Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

JaCrispy · 15-01-2016 07:55PM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

So where were you that day? You could easily be a suspect if that's what you figure a motive to be.

What are you talking about?
A motive is a persons reason for doing something. Do you have a different definition?

Steven Avery's reason for raping and murdering Halbach was his twisted sexual desires .... as I guess would be the same reasons for nearly every such offence.

Flint Fredstone · 15-01-2016 08:05PM

JaCrispy wrote: »

What are you talking about?
A motive is a persons reason for doing something. Do you have a different definition?

Steven Avery's reason for raping and murdering Halbach was his twisted sexual desires .... as I guess would be the same reasons for nearly every such offence.

The original post said he had the motive to do it. In this context I would take that to mean it was a reaction on the back of another instance or incident.
Everybody has the motive if you're just looking at the end result.

JellieBabie · 15-01-2016 08:07PM

8-10 wrote: »

There's been a few posts over on Reddit about it, e.g:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40ihhg/allow_me_to_clear_up_the_blood_vial_thing_if_i_may/

Here's another - https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xuic2/addressing_the_hole_in_the_blood_vial_and/

I haven't seen it myself either but I don't see why people would create a lie about this

Dean Strang has stated that the lab dealing with the vial confirmed that they never pierce the cap of the tube ever.

JaCrispy · 15-01-2016 08:13PM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

The original post said he had the motive to do it.

What original post? Quote it here please because I cannot find it.

Eitherway I was responding to this question

astradave wrote: »

What is his motive to rape and murder Theresa? As said above this would be the charge not the motive

by posting this

Jascrispy wrote: »

What's the motive? Twisted sexual gratification obviously.

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Everybody has the motive if you're just looking at the end result.

Yes of course. A motive for doing something is to attain some end result. Nearly everything we do in our life begins with a motive, breathing, eating, working, etc etc.

Howjoe1 · 15-01-2016 08:24PM

Steven Avery's reason for raping and murdering Halbach was his twisted sexual desires .... as I guess would be the same reasons for nearly every such offence.[/QUOTE]

Ken Kratz 's therefore fits the bill.

Flint Fredstone · 15-01-2016 08:26PM

JaCrispy wrote: »

What original post? Quote it here please because I cannot find it.

Eitherway I was responding to this question

by posting this

Yes of course. A motive for doing something is to attain some end result. Nearly everything we do in our life begins with a motive, breathing, eating, working, etc etc.

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Yup the most simplest answer is usually the right answer, the more you have to explain what you think happened the further from the truth it is. If you apply Occams Razor to this case you would go with Avery murdered and burnt Theresa's body on his land, he had the means, motive and opportunity to do it. When you start bringing in the police or nephews and brother in laws then you need to start guessing how they did it which leads to question after question about means, motive and opportunity.

To say he had the motive is suggesting something more. If you're talking in terms of a crime, motive is usually used in the reactionary sense.
If you're saying he had the motive of sexual/violent gratification then you're saying everybody has.

JaCrispy · 15-01-2016 08:53PM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

To say he had the motive is suggesting something more. If you're talking in terms of a crime, motive is usually used in the reactionary sense.
If you're saying he had the motive of sexual/violent gratification then you're saying everybody has.

Ok I can see the confusion. I was responding to a subsequent post to that one. "Having a motive" is generally accepted as giving an excuse for doing something not a reason for doing it.

I think we are not in actual disagreement after all.

mewe · 15-01-2016 08:57PM

My opinion on this is, I believe Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are innocent. I believe they were framed knowingly by all involved. I believe the people who framed them and the others who covered for them, backed them up and helped get their convictions over the line are disgusting and I also believe the American criminal justice system and attitude towards human rights is disgusting.

People nowadays tend to question things a lot and not take what's presented to them at face value and that's fair enough, that's a good thing. But sometimes what's staring you straight in the face and seems the obvious conclusion is the real story. The documentary may have been one sided as the film-makers believed both Brendan's and Steven's innocence but that doesn't take away from the fact of what happened in these cases.

The Sheriffs, Deputies etc were squirming in their seats at their deposition trial and knew they had been found out. People in law enforcement in the States are used to being the ones throwing their weight around and not being the ones on the receiving end of a grilling or being put in their place and they didn't like it one bit. Then they were facing liability in a 36 million dollar lawsuit. Steven Avery was target number one for these scumbags and an opportunity presented itself to Andrew Colburn when he found the car and they took it. After that as a lot of people in law enforcement do, particularly in America, they stuck together, backed each other up and got the case over the line.

