Steven Avery (making a murderer) Guilty or innocent?

Classic Rock Man

The point of the documentary was to highlight the corruption and nepotism that happens within the justice system.
From the very first episode Steven Avery is painted as a very morally grey person, (throwing cats into bonfires wtf) with a violent record.

People tend to focus at this dramatized part and nobody seems to notice the underlying subtext of the justice system in place being extremely morally bankrupt. What other country in the world would coerce a mentally retarded child into confession and then put him behind bars? Watch the documentary again and listen to how the 'interrogation' went. 'What did they do to her head, Brendan?' 'Uhhhh..They cut her hair...' 'What else Brendan?' 'Uhhhhh...they took her teeth?...' 'Ok im just gonna outright say it, who shot her in the head?' 'Uhhh...Steven?'. The kid even asked if he's gonna be able to watch Wrestlemania after just confession to being an accessory to murder!

Brendan Dassey is no doubt innocent and the way he was treated by Manitowoc county is disgraceful.

Banjo String

I watched it shortly before Christmas, I reckon he's innocent, the ineptness of the cops was damming in the documentary.

If you enjoyed that series, watch "the jinx" which is even better (imo)

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

Lol every point you just made is pure speculation!!!! Sorry mate. Facts win every time.

One sided documentary blatantly and purposely left out damning and irrefutable evidence. People across the world would do better to argue the cause of genuinely innocent people than champion these two.

And painting Dassey's confessions to look coerced is the biggest piece of editing tomfoolery of all. Transcripts are freely available.

But of course they absolutely must be falsified too right??

Nothing is speculation. The cops clearly planted evidence (like the key). Once you accept that then all the other stuff they find is suspect. Particularly the stuff found months after the initial searches.

Therefore they don't have the kind of DNA evidence you would expect in this case (lots of blood, or other DNA, in trailer or garage) but you do have a bullet found months later in an otherwise clean garage. And the sweat DNA on the car is no more convincing than the blood on the car.

John_D80

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

It might be helpful for those of us who are unaware of this 'damning and irrefutable evidence' that you could provide us with it?

As for the OP, the point is not whether Avery is guilty or innocent but whether there was enough reasonable doubt highlighted in the case. I think that that is absolutely the case.

Mate it's all out there in the public domain for anyone with a computer. Some of the evidence I cited already in my second and subsequent posts in this thread.

When I saw the doc first i was convinced along with the rest of the world that a grave miscarriage of justice had taken place. Within half an hour of further reading I was absolutely convinced of their guilt.

mikeym

Manitowoc county has robbed Brendan Dassey of his teenage years.

He had no legal representation or Legal Guardian when he was interviewed and the poor young lad would have confessed to 9/11 because he is intellectually disabled.

There is no physical evidence linking him to the scene of the crime and he shouldnt be in Prison.

And he has missed several Wrestlemania events since then.

John_D80

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Nothing is speculation. The cops clearly planted evidence (like the key). Once you accept that then all the other stuff they find is suspect. Particularly the stuff found months after the initial searches.

Therefore they don't have the kind of DNA evidence you would expect in this case (lots of blood, or other DNA, in trailer or garage) but you do have a bullet found months later in an otherwise clean garage. And the sweat DNA on the car is no more convincing than the blood on the car.

Eh right, cheers for that. Call me old fashioned but I'm sticking with the facts
.

Ray Palmer

John_D80 wrote: »

How did they plant his sweat exactly?? The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

The sweat has been stated by experts could have gotten there without any physical contact. It is also not actually identified as sweat but a likely source.

I have heard no such thing about the bullet being found that killed her. A bullet fragment was found in his garage with her DNA on it. There were multiple bullet fragment all over the property form his gun. If he shot her in the garage there should have been a lot of her blood. He would have had to have been an expert to clean up the blood so no traces were left behind.

The statement form her boss was not that he wanted to see her alone just he requested her.

Her personal belongings in the barrel is not really any more damning than the fact her body and car were on his property. It wasn't like it was difficult to get on the property.

Your claims really are a bit odd because they don't match with the details I have heard in and out of the documentary.

I don't know how anybody could watch the interviews with the nephew and take them as confessions or believe he actually knew anything. US interview techniques are notorious for their unreliability and I think the videos are a perfect illustration to how somebody can be manipulated

Rabo Karabekian

John_D80 wrote: »

Mate it's all out there in the public domain for anyone with a computer. Some of the evidence I cited already in my second and subsequent posts in this thread.

When I saw the doc first i was convinced along with the rest of the world that a grave miscarriage of justice had taken place. Within half an hour of further reading I was absolutely convinced of their guilt.

