Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Commanchie wrote: »

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.

Yes but I'm just saying that that particular piece doesn't hold any weight with me. I don't even think it helps the overall defence that much if at all.

It's like saying the blood was most likely planted because he owns a handkerchief and didn't wipe it up when he easily could have.

8-10 wrote: »

Yes but I'm just saying that that particular piece doesn't hold any weight with me. I don't even think it helps the overall defence that much if at all.

It's like saying the blood was most likely planted because he owns a handkerchief and didn't wipe it up when he easily could have.

But its not the same ha

Commanchie wrote: »

But its not the same ha

No of course not. But were I a juror, I'm saying it wouldn't resonate much with me. That's all I'm saying, I put in the extra sentence to show how little it would have meant to me.

Commanchie wrote: »

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.

Most murder cases are tried on circumstantial evidence, OJ Simpson comes to mind.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Most murder cases are tried on circumstantial evidence, OJ Simpson comes to mind.

Legally circumstantial trials are 30% successful most judges will rule evidence inadmissable if not direct evidence (Non Circunstantial)

Inferences arent enough to convict alone in a court of law.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Most murder cases are tried on circumstantial evidence, OJ Simpson comes to mind.

And most cases are tried on circumstantial? Where did you get that figure? Its news to me.

There will always be a link to corroborate the evidence

RocketRaccoon

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.

Do you think that if someone gets shot in the head that it just leaves a pool? There would be splatter all over the garage, did Brendan clean off every single item of clutter we've seen all over the garage?

dark crystal wrote: »

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.

I don't think so. One of the odd things about the case (that makes it prime material for a documentary) is that Dasseys confession was not used to convict Avery.

The prosecution dropped the charges of kidnapping and sexual assault against Avery.
He was found not guilty on charges of corpse mutilation.
He was found guilty on charges of first degree murder and illegal possession of a firearm.

Dassey, on the other hand, was convicted of murder, rape and the mutilation of a corpse.

So even if Dassey was released it does not mean that Avery would be released also.

I think people have to almost think of them as 2 separate cases. Conversation about Dassey ends up getting dragged into the "did he or didn't he" discussion around Avery.

Something I don't really get is how the confession is considered the gold standard in evidence when we know for a fact that people can, and will, sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit.

I can't really understand how someone can confess to this crazy story and then say "actually none of that happened" and the cops basically say "we can only accept your first answer".

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

I still think Avery is the prime suspect regarding whoever committed the murder but it's kind of incredible to me that anybody can look at that Dassey confession and think "this is ok and despite there being no evidence to corroborate his story and the fact he is saying his confession is false we are still going to convict".

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.

To what extent do you think he was involved in a clean up?

Did he just clean up blood? Did he move and hide the RAV4?

Dassey was found guilty on charges of rape, murder and mutilation of a corpse.

So obviously there's quite a leap from those charges to the potential reality that he helped his abusive uncle clean up some blood.

I think this is where the finger gets pointed again at law enforcement. Dassey's conviction is not sound. I think most people can see that?

Unfortunately the existence of the corruption that put him in prison and, arguably, keeps him there to this day casts a shadow over Avery's conviction also.

Even the appeals to the Seventh Circuit were specifically about whether or not the police had properly obtained the confession, not whether or not the confession was actually the truth of what happened.

They could have dropped the charges against Brendan once they had the guilty verdict on Avery or at least reduced the charges to accessory after the fact or something.

The sad truth here is that if a parent or a lawyer or any adult had been there at the interview stage then he would probably not be in prison today.

The cops basically took advantage of this kid to help then get Avery but when they couldn't use the confession to get Avery they decided to try Dassey anyway, as an adult (he was 17 at the time), while ignoring his intellectual limitations, for the same murder that Avery had already been found guilty of and give him life in prison. WTF?

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Do you think that if someone gets shot in the head that it just leaves a pool? There would be splatter all over the garage, did Brendan clean off every single item of clutter we've seen all over the garage?

I think you’re watching too much TV if you think a big mess is made every time a person gets shot in the head. A person can be shot in the head and the bullet doesn’t exit. All thats left is a small entry wound with very little or even no blood.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I think you’re watching too much TV if you think a big mess is made every time a person gets shot in the head. A person can be shot in the head and the bullet doesn’t exit. All thats left is a small entry wound with very little or even no blood.

But apparently this bullet did exit? Cue ominous music.

(DAH DAH DAAAAAAHHHH)

Commanchie wrote: »

But apparently this bullet did exit? Cue ominous music.

(DAH DAH DAAAAAAHHHH)

It could have it depends on the type of bullet. I’m not saying it did or did not, I’m just replying about the mess s bullet makes when entering someone’s head.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I think you’re watching too much TV if you think a big mess is made every time a person gets shot in the head. A person can be shot in the head and the bullet doesn’t exit. All thats left is a small entry wound with very little or even no blood.

Is that the prosecutions story in THIS case though?

They used a bullet found in the garage as evidence didn't they?

So there must have been an exit wound. So there would have been some bloodspatter (maybe the cops just didn't find it) and likely large amounts of blood.