That's my opinion anyways.

bryangiggsy · 15-01-2016 10:54PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

So you've time to watch 10 hours of a TV show *and* read a few blogs about the case, but not enough to check back a few pages to see if your link had already been posted or if the topics had been covered before throwing your two cents into a discussion you opted to join? Huh.

Yup u got it. Pat yourself on the shoulder. Well done.

ricero · 16-01-2016 12:31AM

I found weird the lack of emotion from thersea halbachs mother during the entire trial

Tipsy McSwagger · 16-01-2016 12:34AM

ricero wrote: »

I found weird the lack of emotion from thersea halbachs mother during the entire trial

So you actually watched the entire trial?

ricero · 16-01-2016 12:37AM

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

So you actually watched the entire trial?

Oh sorry im only on episode 8 she must move a lip or something so

Civil Joe · 16-01-2016 12:40AM

Watched half an episode. Seems boring and trite. Surely this could have been wrapped up in a single 2 hour documentary?

Tipsy McSwagger · 16-01-2016 12:42AM

ricero wrote: »

Oh sorry im only on episode 8 she must move a lip or something so

Maybe she was involved in her daughters murder?

retro:electro · 16-01-2016 12:45AM

Civil Joe wrote: »

Watched half an episode. Seems boring and trite. Surely this could have been wrapped up in a single 2 hour documentary?

First episode is just setting up background to the main event which evolves in episode 2

ricero · 16-01-2016 12:52AM

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Maybe she was involved in her daughters murder?

Well thats your opinion tipsy. Im just saying i found it weird the lack of emotion considering what happened. She must of been an emotional wreck on the inside. No way do i beleive she was involved.

Anyway i think steve was framed again.

jayo26 · 16-01-2016 12:54AM

Civil Joe wrote: »

Watched half an episode. Seems boring and trite. Surely this could have been wrapped up in a single 2 hour documentary?

Eastenders might interest you maybe.

jayo26 · 16-01-2016 12:56AM

ricero wrote: »

Well thats your opinion tipsy. Im just saying i found it weird the lack of emotion considering what happened. She must of been an emotional wreck on the inside. No way do i beleive she was involved.

Anyway i think steve was framed again.

Mothers have amazing strenght to withhold emotion did you follow the Oscar pistorious trial I don't know how that woman stayed calm id of been arrested for gbh

Checkmate19 · 16-01-2016 12:57AM

This thread was always going to be taking over by clowns all threads that go on get them. But this thread will out last the clowns. This thread is here to stay. Don't let the brain dead clowns who haven't watched the showed take over. And if you are listening you sad people go out for a walk and find something better to do with your life. You sad people.

enfant terrible · 16-01-2016 03:15AM

Ageyev wrote: »

I've been having blood taken for testing for most of my life over the course of two decades. Never seen any phlebotomist pierce a vial with a needle like you suggest.

Note also: the box was opened, the evidence seal broken and Scotch tape applied.

Funny when I was watching the documentary I was shocked at seeing the hole in the blood vial, guess that was the reaction the doc makers were looking for.

This "documentary" is for entertainment purposes only.

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamudererbloodvial.html
"The prison nurse who originally drew Steven Avery's blood and put it into the vial featured prominently and dramatically in the Netflix "Making a Murderer" documentary "would testify that she was the one who put the hole in the vacutainer tube at issue," a court document obtained by OnMilwaukee says.

The nurse, Marlene Kraintz, wasn't called to testify because the prosecution didn't think the defense had raised the blood hole theory at trial strongly enough to warrant rebuttal. This runs in contrast to the Netflix documentary, which presents the defense finding the hole in the Avery blood vial as a virtual "eureka" movement to advance its framing theory. They would later claim that it was law enforcement officers who sneaked into the Clerk of Courts office to remove Avery's blood from the old vial and plant it in Teresa Halbach's car."

Kraintz died in 2012.

Furthermore, two national experts – including the chair of the committee that writes the industry standards on drawing blood samples – told OnMilwaukee that such blood vials are supposed to have holes pierced in their rubber stoppers. According to the experts, that's how the blood gets into the vial.

Not only is it not uncommon, but it's the way the vials – in this case, according to court records, a purple-stopped Vacutainer – are supposed to work. According to Dennis Ernst, director of the Center for Phlebotomy Education, in Coydon, Ind., there are two ways to use such vials. The first method involves the nurse drawing blood with a syringe and then sticking the syringe into the rubber stopper top of the vial to put the blood in the tube. The second way uses what is called a "tube holder adapter," a device with needles on both sides. One needle goes into the person whose blood is being drawn, and the other needle goes into the tube stopper to insert the blood.

