‘Making a Murderer’: Former cop who worked viral case thinks Steven Avery is innocent

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article53516115.html

1/11/2016 1:48:54 PM

Got this from an article about a Reddit thread dedicated to the series:
Contradicting Kratz’s most recent statement, a gun expert with the Wisconsin State Crime Lab said he couldn’t conclusively link the bullet found in Avery’s garage to the .22 rifle in Avery’s bedroom. He could only confirm the bullet was fired by a .22 rifle.
There were little drops of deer blood all over Steven Avery’s garage, proving that the garage hadn’t been washed clean with bleach after the murder of Halbach as the prosecutors claimed.
A forensic anthropologist testified for the defense that an open fire couldn’t have generated enough heat to burn a body and destroy bones the way Halbach’s remains were found.
The leg irons and handcuffs found in Avery’s home had the DNA of Steven Avery and at least one other unidentified person. Teresa Halbach’s DNA was not found on them.
One of the investigators that found DNA under the hood of Halbach’s RAV4 admitted to not changing gloves after handling evidence inside the vehicle.
Forensic scientist Sherry Culhane was involved in Steven Avery’s 1985 rape case and testified that one of Steven Avery’s hairs was found on victim Penny Beerntsen’s shirt.
Avery’s lawyers also contend that Culhane delayed processing the DNA test that proved Steven’s innocence in the 1985 rape for an entire year.
So many problematic jurors were removed by Avery’s defense team that they hit the legal limit of dismissals. They still ended up with a man whose son was a Manitowoc sheriff and a county clerk’s husband.

1/11/2016 4:33:11 PM

Quote :

"B) If he is smart enough to get all of her DNA off of it, why wouldn't he get his own DNA off too? "

i haven't watched the whole series...still have maybe 2-3 episodes left. but it's interesting to me how avery has to be both quite careless and stupid (leaves the car on his property, key in his bedroom, bones in his backyard, obvious blood in her car, bullet in the garage) and also quite careful and clean in a lotta ways too (no blood or DNA anywhere in the house or garage, no fingerprints in the car). just seems to me like if he was so careful to get no fingerprints anywhere in the car, he probably would've check the car for his own blood as well. or if he took the time to ensure none of her blood or DNA got in his house or garage, maybe he would've taken equal care with the car key and disposing of the remains. i don't know...it's just strange all around.

1/11/2016 11:46:01 PM

I got in a huge argument with the wife about this...

But I think this is a huge example why eugenics is not a bad thing. This family is pure trash. Brendan had no chance in life. It's apparent that he suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome (or smoking/drugs) and ZERO parental guidance.

If the gov't would offer people like the Averys a lump sum cash payment ($50k) if they get a hysterectomy or vasectomy; it would reduce the cost of future gov't support for these people. I'm not saying that eugenics should be forced, but voluntary with an enticing cash payment.

1/12/2016 9:43:19 AM

Wow. So you're saying the family tree should be chopped down?

I'm not sure how much the government supports these people, they had their own businesses.

Quote :

"It's apparent that he suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome (or smoking/drugs) and ZERO parental guidance."

Actually, through the conversations with his mom, it seems that she was pretty supportive and a decent mom, given the circumstances.

1/12/2016 9:46:47 AM

Was is ever said that this family is accepting government support? I don't remember anything about that, if anything I believed they we mostly self-sufficient with the family business and by-and-large took care of family.

Eugenics is clearly another conversation though...and shouldn't skew this thread.

1/12/2016 9:50:12 AM

^^^Nice try, LEN KACHINSKY

1/12/2016 10:19:32 AM

^hahaa

Quote :

"i haven't watched the whole series...still have maybe 2-3 episodes left. but it's interesting to me how avery has to be both quite careless and stupid (leaves the car on his property, key in his bedroom, bones in his backyard, obvious blood in her car, bullet in the garage) and also quite careful and clean in a lotta ways too..."

A) None of this is particularly surprising. The fuckups especially, since the guy is literally borderline retarded.

-Blood in the car? It was probably dark as shit when he moved it and probably didn't expect anyone to find the car if he's just going to leave it on the property.
-Bones in backyard? In a pile of ash and junk, Avery probably had no idea that there bones fragments could be identified as such and even less likely he knew they could be directly tied to Halbach.

Neither is it surprising that he attempted to cover shit up inside his own house. I'm not convinced by "no DNA anywhere" argument. You don't just press a button and find all the DNA of every distinct person who has been in a location.


