Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So 2 people you have repeatedly called idiots and "most stupidest" managed to clean up the trailer and garage to such a level that not a single bit of DNA was found? Not even a tiny little drop or smudge?

Your talking sense again. Shut up

The group mentality in this thread is so bad that when you direct a question to an individual they all jump in.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The group mentality in this thread is so bad that when you direct a question to an individual they all jump in.

Well that’ll happen when you throw bullying accusations about. And on that note, I believe you’re the only one who has persistently name called on this thread. Both to the posters here and to the people in the doc.
Remind me who’s the bully again?

Anyway, I actually believe you enjoy this attention you’re getting so you’re going on ignore.

Commanchie wrote: »

Ive been directing questioms at you for days you dont even answer them.

If I try I will get around 10 different replies rather than have a direct debate with you. It’s impossible.

dark crystal wrote: »

Was there any evidence of Theresa's blood or DNA on the jeans also? I'm just perplexed about the complete lack of DNA evidence in this case. Even cleaning up a large pool of blood with bleach would leave trace evidence. They found deer blood, for instance. If she was shot in the garage, where is all the blood spatter etc.? The bullet casing found had no skull fragments, tissue etc. on it. I'm almost sure Brendan mentioned something about car fluid in relation to the spill....can't be sure!



I do agree with you that Brendan's testimony cannot be relied upon - his story doesn't fit with any of the evidence and it's my opinion he is easily coerced - but would this not then also cast doubt on Steven's guilt? Like, besides the DNA evidence in the Rav4, what other DNA evidence connects him personally to the crime in any way? He could well be guilty, however I just don't think there was enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

We live in an age where people expect DNA to be found in every crime scene. It just doesn’t happen like that. I don’t believe the murder went down the way Dassey said it did, I don’t even think he was there. I believe he just helped with the clean up. What do you think of Avery’s alibi? He doesn’t even mention Brendan in his first 3 or 4 interviews

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inquisitr.com/4619864/making-a-murderer-brendan-dassey-not-part-of-steven-averys-first-alibi/amp/

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

We live in an age where people expect DNA to be found in every crime scene. It just doesn’t happen like that. I don’t believe the murder went down the way Dassey said it did, I don’t even think he was there. I believe he just helped with the clean up. What do you think of Avery’s alibi? He doesn’t even mention Brendan in his first 3 or 4 interviews

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inquisitr.com/4619864/making-a-murderer-brendan-dassey-not-part-of-steven-averys-first-alibi/amp/

A woman is shot in the head after being raped and you don't expect there to be any DNA?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He left the thread due to the gang mentality in here.

Oh look, deflection again.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

We live in an age where people expect DNA to be found in every crime scene. It just doesn’t happen like that. I don’t believe the murder went down the way Dassey said it did, I don’t even think he was there. I believe he just helped with the clean up. What do you think of Avery’s alibi? He doesn’t even mention Brendan in his first 3 or 4 interviews

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.inquisitr.com/4619864/making-a-murderer-brendan-dassey-not-part-of-steven-averys-first-alibi/amp/

I think there are inaccuracies in that article, but I'd need to re-read all the depositions and don't have the time right now. Simply, if you want a real feel for what Steven, Scott, Earl etc... said, please go read the reports for yourself rather than trust an online site.
Same as what you tell us with the documentary, these websites can be biased.



https://archive.org/stream/CASOInvestigativeReportRedacted/CASO-Investigative-Report_redacted_djvu.txt


If I have time to check later on I'll post on here.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

A woman is shot in the head after being raped and you don't expect there to be any DNA?

i would expect alot of DNA to be present if there was a capture of a girl with chains then raped and shot through the head,Ill do a Philadelphia(Just watched it ) but explain to me llike a 4 year old why there isn't .

Not directed directly at you but if anybody can shed some light.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Because she wasnt raped and shot in Averys house.

The garage then?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Well that was where the large pool of dark liquid that Brendan cleaned up was, and he ended up with bleach all over his jeans. It’s my belief that Dassey did not witness the murder and just helped with the clean up.

I dont think Brendan has the criminal IQ to play what he would need to after that. If he does he is playing a blinder.

I still have a couple of episodes to watch but what I've seen so far is pretty unbelievable. The whole thing looks to be a complete stitch up and the evidence presented during the trial doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

The way the RAV4 was 'hidden' on the lot doesn't make sense especially when you consider the volume of vehicles which were being crushed back then. Why not crush that too to get rid of it?

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I can't find any forensic analysis report on the garage anywhere, although they jack hammered the floor. There is no record of that that I can see anywhere, if anyone finds it could they please post it ?
All I can see is a report they did a luminol test with a faint glow in 2 spots.

I have seen online people saying that there were drops of deer blood found in there, but again nothing official, just people talking online.

edit : found them https://archive.org/details/CASOInvestigativeReportRedacted/page/n701

Hopefully there are reports on whether these evidence bits from jackhammering produced any samples of blood.

Realistically, if any of these samples DID produce evidence of blood other than deer blood, we would know about it, but I'll check later on tonight.

A large puddle of blood would be sure to have seeped into cracks. The chances of reaching down into cracks with bleach and completely covering blood evidence are slim imo.

Despite who is actually guilty (and it could be SA) it is clear that the events did not go down as described in the case. I just cannot see how TH could have been killed in the garage, it was such a mess in there with junk in there when they initially searched it. There is no way that Steven or Brendan would have been able to clean everything in there. Shooting, stabbing, beating.... anything like that would have likely produced small specks of blood and other residual DNA evidence. It is inconceivable that Brendan and Steven cleaned this from all of the junk and machinery in the garage and they certainly would not have cleaned it from the cracks on the floor.

The bedroom theory is actually more believable in my opinion. I think I read somewhere that SA got his carpets cleaned professionally after the murder/missing date, definitely open to correction on this though. If that is true though that is dodgy as hell!

Whilst I keep saying that I think Bobby is suspect #1 the more I read into all of this the more I think they could all be in on it. Bobby, Scott, Steven and Brendan. Steven may not be the killer but his involvement in kidnapping etc would not surprise me. The irony here is that he could be convicted of exactly what he did not do but let off on the charges that he did do. And of course it is not unreasonable to assume in a scenario like this that Barb knows everything.

nc6000 wrote: »

I still have a couple of episodes to watch but what I've seen so far is pretty unbelievable. The whole thing looks to be a complete stitch up and the evidence presented during the trial doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.

The way the RAV4 was 'hidden' on the lot doesn't make sense especially when you consider the volume of vehicles which were being crushed back then. Why not crush that too to get rid of it?

His brothers or his father would have noticed him crushing it. They are there practically 24/7. Even one of the Dassey’s could have seen him or a customer or police officer, postman, school bus driver, the yard was not exactly a quiet place.

8-10 wrote: »

Yeah I get the sentiment of the question but him not crushing the Rav4 isn't proof of him not knowing where the Rav4 was. It's very weak circumstantial evidence at best that he wasn't anywhere near the car

But the whole case is circumstantial. Not an ounce of corroboration outside brendans "Confession" no matter the doubts of anyone. That statement isnt enough to convict. Joint enterprise would of been understandable not murder.