The Raptor · 16-01-2016 05:36AM

Anyone that has finished the documentary, I'm sure there were still questions and searching of google.

Something that came up was that there was alot evidence left out of the documentary to why Avery is really guilty.

But something I don't understand the jurors sat day in, day out for weeks and watched the case unfold in front of their eyes. Most of them thought not guilty but then they swapped their verdict to guilty.

What does that say about the evidence that was left out of the documentary?

Also, why is his ex coming forward now? Saying she ate boxes of rat poison to get away from him. Rat poison kills. Who brought her to the hospital with rat poisoning? She was living with Steven Avery. If he wanted her dead, why bother. After all, he did threaten to kill her with a hair dryer. When he went to prison, she was living in his trailer waiting for him to be freed. She wouldn't move until the cops told her to get out. I find her story funny.

Lorne Malvo · 16-01-2016 06:00AM

The Raptor wrote: »

Anyone that has finished the documentary, I'm sure there were still questions and searching of google.

Something that came up was that there was alot evidence left out of the documentary to why Avery is really guilty.

But something I don't understand the jurors sat day in, day out for weeks and watched the case unfold in front of their eyes. Most of them thought not guilty but then they swapped their verdict to guilty.

What does that say about the evidence that was left out of the documentary?

Also, why is his ex coming forward now? Saying she ate boxes of rat poison to get away from him. Rat poison kills. Who brought her to the hospital with rat poisoning? She was living with Steven Avery. If he wanted her dead, why bother. After all, he did threaten to kill her with a hair dryer. When he went to prison, she was living in his trailer waiting for him to be freed. She wouldn't move until the cops told her to get out. I find her story funny.

Some of the jury were connected to law enforcement.

Drumpot · 16-01-2016 09:32AM

The Raptor wrote: »

Anyone that has finished the documentary, I'm sure there were still questions and searching of google.

Something that came up was that there was alot evidence left out of the documentary to why Avery is really guilty.

But something I don't understand the jurors sat day in, day out for weeks and watched the case unfold in front of their eyes. Most of them thought not guilty but then they swapped their verdict to guilty.

What does that say about the evidence that was left out of the documentary?

Also, why is his ex coming forward now? Saying she ate boxes of rat poison to get away from him. Rat poison kills. Who brought her to the hospital with rat poisoning? She was living with Steven Avery. If he wanted her dead, why bother. After all, he did threaten to kill her with a hair dryer. When he went to prison, she was living in his trailer waiting for him to be freed. She wouldn't move until the cops told her to get out. I find her story funny.

Part of the problem with this case is that one of the most plausible things to believe is that everybody involved is at some stage lieing and stories are constantly changing.

I could just as easily believe Averys girlfriend as I could believe she is lieing. The police, the state prosecution and Avery himself, all stories have ridiculous holes and credibility is practically nil. I could just as easily believe some of the theories on others including police tampering evidence , deceaseds brother, deceaseds ex boyfriend, deceaseds roommate or family members of Avery framing him.

If you read the "extra evidence" it does little to prove the case, but more to suggest Avery is capable of the crime. It shows how easy it is for the prosecution to not get involved and just keep throwing out unsubstantiated innuendo that doesn't really add much weight to their argument.

What Kratz and the prosecution don't say is that they were asked to be involved in the documentary and refused. They are painting it that they never had a chance. In short, they were so cocky they never felt the need to explain their side. Now that they have been exposed they are crying foul. Ironically they are accusing the filmmakers of painting an inaccurate picture of events which is exactly what they did from the very first press conference in this case.

I believe 7 of the jury initially found him innocent at a straw poll before deliberations. 3 jury appear to of always been against Avery and convinced the others that he should be found guilty.

Considering this documentarys main theme was that there was always clear bias against him, this sounds extremely plausible. The fact that the defence had convinced over half the jury of reasonable doubt, under the original media furore against Avery, was remarkable and the way the jury was swayed suggests that Avery was never going to get a fair trial in Wisconsin.

hawkwind23 · 16-01-2016 10:39AM

Some thoughts.

It showed a shift from hatred of black people to a hatred of poor people?
The leaked email was so nasty and had the ignorance and language used against the blacks about 40 years earlier.
Locals seemed to think he did it based on his background.

I found a lot of similarities to the Rubin Carter story but he was black.

The fate of the two Averys was sealed by at least 5 central characters with personality disorders who had a lot of influence.
The DA being the main one , what a creep!