Now apply the same argument to the police. They're genius enough to plant 1) BONES 2) CAR 3) KEY 4) BLOOD 5) SWEAT 6) BULLET. They're genius enough to mastermind an elaborate conspiracy that involves manipulating a crime lab. They're evil enough to either murder Halbach or be in direct contact with the murderer?

But then they struggle to find plant/find DNA in the house? They're police! Planting the DNA and then knowing exactly where to collect it over the course of 8 days seems to the easiest thing I can imagine. They plant the key but they can't put Halbach's DNA on it? Are you fucking kidding?

There are clearly no evil geniuses in this show. Just a fair share of incompetence on all sides.

1/12/2016 10:59:38 AM

YOu seriously don't think the key was planted? You saw the picture of where it was found, right? In plain view, inside the bedroom, beside the bed where she was supposedly tied up, tortured, and raped? You realize that they searched it multiple times for multiple days, but it was only found days later by the sheriff's departments that wasn't supposed to be involved in the investigation? You believe that it wasn't planted? Are you fucking kidding me?

(Sorry, keep feeling the need to clarify: I don't think the planting of the key is a home-run for his innocence, just think it was obvious that that key-piece of evidence was planted)

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

1/12/2016 11:03:27 AM

The key is indeed the strongest thing I have seen from the defense. Only because they've established such a grand narrative about the officers that found it. It might be planted, but it doesn't seem farfetched that it was found there either.

Here's the thing though. Avery got some really fucking good lawyers. They do a good job of injecting a little bit of doubt into everything the prosecution brings up. So the overall feeling you get is doubt. But most of what they're doing is nitpicking irrelevant shit. This guy waited 3 hours to write a report? OMG. This guy forgot the exact time he showed up after several months. !!! But if you actually stop to think what the implication is if the police are lying on those points.... in many cases it doesn't add up to anything. And the overall absurdity of the conspiracy is far more farfetched to me than a key falling out of a book shelf after the room has already been searched.

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 11:17 AM. Reason : !]

1/12/2016 11:17:10 AM

Wow. Ok.

1/12/2016 11:23:06 AM

Quote :

"You don't just press a button and find all the DNA of every distinct person who has been in a location."

Yes that is true but supposedly she was stabbed, raped, tortured, etc. in the bedroom. How was not a single drop of her blood found there? If you stab someone in the throat, their blood is going all over the bed, the sheets, the carpet, and probably the walls. Not to mention the floor between the bedroom and the garage where he allegedly shot her. Even if you are a crime scene clean up specialist, there is no way you can get ALL the blood out of all that stuff. Hell, my old bedsheets still have a slight stain from when my dog puked on them 4 years ago and I tried everything to get it out.

Now I'm thinking that it is entirely plausible that someone that the police didn't know killed her and framed Avery. That person knew he would be a likely scapegoat and dumped her bones/etc. The local sheriff's department from then on could have legitimately thought he did it, and seeing that maybe there wasn't enough evidence to lock him up, planted some out of a genuine belief that he was a murderer and they needed him off the streets. Alternately, if you want to think that they are more sinister than that, they could have used her disappearance/death as a convenient way to end the lawsuit he was bringing against them. Either way, I don't think that the police actually had anything to do with her death.

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 12:21 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2016 12:15:07 PM

^yea especially if it were someone else in the family, i.e. Bobby Dassey and/or Scott Tadych. Just drop the bones in Steven's firepit after he's a known suspect.

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2016 12:43:47 PM

^that's my guess as well. Either a family member of Steven's or someone that was close to her (ex-bf?) killed her, and likely planted the car/bones to frame Steven. With the county cops already having it out for him, they at least plant the key w/ Steven's DNA (was that tested for EDTA?).

1/12/2016 1:01:04 PM

I just finished the last episode. I'm not exactly 100% convinced that Steven Avery is innocent. The one I feel the worst for is Brendan Dassey. I definitely don't think he was involved in this, even if Steven did it. He's just a poor, dumb kid who didn't know what he was getting into when he was coerced into confessing.

I'm reading this thread now:

Quote :

"whether he did it or not, the police definitely planted shit"

This is pretty much my stance on the whole thing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he had done it though.

Quote :

"8) His blood was found in her car (the documentary didn't mention that it is in fact common for vials to be sampled through the cap, the FBI test was negative for the preservative)"

This bothered me the whole time, that they don't even mention that if the blood tube is put in a vacutainer to obtain blood, it would have a hole in it.

