Sunflower 27 wrote: » I'm picking out bits because I am working lol. I'll get back to it though.
Mightydrumming wrote: » Another question that no one can answer It started out with the press release that TH had her throat slit whilst being tied up... there was plenty of footage taken in the bedroom post crime scene and not a single finding of blood on the mattress. The two special agents (Mark Weigart and Tom Fassbender) then told Brendan about her throat being slit... where did they originally get that information from? Am I missing something??
Thelomen Toblackai wrote: » I'm not talking regular chains I'm talking about handcuffs and restraints. Apparently he claimed they were for use with his girlfriend. Which is all well and good until you have someone else (Dassey) describing a scene with Halbach handcuffed and restrained. It's a statement from the district attorney who prosecuted the case that this was evidence shown in court that wasn't mentioned in the TV show. I like you have no idea of the specifics beyond it was statements that came from her co-workers. It's not odd it's simply a separete site on his property where her belongings were found. Its not clear at all and definitely not from the one sides view in the show. That first interview was 4 hours in length. The others similarly 3/4 hours long. The show showed very little of it. He may have been coerced to a degree but the full transcripts of the interviews and his phone calls has him clearly giving details that were never put into his mouth by detectives. It means there was no sight nor trace of her or her activities after she was seen outside Avery's house. Doesn't mean he did it but it's a pretty big factor when someone disappears and ends up dead. Again if you look at all the evidence it's a lot of stuff that points to Avery. You're picking out a couple of things and ignoring a lot of other stuff too. I get why people think he shouldn't have been convicted but there'd have to be an incredible amount of organisation for it to be a set up and for him to be innocent. Does anyone you seen in the show strike you as a criminal mastermind ??
Heisenberg. wrote: » No I didn't see it all. Neither did you. What we got was an emotionally charged 10hr documentary that was wholly one sided and very carefully edited to suit the defence. Yes, there are some suspicious points throughout but anyone that says they are 100% sure of innocence or guilt from watching a documentary should pretty much rule themselves out of Jury duty for life.
Sunflower 27 wrote: » Many of those points are mere heresay. Tbe guy worked in a car junkyard, of course he bought feckin chains lol.
Who said she was anxious of Avery? Her boss? That is mere heresay now. That can't be proven and the boss could have an agenda, who knows?
Why is it odd her possessions were burned with her? Still doesn't mean one person murdered her over another.
Brendan was clearly coerced to confess and later retracted it.....
How does no activity on her phone after being at Steven's house mean he did it??? It just means she was harmed or killed shortly after and there was more than Avery on that property then, but the others lied about being there.
Thelomen Toblackai wrote: » There's enough there to make a very strong case against Avery. It's also not clear why Brendan confessed, the show did not show the full confessions or full phone conversations. The full transcript of the phone call to his mother after his attorney screwed him over had all manner of stuff about Avery molesting him and others that was edited out for the show. There's a lot of what ifs for you after watching a pretty one sided show that never mentioned any of this stuff. Perhaps there was less for a jury who sat through days and days of evidence. And it points to murder because it gives Avery prior interactions and a possible obsession with Halbach. Added to the other evidence it paints a pretty compelling story that Avery is the murderer.Specifically asks for Halbach to photo his car. Halbach allegedly is uncomfortable with Avery and reluctant to go to his home. Avery uses a different name to make the appointment. Avery purchases handcuffs and chains in the weeks prior to the visit. Avery calls Halbach numerous times on the day of the disappearance but not from his own phone. Halbach did visit Avery and was seen by numerous people in his yard. There is no account by anybody that she was seen afterwards. There is no activity on her phone after the time she was seen at Avery's. Her car was found on the Avery site. Avery's blood was found inside the car. Her remains were found at a burn site at the back of his house. Her phone and camera were found in a burn barrel at the back of his house. The key to her car was found with his DNA inside his home. A bullet matching Avery's rifle was found with Halbacks DNA in Avery's garage. His nephew Brendan made multiple statements saying he murdered her. There's no way in hell that's a weak argument lacking evidence. The only argument is whether the police interfered with stuff enough that he shouldn't have been convicted. Likewise Dassey said enough to suggest he was there when it happened, but given how it was handled by the police and the fact he was screwed over by his lawyer there's an argument it's not admissible in court. I find it odd people are happy to point fingers at the boyfriend, the brother, Bobby Dassey or Scott Tayback? with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest they did anything. Yet ignore or play down an absolute mountain of evidence pointing to Stephen Avery.