Yeah, I read your posts and don't find anything that would amount to irrefutable evidence that Avery is guilty. Hence my asking the question. Maybe you're referring to Kratz' recent comments on why Avery is guilty?

http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-steven-avery-9-reasons-guilty/

That's just a whole list of conjecture and in no way proves Avery's guilt.

I think a key to this is that you were so ready to believe the documentary makers and then as soon as you read something else, you were equally eager to believe that. The question isn't (or shouldn't be) whether Avery is guilty or innocent, but whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty. When you have a police department clearly involved in planting evidence, it seems that they don't even believe the proof is beyond all reasonable doubt.

And that's not even getting into the whole two burn sites, the lack of a sequential timeline that makes sense in the prosecution's case, the exemplary clean up job that Avery did in the bedroom and garage (but missing all those conveniently placed pieces of evidence), the constant changing of story from (I think) Avery's brother and Dassey's father, and probably a hell of a lot that I'm forgetting.

MadDog76

John_D80 wrote: »

How did they plant his sweat exactly?? The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

There is no such thing as "sweat" DNA, DNA is just DNA .......... there is no way of knowing how/where it was obtained or how/when it made it's way under the bonnet of Teresa Halbach's car.

John_D80 wrote: »

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

They conceded that the bullet "found" came from the same make & model rifle as that owned by Steven Avery and possibly from his actual rifle (the Avery's did a lot of shooting on their property) but they never conceded that the bullet actually killed Teresa.

John_D80 wrote: »

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Not entirely true ......... Steven asked for "the same girl who was here before", as she had done photographs for the entire Avery family in the past and he knew that the Avery property was in her territory work-wise.

He also didn't give a "false name" ........... he gave his Sister's name as it was his Sister's vehicle that was to photographed.
His Sister was selling her vehicle, she would be paying AutoTrader/Teresa Halbach for the photographs/advertisement ......... Steven was simply arranging the appointment.

John_D80 wrote: »

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

Proving what? That Teresa's body was burned and/or transported in the barrel?? Nobody is disputing that fact.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

Eh right, cheers for that. Call me old fashioned but I'm sticking with the facts
.

Try making a counter argument instead. I mean I did mention facts. There's no DNA evidence of the rape and murder in the trailer. There's no evidence of blood on the garage. There's obvious planting of evidence. Nothing I have read in the prosecutions rebuttals of the documentary changes anything.

John_D80

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I don't know how anybody could watch the interviews with the nephew and take them as confessions or believe he actually knew anything. US interview techniques are notorious for their unreliability and I think the videos are a perfect illustration to how somebody can be manipulated

Wait so you have seen the interviews? All of them. Or just the carefully edited parts that they used in the documentary? Myself personally I only read the transcripts but would love to see the interview tapes. Where did you see them?

eviltwin

If Steven is innocent, who do people think killed Theresa? How did they burn her body, in the Avery fire pit or elsewhere?

tomwaterford

Patww79 wrote: »

Guilty. Probably didn't go down as was 'proven' but I still reckon he did it. They just cemented the case with some tampering to make it stick better.

I've never seen this (don't have Netflix)...but no way should anyone anywhere be in jail if police tampered with evidence to make a case stick

John_D80

MadDog76 wrote: »

They conceded that the bullet "found" came from the same make & model rifle as that owned by Steven Avery and possibly from his actual rifle (the Avery's did a lot of shooting on their property) but they never conceded that the bullet actually killed Teresa.

Nope it was from his ACTUAL rifle. Not just the same make and model. It was from HIS rifle.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Proving what? That Teresa's body was burned and/or transported in the barrel?? Nobody is disputing that fact.

Eh pretty sure she was burned in the fire pit actually and not the barrell. The fire pit and barrell are both just a few yards from his back door.

John_D80

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Try making a counter argument instead.

Try stating facts rather than speculating :P :P :P :cool: :cool: :cool:

c montgomery

I would not have convicted him on the strength of the documentary, too much doubt.

After reading all of the evidence from the trial I hope he rots in jail. The film makers deliberately left out lots of incriminating evidence and the case would not be as controversial if all the facts were known.

Eugene Norman

John_D80 wrote: »

Nope it was from his ACTUAL rifle. Not just the same make and model. It was from HIS rifle.

Nobody said it wasn't. The shell was found in his garage months after the investigation started. In a garage with no other DNA evidence of a shooting.
By the way this was definitely in the documentary. Did you stop after episode 6 and hit the Internet?

Eh pretty sure she was burned in the fire pit actually and not the barrell. The fire pit and barrell are both just a few yards from his back door.

