Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Little Less Conversation wrote: »

The prosecution claims that S Avery cleaned up the murder scene, burned the body to get rid of evidence. But having a car crusher, why did he not finish the job and crush Teresa's car? Instead he hid the car under branches and singles it out instead of hiding it in the middle of hundreds and hundreds of cars. None of it makes sense. I hope justice comes for these two.

Avery himself says that in a throw away remark with local interviewers. "If I done anythin' I could have crushed the car, hide the evidence" or something to that effect.
Also mentioned he could have run. He had warning after all, was in the North in his brother's house.

Little Less Conversation

The prosecution claims that S Avery cleaned up the murder scene, burned the body to get rid of evidence. But having a car crusher, why did he not finish the job and crush Teresa's car? Instead he hid the car under branches and singles it out instead of hiding it in the middle of hundreds and hundreds of cars. None of it makes sense. I hope justice comes for these two.

I'm still browsing around on this, as you do on a bank holiday morning...

What I'm looking at right now is the reputation of Brad Schimel, Wisconsin Attorney General, the guy who put Brendan Dassey in and facilitated Ken Kratz in every move he made.

This guy (Schimel) plays in a band called The Alibis with Ken Kratz.
When KK was in trouble over sexting, he got people to look the other way.
He's not liked at all by the locals judging by this reddit thread :
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/9q8yyg/wisconsin_attorney_general_brad_schimel_is/

There are elections coming up 6th November, and these locals above are pondering whether the other guy, against Schimel, will be any use to Steven Avery in having the case retrialed.

Turns out the other guy is unlikely to help either, as he is the son of a woman implicated in locking up Avery for a crime he didn't commit in 1985.

Anyway, these politics confuse and bore me, but what I take from this are the comments that this Wisconsin justice crowds are as corrupt as we complain some of our politicians are, and that this is a valid element to consider when looking at SA's and BD's cases.

Kathleen Zellner is on about it in this tweet : https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1055399947070267392

edit : it's a shame the links all come up with a GDPR excuse for not letting me in, someone with a vpn might tell us what they say.

sReq | uTeK

walshb wrote: »

What on earth has boxing got to do with this?

Look forward to you answering the rest of my queries, doubt you will though

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Ahhhh, you’re over here these days and into over at the boxing.....

Same old rhetoric,

What on earth has boxing got to do with this?

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Walshb you seem to think the cops or judges and juries never get it wrong yet Avery served 18 years previously on a wrongful conviction.

Well aware that juries can get it wrong...

In this case they absolutely did not...

If she gets a share of compensation money, there is a lot in it for her, and well deserved too.

She's not writing a book or making a documentary though, she's putting a legal case for a retrial or vacating of the judges' decisions.

She won previously, so her methods are tried and tested, and her arguments have previously been sanctioned by judges and the justice system as reliable.

So what we see in the documentary is really not an example of a defense faffing about for the sake of a documentary, it's an insight on how she does her job.

If you were looking at a surgeon who had saved 19 patients' lives previously, you might be curious, but you wouldn't be questioning their methods.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I haven’t watched the second season but from the replies I have seen from people who think Avery is innocent she is blaming everyone under the sun and only doing it because of how big the documentary is. I expect her to gradually disassociate herself from the case once the hype dies down.

Hardly steven wrote to her for 4 years while MAM1 was out and being made she wouldnt get involved till after it surely if she wanted hype shed jumped on it

Pelvis

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Is Johnnie Cochrane coming back from the dead? Because that’s the only chance he’s got.

She has exonerated 19 men that were wrongfully convicted.

Not too shabby really.

sReq | uTeK

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Colonel Mustard in the Parlour with a Candlestick?

Okay, so you haven’t watched the 2nd series and thus come to the conclusion that she will eventually grow tired and move on -( something she’s never done before) others who have watched it tell you she’s quite good and shows holes in the case using forensic science and then your rebuttal is to what? oh yes, one of those

Pelvis wrote: »

Tbh, if you haven't watched the second season then you haven't a clue. KZL comes across very well and absolutely picks apart the prosecution, while putting forward plausible alternative theories, with a strong focus on forensic science.

Colonel Mustard in the Parlour with a Candlestick?

Pelvis

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I haven’t watched the second season but from the replies I have seen from people who think Avery is innocent she is blaming everyone under the sun and only doing it because of how big the documentary is. I expect her to gradually disassociate herself from the case once the hype dies down.

Tbh, if you haven't watched the second season then you haven't a clue. KZL comes across very well and absolutely picks apart the prosecution, while putting forward plausible alternative theories, with a strong focus on forensic science.

Commanchie wrote: »

KZL has proven track record.

I haven’t watched the second season but from the replies I have seen from people who think Avery is innocent she is blaming everyone under the sun and only doing it because of how big the documentary is. I expect her to gradually disassociate herself from the case once the hype dies down.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Is Johnnie Cochrane coming back from the dead? Because that’s the only chance he’s got.

KZL has proven track record.

Commanchie wrote: »

Youre right his defence team were desperate which will be highlighted when his conviction is finally vacated.

Is Johnnie Cochrane coming back from the dead? Because that’s the only chance he’s got.