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 3:32 PM. Reason : d]

1/12/2016 3:17:18 PM

just wanted to say that I don't agree with a single thing EuroTitToss has said on this thread

1/12/2016 4:09:28 PM

You know, honestly, there's no point in this thread anymore. The people who see through this stuff get bored with it pretty quickly but the conspiracy theorists will latch on for years. moron nailed it on the first page really. Good old cognitive dissonance: this guy can't be guilty, because if he was all of this would be a giant waste of time and I'm definitely not wasting my time here

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 4:30 PM. Reason : asfdasfadsf]

1/12/2016 4:14:27 PM

Quote :

"This bothered me the whole time, that they don't even mention that if the blood tube is put in a vacutainer to obtain blood, it would have a hole in it."

The broken evidence tape and crudely pasted scotch tape looked so fishy tho

^people finished the show between 1 and like 14 days ago and occasionally discuss it, kind of like what happens with most popular shows that leave unanswered questions. the horror!

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ,]

1/12/2016 4:29:54 PM

^^LOL, you're a genius man. It's one thing to be think he's guilty. It's another thing to KNOW he's guilty, even when there's so much evidence of corruption and shady practices in the investigation and the trial and no real conclusive evidence against him.

This isn't your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory, it's a shame you see it so black-and-white. Just by watching the video and reading on the internet, there's no way you can KNOW that he's guilty. Your arrogance is gross.

Man, I hope you're never on a jury in an important trial (or are wrongly accused of something).

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2016 4:51:03 PM

Quote :

"A) None of this is particularly surprising. The fuckups especially, since the guy is literally borderline retarded. -Blood in the car? It was probably dark as shit when he moved it and probably didn't expect anyone to find the car if he's just going to leave it on the property. -Bones in backyard? In a pile of ash and junk, Avery probably had no idea that there bones fragments could be identified as such and even less likely he knew they could be directly tied to Halbach. Neither is it surprising that he attempted to cover shit up inside his own house. I'm not convinced by "no DNA anywhere" argument. You don't just press a button and find all the DNA of every distinct person who has been in a location. Now apply the same argument to the police. They're genius enough to plant 1) BONES 2) CAR 3) KEY 4) BLOOD 5) SWEAT 6) BULLET. They're genius enough to mastermind an elaborate conspiracy that involves manipulating a crime lab. They're evil enough to either murder Halbach or be in direct contact with the murderer? But then they struggle to find plant/find DNA in the house? They're police! Planting the DNA and then knowing exactly where to collect it over the course of 8 days seems to the easiest thing I can imagine. They plant the key but they can't put Halbach's DNA on it? Are you fucking kidding? There are clearly no evil geniuses in this show. Just a fair share of incompetence on all sides. "

Well the point of my comment was simply that I found those inconsistencies to be interesting. I wasn't saying he was so obviously innocent and it was blatant planting of evidence by the police. I don't believe that it was all some huge master plan by the police either. It just seems odd to me that the victim has her throat sliced open in his bedroom and was tied up on his bed and there's not a single drop of blood anywhere in the house. Is that incredible luck in Avery's favor that there was no blood splatter? Or did he diligently clean up everything but somehow not cleanup his own blood from the car even though he was careful enough not to have fingerprints anywhere in the car? Also that the only cut on his body was on his finger...and if he left no fingerprints then he was almost definitely wearing gloves, right? There's just some very obvious inconsistencies and oddities. Again, I'm not saying the police had this woman killed and planted every single thing. But I think there are enough inconsistencies and strange things about the investigation that it's not crazy to think that the police may have planted *some* evidence...like the key.

Basically I guess what I think is that it's certainly possible that Avery killed her. But he didn't kill her the way they (specifically Massey) said he did. Which casts doubt over everything IMO. The key is maybe the most curious thing to me, and to most people ITT as well. Also officer Culbourn calling in her plate to the police office like 2 days before her car was found. That seems incredibly curious to me. The show didn't really gloss over it...but they didn't harp on it as much as I would have thought.

I'm also not convinced that Avery as "retarded" as you keep saying. He's not the brightest guy obviously...but I think it's a stretch to say he's retarded. Unless I missed something in the show where they discussed that.