You really haven't done that much research. the fire pit wouldn't have been hot enough.

Here's strang rebutting the rebuttals.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115

c montgomery

tomwaterford wrote: »

I've never seen this (don't have Netflix)...but no way should anyone anywhere be in jail if police tampered with evidence to make a case stick

Well done you.

Flint Fredstone

John_D80 wrote: »

How did they plant his sweat exactly?? The only reason the doc showed the blood evidence was because they had an 'explanation' for it, flawed as it was. They got torn to shreds in court over the sweat found under the bonnet. Pity the doc didn't show that.

And even the defence conceded that the bullet which killed her came from averys gun.

Hallbach's boss testified that Avery looked for her alone to come to the salvage yard that day and gave a false name. So actually it was evidence in the trial.

Not to mention, her camera, her phone and personal organiser all found in the barrel.

Did you see this yourself?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

dark crystal

John_D80 wrote: »

Nope it was from his ACTUAL rifle. Not just the same make and model. It was from HIS rifle.








Eh pretty sure she was burned in the fire pit actually and not the barrell. The fire pit and barrell are both just a few yards from his back door.

So what you're contending is that Steven and Brendan did such an exemplary clean up job, they removed every trace of Theresa's DNA (not as much as a hair found in either location), yet they missed the bullet that killed her (they left that in the middle of the garage for months afterwards) and forgot to remove the most damning evidence, her bones!

Why bother cleaning away all the evidence to that extent, yet leave her remains in full sight? That doesn't make an ounce of sense to me.

John_D80

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Nobody said it wasn't. The shell was found in his garage months after the investigation started. In a garage with no other DNA evidence of a shooting.
By the way this was definitely in the documentary. Did you stop after episode 6 and hit the Internet?




You really haven't done that much research. the fire pit wouldn't have been hot enough.

Here's strang rebutting the rebuttals.

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115

Oh lord. You are using Rolling Stone as a source??




I almost took you seriously for a second.

ItsShane

John_D80 wrote: »

And painting Dassey's confessions to look coerced is the biggest piece of editing tomfoolery of all. Transcripts are freely available.

But of course they absolutely must be falsified too right??

Some members of Scotland Yard gave their opinions on the show the other day. One of them, a retired detective, said "give me an hour and I'll have him (Dassey) confessing to anything."
There's countless cases throughout history where people admitted to crimes they never committed. What makes you think this any different? Considering his confession has no substance whatsoever.

MadDog76

John_D80 wrote: »

Nope it was from his ACTUAL rifle. Not just the same make and model. It was from HIS rifle.

You obviously don't know much about ballistics and how it's tested but leaving that aside and let's say the bullet was fired from Steven's rifle ......... and was found month's later in a garage which had been previously searched with only Teresa's DNA found on the bullet itself ........ but no blood/DNA from Teresa found anywhere else in the garage?

John_D80 wrote: »

Eh pretty sure she was burned in the fire pit actually and not the barrell. The fire pit and barrell are both just a few yards from his back door.

You're pretty sure are you? Case closed so!!

There is a third burn site, off the Avery property, in a quarry and the barrel itself is mobile so ........... we'll just ignore those facts too though.

Subcomandante Marcos

I think the cops planted the key, maybe a few other little things, but I also think he's guilty as feck.

I think the nephew was involved but his cognitive development is about that of a 6 year old and I'm not sure how I feel about him being in prison.

Subcomandante Marcos

I think the cops planted the key, maybe a few other little things, but I also think he's guilty as feck.

I think the nephew was involved but his cognitive development is about that of a 6 year old and I'm not sure how I feel about him being in prison.

retro:electro

Not sure if he's guilty or not. I have reasonable doubt, which his lawyers did a good job providing. And that's the point isn't it? For them to create reasonable doubt. So I have no clue how they could then convict him of murder given the evidence that was laid out in front of them. Neither of them got a fair trial IMO.
My heart literally broke for Brendan. Seeing his appearance in court after all those years made me cry. Dont think I've ever been so affected my a documentary. My heart is bruised.

John_D80

ItsShane wrote: »

Some members of Scotland Yard gave their opinions on the show the other day. One of them, a retired detective, said "give me an hour and I'll have him (Dassey) confessing to anything."
There's countless cases throughout history where people admitted to crimes they never committed. What makes you think this any different? Considering his confession has no substance whatsoever.

The actual transcripts of the interviews.

They paint a very different picture to the one painted by the carefully edited few minutes of interviews the documentry showed.

Discodog

The words should be "beyond all reasonable doubt". I have no doubt that countless innocent Americans have been executed.