Pelvis

walshb wrote: »

The defense have fooled so many people with their sole claim that everything is not me big frame job by law enforcement. You know, law enforcement. Ordinary men and women in society does big a job for society...

Yes, we know bad things happen in law enforcement, but the defense are utterly desperate to claim that the evidence that proves Avery is a killer was all planted and part of a deliberate framing job...

But it looks like they have fooled people..

Instead of just insulting people. Why don't you address some of the points raised by the defense. For instance, the prosecution claimed the that Halbach was shot in the head, but analysis of the bullet shows this not to be true. What are your thoughts?

What are your thoughts on Halbachs Rav4 being spotted outside the property after she's reported missing. The witness tells officer Colburn about it, who calls dispatch that day to run the plates. What are your thoughts on this?

sReq | uTeK

walshb wrote: »

The defense have fooled so many people with their sole claim that everything is not me big frame job by law enforcement. You know, law enforcement: Ordinary men and women in society doing a job for society...

Yes, we know bad things happen in law enforcement, but the defense are utterly desperate to claim that the evidence that proves Avery is a killer was all planted and part of a deliberate framing job...

But it looks like they have fooled people..

Ahhhh, you’re over here these days and into over at the boxing.....

Same old rhetoric,

You think the officers were justified in their extraction of the interview from Brendan Dassy?

Do you think it strange that the prosecution, on multiple occasions find zilch and come back again and again and finally find something.

You think it weird that the Dogs trail around a quarry time and time again and then to the Rav, but never go through Avery’s yard and yet the cops never ever ever ever even suspected or investigated the quarry owner?b

There is DOUBT, He was convicted on CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence of which there should be no DOUBT.

Guilty or not the facts and the LAW you know so little about state he shouldn’t be behind bars

Potential Underachiever

Walshb you seem to think the cops or judges and juries never get it wrong yet Avery served 18 years previously on a wrongful conviction.

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Are you Bobby Dassey or Scott Tadych per chance?

Why so aggressive?

Maybe he’s Avery setting his cat on fire, now that’s anger right there.

walshb wrote: »

About as desperate an argument as Avery’s defense that...

Youre right his defence team were desperate which will be highlighted when his conviction is finally vacated.

walshb wrote: »

The defense have fooled so many people with their sole claim that everything is not me big frame job by law enforcement. You know, law enforcement: Ordinary men and women in society doing a job for society...

Yes, we know bad things happen in law enforcement, but the defense are utterly desperate to claim that the evidence that proves Avery is a killer was all planted and part of a deliberate framing job...

But it looks like they have fooled people..

So we all know it can happen, but we shouldn't ever consider it may have happened ? even when there was a potential 36 M$ involved ?

Commanchie wrote: »

Stick to the boxing chum. Your knowledge of law is as elementary as KKs explantion of the abuse gate

About as desperate an argument as Avery’s defense that...

The defense have fooled so many people with their sole claim that everything is not me big frame job by law enforcement. You know, law enforcement: Ordinary men and women in society doing a job for society...

Yes, we know bad things happen in law enforcement, but the defense are utterly desperate to claim that the evidence that proves Avery is a killer was all planted and part of a deliberate framing job...

But it looks like they have fooled people..

walshb wrote: »

And?

Have they any idea?

No, because maybe, just maybe, the cops know damn well that the right man was caught and convicted...

This is kids’ stuff....

Bunch of internet warriors are now crime experts and ballistics experts and trial lawyers, and they know what really happened..

You couldn’t make it up..

Well I guess you've made your point, it seems to make you feel great, so good for you.

I haven't seen anyone here claiming to be a ballistic expert or anything though, people are just assessing whether what the experts are claiming on the show is credible.

For example, I put a lot of weight on arguments that it is very unusual for an item that may be handled by several people, to only have DNA from one single person.

It makes a lot of sense to me that anything that is likely to change hands or be handled by several people will show multiple DNA profiles.

walshb wrote: »

Aggressive? You’re havin’ a laugh...

Stick to the boxing chum. Your knowledge of law is as elementary as KKs explantion of the abuse gate

Mountainsandh wrote: »

So you base your judgment on the same as us, the internet and the media really.

Most in here are basing it on the doc.

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Are you Bobby Dassey or Scott Tadych per chance?

Why so aggressive?

Aggressive? You’re havin’ a laugh...

Potential Underachiever

walshb wrote: »

And?

Have they any idea?

No, because maybe, just maybe, the cops know damn well that the right man was caught and convicted...

This is kids’ stuff....

Bunch of internet warriors are now crime experts and ballistics experts and trial lawyers, and they know what really happened..

You couldn’t make it up..

Are you Bobby Dassey or Scott Tadych per chance?

Why so aggressive?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I have read about the evidence, and it's all iffy.
I loved the documentary, but to be honest, had I just read about this trial and been shown the so-called evidence with all the caveats attached to it, I would have scaffolded my own doubts on it.

That’s fair enough...

Evidence can always be argued as iffy, depending on what you are listening to, or what side say so..

If you listen to only the defense, well....they’ll argue anything. That’s their job..

I just happen to think that this man is absolutely guilty..