him, which isn’t in the narrative.

Sorry, my bad.

Yeah, I'd be very inclined to trust the things that Brendan said to his mother in those calls.

There's a lot in those calls that does suggest Avery killed her and Brendan helped him clean up.

Same as I said before if those calls were about Scott and/or Bobby then folks would say "well they must have done it".

That's another thing here. For all the theories about the ex-BF or Bobby Dassey or whoever else the best working solution I can come up with is that Avery did kill her but also the cops were involved in some shady **** to make sure they got Avery, hence all the evidence is suspicious.

Maybe that's why Avery is still maintaining his innocence. If he knows he did it then for sure he knows if the cops have done some shady stuff.

For example, if Avery ditches the RAV4 somewhere not on their land but it's then found on the land then even though he did it he for sure knows the evidence was planted and for sure knows if someone proves it then he is exonerated.

Mountainsandh

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Nope the poster is talking about the confessions creating a narrative in Brendan’s head which he believed. So when he’s talking to his mother or on the stand he’s following that narrative. He’s not and he’s also admitting Avery molosted him, which isn’t in the narrative.

He is, imo.

Avery molested him is not in THAT narrative, but it's well in the family psyche for years.

They're all accusing each other of molesting each other in that family.

Tipsy McSwagger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

He is, imo.

Avery molested him is not in THAT narrative, but it's well in the family psyche for years.

They're all accusing each other of molesting each other in that family.

Nice. It’s lucky he never confided in you.