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 5:45 PM. Reason : J]

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 5:50 PM. Reason : D]

1/12/2016 5:41:02 PM

^They said his IQ was 70 which I think legally means he is borderline disabled. He seemed to be fairly competent in the documentary which implies otherwise though. I have no idea how trustworthy this site is but a quick Google search lines it up with similar other indexes: http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/iqclassifications.htm

In terms of "Psychiatric Use", an IQ of 70 implies "Mild Mental Retardation". Anyone with any experience or knowledge in psychology care to weigh in?

1/12/2016 6:08:18 PM

FYI: The directors will be on the Late Show with Colbert tonight.

1/12/2016 6:24:22 PM

My expertise says that Forrest Gump's IQ was higher than 70 and he was dumb enough to get the AIDS.

But seriously I feel like maybe the test was inaccurate when they tested him, because Brendan's IQ is 73 and he is clearly almost retarded but Steven seems at least a step up from that. He's not bright, but he's not really dumb either.

1/12/2016 6:29:23 PM

^^^ah I remembered some IQ stuff, but thought it was only in regards to Brendan. Maybe I missed that part. Thanks for the clarification there.

^thats the impression I got as well. Brendan seemed clearly worse off mentally than Avery.

[Edited on January 12, 2016 at 6:31 PM. Reason : A]

1/12/2016 6:30:41 PM

Forest Gump got AIDS?

1/12/2016 6:31:50 PM

They never mentioned Avery's IQ, only the kids.

/argument about retards

1/12/2016 6:35:35 PM

^Yeah they did it was on the first or second episode, they said he had an IQ of 70.

1/12/2016 6:47:56 PM

Quote :

"They do a good job of injecting a little bit of doubt into everything the prosecution brings up. So the overall feeling you get is doubt."

Isn't that like... how it's supposed to work? Sounds like he should be free

1/12/2016 8:17:34 PM

Quote :

"This isn't your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory, it's a shame you see it so black-and-white. Just by watching the video and reading on the internet, there's no way you can KNOW that he's guilty. Your arrogance is gross. Man, I hope you're never on a jury in an important trial (or are wrongly accused of something)."

Ha! Good thing they all dismissed us yesterday (no joke, my first time being summoned).

I don't know the guy is guilty, I just think it's very likely. On the other hand, several posters in here seem to be totally convinced that he is innocent and this whole thing is a frame-up. If I was actually on a jury here, I'd take it more seriously and listen to both sides intently, but I'm not on a jury. Keep in mind that the jury saw things we didn't. Take careful note that you never see one of the defense's witnesses cross-examined in this show unless it's immediately followed up by Buting getting the last word in and seemingly putting the issue to rest. We see things that they didn't (skewed of course) but we're missing things too.

Quote :

"It just seems odd to me that the victim has her throat sliced open in his bedroom and was tied up on his bed and there's not a single drop of blood anywhere in the house."

It may or may not be remarkable that they didn't find blood inside. I don't know. But I will say that I'm not buying the throat cutting story. Most people here are on the same page that Dassey's story is highly suspect and, at best, he was just saying what they wanted to hear. At this point, we're talking about a press conference and not the case right? I might have missed it, but I don't remember the prosecution providing the same level of detail in the courtroom that they did in that conference. For obvious reasons.

Quote :

"Also officer Culbourn calling in her plate to the police office like 2 days before her car was found. That seems incredibly curious to me. The show didn't really gloss over it...but they didn't harp on it as much as I would have thought. "

Another case where we don't see the cross-examination. Seems like one of the first things you would do is ask the family what kind of car she drove and then confirm that..... how is any of this strange. Under the conspiracy theory thinking though, why would you incriminate yourself like that???? The dude just appear dumbfounded/forgetful to me.

1/12/2016 8:31:35 PM

Another weird thing that I was just reminded of what that he was found guilty of murder, but found not-guilty of burning and disposing of the corpse. That doesn't jive with the prosecutions story at all.

Supposedly at the beginning of deliberations, only 3 of the jurors thought he was guilty and 7 didn't, or were on the fence. A friend told me that they read (disclosure: i don't know where they read it) some of the jurors later said that the three wouldn't back down, so they "traded" votes, and that's how they came to the conclusion, and they figured the inconsistency in the verdicts would send a clear message that something weird was going on and it would cause a retrial, or something like that.


[Edited on January 13, 2016 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ]

1/13/2016 9:37:35 AM

some people don't know the difference between innocent and reasonable doubt

1/13/2016 12:08:23 PM

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u91VsLcu30Y&feature=youtu.be

1/15/2016 8:52:22 PM

^ that's pretty damning.