JaMarcusHustle wrote: » Im not arguing whether Avery did it or not - I'm undecided myself. Im just arguing the hypocrisy of those saying they think Avery is innocent and that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych did it when there's zero evidence they were even remotely involved.
Sunflower 27 wrote: » To be fair, Bobby and Scott lied about the timeline. Why do that under oath? Tbey also had access to SA's property.
JaMarcusHustle wrote: » Look - there's far more evidence that implicates Steven Avery than there is evidence to implicate Bobby and Scott. Whether Steven Avery is genuinely guilty is obviously very much up for debate, but people thinking it's more likely Bobby and Scott did it together is ridiculous, especially as all we have to go on is a documentary and a very biased one at this. To think Bobby and Scott did it just because the documentary hinted at is ridiculous when there is zero evidence to suggest they did. There's less evidence to implicate Scott and Bobby than there is to implicate Steven Avery.
finglashoop wrote: » Is the evidence reliable though? The police make it look that way. Its highly suspicious. The car and the key can be ignored as the most dodgy cop you could imagine seen the car and called in the reg and the key Was obvously planted there in plain sight by the second most dodgy cop and they didnt find it first time round. It wadnt hidden. Just out in the open with no dna from the owner of the key The blood spots in the car could be from the sample the police have why else is there a needle hole in a sealed sample. So the evidence is set up to point at Avery whether he is actually guilty.
Sunflower 27 wrote: » It all seems very weak though. Who said she didn't like Avery? Her boss? How can that be evidence if it can never be proved she said it. The boss may have disliked Avery, maybe jealous of the money be was going to get. A comment a dead woman supposedly made can't be legitinate evidence. It is clear why Brendan 'confessed' and that was shown in the documentary very well. Again, how do we know he said send Teresa? Maybe he found her non judgemental and that was important to him? Maybe he knew people looked down on him and she didn't.? There are just too many what ifs and maybes for that to be actual concrete evidence of anything. To me, none of that points to murder. It means nothing.
JaMarcusHustle wrote: » Look - there's far more evidence that implicates Steven Avery
Chocolate girl wrote: » Just finished it last night so sad and unjust. I think these 2 had something to do with it.
Sunflower 27 wrote: » If you are suspicious of Bobby & Scott, read the following:https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y5brb/they_are_guilty_and_they_couldnt_be_happier_about/
Wompa1 wrote: » That one juror also claimed the initial count from the jury was 7 not guilty 2 guilty with the rest undecided. What ever about Steven. What happened to Brendan is beyond evil and a joke. Actually what happened to Steven is evil too. Even he is guilty, there was clear grounds for a mistrial. Unfortunately, for her family that would have been awful but I think that would have been justice in this case. You can't convict with so much of the investigation and evidence being compromised.
gilberto_eire wrote: » Have to say this is a great watch. Would make a great drama in itself its so off the wall. Just going onto episode 5 now. In fairness its never exactly slow but once you hit episode 3 and get settled it turns into a binge. If I hadn't an exam today id have got way further last night. So tempted to google the people involved to their story since but just about staying strong until I finish it.
PressRun wrote: Was Scott Tadych the one who gave conflicting statements about when he saw a bonfire on Avery's property? I couldn't figure him out at all or why he was getting in the middle of it.