And how chilling was it that Colburn lead bredan away ,surely that had to be a message in itself

Tipsy McSwagger · 16-01-2016 10:57AM

hawkwind23 wrote: »

Some thoughts.

It showed a shift from hatred of black people to a hatred of poor people?
The leaked email was so nasty and had the ignorance and language used against the blacks about 40 years earlier.
Locals seemed to think he did it based on his background.

I found a lot of similarities to the Rubin Carter story but he was black.

The fate of the two Averys was sealed by at least 5 central characters with personality disorders who had a lot of influence.
The DA being the main one , what a creep!

And how chilling was it that Colburn lead bredan away ,surely that had to be a message in itself

Yup Carter was guilty too.

nc6000 · 16-01-2016 11:00AM

hawkwind23 wrote: »

And how chilling was it that Colburn lead bredan away ,surely that had to be a message in itself

Yes! I couldn't believe that of all the police officers they have that it had to be Colburn bringing Brendan in and out of court. Was there nobody else who could have escorted him.

TallGlass · 16-01-2016 11:24AM

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Don't believe it i don't care, i'd love to hear your explanation to what happened. It was her job to take photos of second hand cars for sale, and that state is full of nutballs selling cars so she would have been to a lot of shady areas.

Did they ever find the camera or photos? Did she ever get to take them, that could add to the timeline.

I just can't understand why you'd leave the car on your property and attempt to cover it so badly, it's almost as if someone wanted it to be found. And again, why burn the body on the site.

Also, why did that Police officer call in the reg plate of the missing car and then seemly do nothing.

My guess is the police found the car/body and framed Avery to get out of the hole they had dug.

Regards the blood in the car, they mention no prints or anything else was found in the car, surely from the position of the blood stain near the key there would have been prints, wearing gloves would have soaked(kept it inside with latex) up the blood unless he was bleeding heavily, which still wouldn't explain the stains on the carpet in car as there would have been more blood everywhere.

Again regards the key, why take it with him why not leave it there in the car?

If he did do it, it's almost like he set himself up. I know he's not the smartest lad in the world, but I am sure if he murdered someone last thing he is going to be keeping is the woman's car, her key on his property! Did they find anything else from her?

I just find it also bizzare, that he would go to the effort of burning a body, but yet wouldn't do something with the car, even so much so as a basic wipe down of the surfaces for prints/blood, it's obvious this wasn't done, you'd want to be blind to miss that blood stain near the ignition.

jayo26 · 16-01-2016 12:04PM

If he burnt the body at the fire how did the rest of the family i assume he didn't have a bomb fire on his own not notice a smell? I've never smelt a body burning thank fuk but id imagine it wouldn't be the nicest smell in the world.

Also im sure the smell would of hung around so it's surely the first thing would be noticed.

Tipsy McSwagger · 16-01-2016 12:47PM

TallGlass wrote: »

Did they ever find the camera or photos? Did she ever get to take them, that could add to the timeline.

I just can't understand why you'd leave the car on your property and attempt to cover it so badly, it's almost as if someone wanted it to be found. And again, why burn the body on the site.

Also, why did that Police officer call in the reg plate of the missing car and then seemly do nothing.

My guess is the police found the car/body and framed Avery to get out of the hole they had dug.

Regards the blood in the car, they mention no prints or anything else was found in the car, surely from the position of the blood stain near the key there would have been prints, wearing gloves would have soaked(kept it inside with latex) up the blood unless he was bleeding heavily, which still wouldn't explain the stains on the carpet in car as there would have been more blood everywhere.

Again regards the key, why take it with him why not leave it there in the car?

If he did do it, it's almost like he set himself up. I know he's not the smartest lad in the world, but I am sure if he murdered someone last thing he is going to be keeping is the woman's car, her key on his property! Did they find anything else from her?

I just find it also bizzare, that he would go to the effort of burning a body, but yet wouldn't do something with the car, even so much so as a basic wipe down of the surfaces for prints/blood, it's obvious this wasn't done, you'd want to be blind to miss that blood stain near the ignition.

Her phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel. Your theory that the police found her car/body and framed him is so stupid it's not even funny.

jayo26 · 16-01-2016 01:10PM

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Her phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel. Your theory that the police found her car/body and framed him is so stupid it's not even funny.

Its stupid to think that police did not tamper with any evidence or question could they of framed him.

there is more questions and unanswered suspicions to show that someone has tampered with things then they are to say that everything is as Steven avery left it after killing that girl.

What is the point of joining in a discussion or thread of you think anyone that doesn't go along with your way of thinking is stupid.

All hail tipsy.

Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Comments