Low IQ + violent past + further antisocialization in prison + feeling owed + violent & abusive + hubris of being a public figure + DEAD BODY FOUND IN HIS BACK YARD etc, seem like a good reason to convict him.

1/16/2016 4:56:22 PM

She seemed to be able to not remember anything about that time period. It's been 10 years, so I don't blame her. But a lot of of what she was saying didn't jive with her attitude in the series at all.

1/16/2016 5:36:39 PM

Quote :

"The prosecutor noted the documentary shows 4hrs of a 2 week long case."

Ever watched a murder case (live or on TV)? 90% of it is put-you-to-sleep expert and "laying-the-ground" testimony. They might have omitted some juicy stuff on the prosecution side, but I felt like they did a decent job of giving both sides. There was some damning evidence against him.

With that being said, I have to agree with this:

Quote :

"I'll say this though, and my issue with his guilt comes down to the following: To believe he is guilty is to believe he goes from criminal mastermind to moron back and forth in the course of a few days, if not the same day. He is able to clean up ALL DNA evidence in the house, but leaves it in the car? He cleans the entire garage, but leaves a bullet? He cleans the entire house, but leaves the key laying around? He burns her belongings but doesn't attempt to destroy the car? He calls his girlfriend calmly, allows them to search his home, all while the car is sitting there? He hides the car with some twigs when a car crusher is on the property? All her blood is cleaned from the house and garage but left all over her car? Manages to leave some of his blood around but cleans up all hers? Logically, that garage if it was the spot she was killed would have needed to be meticulously cleaned unless there were plastic sheets used or something along those lines. You can't do the damage they are accused of doing to someone and not leave any trace of DNA behind especially since his house and garage were a total mess. "

Oh...and this....she fly as hell:

[from 2002]



[Edited on January 19, 2016 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2016 1:40:08 PM

^in regards to the second block of quoted text...i very well think avery could have done it (and i think lean toward him probably doing it). but it definitely did not happen the way brendan dassey said it did. as you said, there is pretty much no physical evidence to support his story.

1/19/2016 2:22:34 PM

I finished watching the whole thing.

After watching it all and reading up on things that weren't presented at trial (e.g. Avery being investigated for a sexual assault in 2004), I am only more convinced that Avery is guilty.

^^I know we're going to keep going over this until the end of time, but again: there's no good reason to believe there was ever any blood in the house. Probably the garage. It looks like Dassey told his mother he helped clean Avery's garage with bleach: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xys6a/dasseys_jeans_were_stained_from_bleaching_the/

Regarding Dassey's involvement, I'm on the fence. I was actually surprised he wasn't able to get an appeal based on the shenanigans by his first lawyer.

1/19/2016 3:35:23 PM

Quote :

"It looks like Dassey told his mother he helped clean Avery's garage with bleach"

Yet they found Avery's DNA on/in the concrete floor?

Quote :

"e.g. Avery being investigated for a sexual assault in 2004"

You're not a big fan of innocent until proven guilty, are you?

[Edited on January 19, 2016 at 3:43 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2016 3:42:16 PM

Dassey's first lawyer should be dis-barred. The shit his own investigator pulled and then not being present with the county/state investigators. That was fucking horrible. That shit-eating grin he always had on...he came off dumber than the Averys. I hope he loses whatever job he currently has because of this shit. If there was a fix...then he was in on it.

^I'm honestly only five episodes in and have yet to read any articles. Just this thread and talked to some fellow attorney friends. The consensus being that they can't say whether or not Avery committed the murder...but there should definitely be enough doubt cast that there was no way it was "beyond a reasonable doubt."

1/19/2016 3:43:10 PM

One question...
Why aren't people making a bigger deal about the phone call Brendan had with his Mom? I do not think such a conversation could be entered into court evidence, but it certainly should come up when talking about whether or not they are actually innocent independent of evidence.

From a link earlier in the thread:
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

And here are some excerpts (further revised from what the webpage shows) that seem to indicate _clear_ guilt.
Mom: What all happened, what are you talking about?
Brendan: About what Me & Steven did that day,
Mom: What about it?
Brendan: Well, Mike & Mark & Matt came up one day and took another interview with me and said because they think I was lying but so, they said if I come out with it that I would have to go to jail for 90 years.
Mom: What?
Brendan: Ya. But if came out with itT would probably get I dunno about like 20 or less. After the interview they told me if I wanted to say something to her family and said that I was sorry for what I did.
Mom: Then Steven did do it.
Brendan: Ya
Mom: (Mom Crying) Why diddn't you tell me about this?
Brendan. Ya, but they came out wi.th something that was untrue with me
Mom:. What's that?
Brendan: They said that I sold crack
...
Mom: Did he make you do this?
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Then why didn't you tell him that.
Brendan: Tell him what
Mom: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
Brendan: Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
Mom: What do you mean touching you?
Brendan: He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.