Thelomen Toblackai wrote: » That's one jury member who wasn't there for the full deliberation though. He like the others may have changed their initial opinion like others did after going through the evidence. It did seem odd that they let him off for mutilating the corpse but convicted him of murder when a large part of the evidence was burnt remains. That doesn't make much sense to me. But you can't really base an opinion on what one jury member says his initial opinion was before deliberations when all others found Avery guilty after discussing the evidence for days when you haven't seen the full trial and all evidence. I'm not saying he's clearly guilty or that there's enough to suggest there's no doubt. But the documentary is entirely Avery's side of the trial and it deliberately presents the story to paint a picture of innocence and a cover up. It's neither a full nor entirely accurate representation of the investigation or the trial. The other evidence they claim was shown changes the story dramatically. The requests from Avery for Teresa specifically to photo the car, the fact Teresa was uncomfortable with Avery due to his previous behaviour, the multiple phone calls on the day, the fact he used a different name when making the appointment, her phone and palm pilot being found in the burn barrel behind his house, the bullet with her DNA found in his garage matched that of his rifle, the handcuffs and stuff Avery bought in the weeks prior. Add that to the evidence we seen. The fact there was no activity from her phone after her visit to Avery which by all account definitely happened and was the last place she was seen alive by anyone, her car was found on his property with his blood inside, the defence argued it wasn't reliable but the FBI test could be seen by the court as perfectly valid, teeth and bones from Teresa found amongst the remnants of a fire in his back yard, the bullet etc. The case can be made that the police planted the key, possible tampered with other evidence, that the blood in the jeep wasn't reliable and they were hell bent on Avery and didn't bother fully and properly investigating the case and all possible suspects. There may be a case made that there wasn't enough to say beyond a reasonable doubt. But tbh there's plenty there to convince a jury she was there, she was murdered and disposed of on the property and Stephen Avery was responsible. It's not clear that it was a travesty by any means and that an innocent man went down a second time. Considering after the fact even if the trial was such a farce he shouldn't have been found guilty the Brendan Dassey statements and phone calls to his mother which weren't all shown in the show but depict Dassey as clearly stating that they did kill Teresa. That to me gives enough evidence to show it was indeed Avery that killed her whether he should have been found guilty of it or not.
PressRun wrote: » They did speak to the juror who did sit through the trial and had to leave because of an illness in the family during deliberations, and he said that he wasn't convinced of his guilt and that when he was there, there were seven others who weren't either. He even went on to say that the three who were convinced of his guilt refused to participate in deliberation. Now, I don't know what sort of agenda a former jury member would possibly have to push to say that they came out of the trial unconvinced. If there's further evidence that was presented in the trial that the public should know about before they start calling for the heads of members of the police or prosecution, then let's hear it. I'd love for the prosecution team that worked on it to produce something compelling and clear-cut that closes it down once and for all. For all their claims that the documentary is untruthful, they haven't actually produced any evidence as of yet that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Avery did it. And that's the bottom line really.
datk wrote: » I think Brendan Dassey's step-father Scott Tadych and brother could be an option - something happened and in a bid to save their own skin they were best placed to make it look like Avery did it and they'd know the police would jump at the chance to get him. I think Brendan getting caught up was an accident.
Goose81 wrote: » I seem to be the only person that thinks they are both 100% guilty . like her truck disappeared on his land and she was burned on his land, who the hell else did it. I didn't think it was very good tbh, dragged on way too long. I had lost interest by episode 6/
Thelomen Toblackai wrote: » The show doesn't present the full trial and all evidence that was presented though. It was deliberately one sided to sell the story. So none of us are in a position to say with any confidence the jury were wrong. That wasn't my point anyway, as I said the police department and court seemed pretty incompetent. Given the conflict of interests I also wouldn't rule out evidence planting. But not an entire set up. Perhaps it was so messed up the jury couldn't return a guilty verdict but without witnessing the full trial it's hard to tell. From what I seen as one sided as it was I'd be surprised if Avery wasn't the killer. So the poor family not only has a bunch of idiots locking up their son for 18 years but then they have to go through it all again because he was actually a psycho but being innocent the first time people bought into his lies this time. That's the cruellest part of it, how he exploits all that to string his family along and ruins lives all over the place.
Heisenberg. wrote: » Please don't ever sit on a Jury!!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/85524eb6cd0c5658acde1396af083a14.svg)