So that brings you into Brendan cleaning up the blood. However, Brendans story is that she was stabbed in the stomach, had her throat cut and then was taken to the garage where she was shot in the head.

So that's a lot more blood in a lot more places, right?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

It could have it depends on the type of bullet. I’m not saying it did or did not, I’m just replying about the mess s bullet makes when entering someone’s head.

A 2.2 bullet.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

It could have it depends on the type of bullet. I’m not saying it did or did not, I’m just replying about the mess s bullet makes when entering someone’s head.

Right, but you have to try and look back at the bigger picture there.

You are not wrong but you are removing one small part of the story from the lager whole to make a point but then that doesn't fit back into the larger plot.

So it is possible that a bullet did exit but didn't leave much blood to clean up but in the lager context that would nullify Dasseys confession completely.

Then this in turn also raises a big red flag over the bullet fragment and the DNA found on it.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Right, but you have to try and look back at the bigger picture there.

You are not wrong but you are removing one small part of the story from the lager whole to make a point but then that doesn't fit back into the larger plot.

So it is possible that a bullet did exit but didn't leave much blood to clean up but in the lager context that would nullify Dasseys confession completely.

Then this in turn also raises a big red flag over the bullet fragment and the DNA found on it.

I’ve already stated I don’t believe most of Dassey’s confession. I believe Kratz was out of order in the press conference describing in detail what happened. I also believe Dassey was not there for the murder. He is s victim of Avery.

Commanchie wrote: »

A 2.2 bullet.

So actually, what's interesting is that the prosecution never actually says that the .22 bullet found is the one that killed her.

The prosecution tells the jury that TH was shot at least twice and at least twice to the head.

They told the jury that a .22 bullet cause the damage to the skull fragments they found.

Then they told the jury that a .22 bullet fired from Avery's rifle was found with her DNA on it.

So the prosecution leave the door open to the idea that it may have been this bullet fragment but it didn't necessarily need to be.

So the doctor testifies that the cause of death was gunshot to the head BUT the prosecution sets it up so that it could have been this bullet or another bullet... she was shot at least 2 times, they say.

Just watched Episode 5. The tail light story? This is obviously a blatant lie by Avery. Is it true that Zellner has abandoned this made up story?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Just watched Episode 5. The tail light story? This is obviously a blatant lie by Avery. Is it true that Zellner has abandoned this made up story?

Yeah there are a few weird things like this which cast doubt on Avery, for sure.

RocketRaccoon

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I think you’re watching too much TV if you think a big mess is made every time a person gets shot in the head. A person can be shot in the head and the bullet doesn’t exit. All thats left is a small entry wound with very little or even no blood.

Well so as not to spoil anything for you I won't comment on the exit wound. We can come back to that when you're finished the series if you want

RocketRaccoon

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Just watched Episode 5. The tail light story? This is obviously a blatant lie by Avery. Is it true that Zellner has abandoned this made up story?

Refresh my memory?

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Refresh my memory?

Tail light story either the one where ryan lied about it being claimed for or when SA said he seen the tail light leave the property.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Refresh my memory?

Avery and Chuck driving out of property, SA says he seen a tail light behind so he turned around and went back to his trailer. Nobody there. He didn’t check his trailer. They went to some store and when they came back he urinated outside then went to bed. He’s basically saying they got his blood from the bathroom and then planted it in Teresa’s car.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Avery and Chuck driving out of property, SA says he seen a tail light behind so he turned around and went back to his trailer. Nobody there. He didn’t check his trailer. They went to some store and when they came back he urinated outside then went to bed. He’s basically saying they got his blood from the bathroom and then planted it in Teresa’s car.

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.

Maxpfizer wrote: »

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.

Zellner doesn't believe either of these things happened though.

The one thing the planted theory has going for it though is the lack of fingerprints, how can there be no fingerprints when there's blood from his finger?

nc6000

8-10 wrote:

Zellner doesn't believe either of these things happened though.

What does she think happened?

nc6000 wrote: »

What does she think happened?

killer planted the blood

retro:electro

8-10 wrote: »

Zellner doesn't believe either of these things happened though.

The one thing the planted theory has going for it though is the lack of fingerprints, how can there be no fingerprints when there's blood from his finger?

That’s what I don’t get. Pro conviction theory suggests he bled in the car and beside the ignition while holding the key, but no fingerprints to be found on either the key or steering wheel. No prints found on the door handle where he apparently dropped blood as he opened the door. No prints on the bonnet or anywhere around the hood latch where we are meant to believe he opened and sweat all over. No prints of his AT ALL to be found on any of Teresa’s property.

Oh that’s right! He wiped them!! He knew exactly where his invisible fingerprints had been and managed to wipe them clean all while leaving his obvious blood stains all over the car. Duh!!

Surely if he was such a forensic cleaning mastermind (like the apparent cleaning of the garage theory suggests) he would also have cleaned his blood from her car?
Yeah it doesn’t make any sense. And as Judge Judy says..

a9079deded9c7c1ef5bd429e11679b56--quotes-about-lying-judge-judy.jpg

a9079deded9c7c1ef5bd429e11679b56--quotes-about-lying-judge-judy.jpg

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.

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?