--

Brennan freely admits he was involved in the murder to his Mom. This is not a coerced confession. He even has the clarity of mind to object about a false accusation (selling crack). He knows what he did and what he did not do in his conversation with her, and he clearly indicates he was involved with murder which Avery pushed on him. I do not see any way to reconcile this conversation with his supposed innocence.

Also, I hear very little discussion about Avery molesting him. I have not seen the documentary. Is this ever presented?

1/19/2016 4:26:03 PM

Because the kid was a retard (literally) who had obviously been coerced during the interrogation, he was confused about the whole thing, and at that point the investigators had made it clear to him it was in his best interest to admit guilt (even if he wasn't guilty).

There are other recorded conversations with him where he says he wasn't involved and clearly didn't know if Avery did it.

1/19/2016 4:41:14 PM

^^ You really can't believe a word that comes out of that kid's mouth. I think my dog has more sense than him.

1/19/2016 4:57:15 PM

Quote :

"Also, I hear very little discussion about Avery molesting him. I have not seen the documentary. Is this ever presented?"

Nope. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213

1/19/2016 5:08:38 PM

I understand that he denies it in other conversations, but there is he fighting to be free. He has something to gain by saying he is innocent to people who may be able to free him. I have a hard time believing that in a conversation with his mother he would admit to one lie they coerced him into (murder) but deny another lie they coerced him into (selling crack).

Clearly he is mentally retarded and saying different things in different conversations, but I tend to believe he would be more truthful in this conversation.

1/19/2016 5:24:50 PM

The kid also said in various phone conversations that he didn't do anything. Any testimony, regardless of admission of guilt or claims of innocence cannot be believed. He changed his story and so many details many times, both on the phone, under coercion, and everywhere in between.

1/20/2016 10:38:31 AM

Quote :

"Brennan freely admits he was involved in the murder to his Mom. This is not a coerced confession. He even has the clarity of mind to object about a false accusation (selling crack). He knows what he did and what he did not do in his conversation with her, and he clearly indicates he was involved with murder which Avery pushed on him. I do not see any way to reconcile this conversation with his supposed innocence. "

Not even Kratz believes Dassey's story 100% because it doesn't line up with the evidence they have, which is why he provided a completely different narrative during the trial. You can't possibly know what to believe and what not to believe. It's like dealing with a young child.

In fact, that was exactly what his interrogation reminded my wife and I of while we were watching--us interrogating our youngest daughter(3 years old) about misbehavior. You have to be very careful to not suggest anything so you can get to the truth. If you were just looking for a "conviction", you could literally get her to say anything. She doesn't understand half the shit you are asking and her mind is jumping to random shit that has nothing to do with what you are asking. It was startlingly similar to the Dassey interviews.

1/20/2016 10:58:57 AM

For anyone believing that Dassey was involved in this and that his confession wasn't coerced, how do you reconcile that there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever (physical, DNA, anything) to corroborate any of what he's said?

1/20/2016 11:27:02 AM

http://www.zimbio.com/Beyond+the+Tube/articles/k59WEAE-XDv/Genius+Making+Murderer+Fan+Theory+Ties+Up

[Edited on January 22, 2016 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

1/22/2016 11:39:36 AM

I didn't read through the whole thread, but the whole theory with the brother/ex boyfriend helping frame him really makes sense.

Your sister/friend just got murdered, the police come to you and tell you this sketchy guy is their leading suspect. The problem is they don't have a ton of evidence, but they have some that links her to him. The last time this guy went to prison he got lucky and got out, but I'm sure he was guilty then too, right? So help us put him away for good, give us her spare key, send someone to search his lot, we think the car could be in this particular area. Oh and by the way this is illegal never tell anyone, but you get to give your sister justice.

I think a lot of people would go along with that. These two guys don't know Stephens full situation, I could easily see them getting coerced into helping the police just as Dassey got coerced into confessing.

1/22/2016 5:27:21 PM

http://www.purewow.com/entertainment/Obsessed-with-Making-a-Murderer--Two-New-Specials-Air-This-Weekend

1/29/2016 9:52:37 AM