https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgbdYaR_KQ

I am on the final episode after shamelessly binge watching this yesterday.

Anyone else seen it? It's captivating and infuriating.

1/3/2016 1:59:32 PM

Yes. I was going to post a thread on it cause i was surprised there wasn't one yet.


After watching the show and reading more and more about it online, I'm finding it harder and harder to believe Steven did it. At the very least, even if it did do it, there is no way they proved he did it beyond reasonable doubt. So much shit was planted after they couldn't find shit for evidence.

The ex-boyfriend is super shady. The brother is shady. Stevens brother in law is shady. None of them were looked at because they wanted to railroad Avery.

1/3/2016 3:10:29 PM

Great doc, fucking infuriating.

1/3/2016 3:11:50 PM

those two lawyers were fucking awesome

1/3/2016 3:18:30 PM

Yeah they rocked.

The DA in the murder trial eventually lost his job for sexting, lol.

[Edited on January 3, 2016 at 4:04 PM. Reason : A]

1/3/2016 3:54:34 PM

[Edited on January 3, 2016 at 4:05 PM. Reason : oh okay you're gonna edit out the dumb]

1/3/2016 4:04:50 PM

Watched it Friday and Saturday. Really annoys me that whoever did it got away with it. There was so much shady shit going on it was obvious. It seemed to me that there was definitely more evidence pointing towards something happening behind the scenes, but I just wonder how deep it went. Like who really did kill Teresa? Did they do it for the sole purpose of framing Steven or was he just a convenient scapegoat? If the police did plant stuff at the scene, was it because they were involved in her murder or was it because they legitimately thought he did it and they couldn't find enough evidence to prove it?

It is just ridiculous that anyone would think that if Steven did kill her, he wouldn't do a better job of hiding the car/evidence. Especially since he had a compactor/incinerator at his disposal.

Also felt very bad for Brendan. That tape clearly shows that he was scared shitless and just saying whatever the detectives wanted him to because he wanted to get out of it. Kid thought he could just go back to class after confessing to a rape/murder so he clearly wasn't a mastermind.

1/3/2016 4:13:40 PM

Agreed.

It really matches up well to what some of us saw in the Brad Cooper trial.

What it really exposes is how corrupt the system is.

Clear and obvious collusion.

But a well done series, i'd love for brad cooper to be next.

1/3/2016 5:50:19 PM

I couldn't believe some of the things said about this family. Having to sit there in court as Len's investigator reads his email out loud:

Quote :

"I am learning the Avery family history and about each member of the Avery family. These are criminals. There are members engaged in sexual activities with one another, with nieces, nephews, cousins, and in-laws. “This is truly where the devil resides in comfort. I can find no good in any member. These people are pure evil. A friend of mine suggested this is a one branch family tree. Cut this tree down, we need to end the gene pool here."

DAMN!

1/3/2016 11:27:32 PM

^lol at the part when one of the lawyer's says that when he was originally representing Brendan, Len said that he was "influenced by evil incarnate" and Len was all "I would never say such a thing!". Then he proceeds to play an audio file where you he says those exact words.

Someone who knows more about legal matters -- that kind of thing happens all throughout the entire trial with people saying one thing then being PROVEN to say/do another thing. How is this not perjury?

[Edited on January 4, 2016 at 9:25 AM. Reason : ]

1/4/2016 9:24:41 AM

This was just depressing. SO much shady shit. Of course, I imagine the filmakers left out some stuff, but it seems obvious that Steven and Brendan didn't do it. And how was Steve charged with murder, but found "not guilty" of corpse mutiliation? How could that be possible? And why would they put her body in the Rav 4 and get her blood all in the trunk, when she was shot in the garage and burned in the backyard? Nothing made sense about their case against them.

And it was so obvious that the prosecutor Kratz was a sleazy douche, his voice, his arrogance, his punchable face. Sexting a battered woman, supposedly told her he wouldn't help her if she didn't sleep with him.

[Edited on January 4, 2016 at 10:03 AM. Reason : ]

1/4/2016 10:01:12 AM

1/4/2016 10:07:46 AM

http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-2015-12

SO he says there was other evidence... Steven's DNA under the hood of the Rav 4 (I guess it could have somehow got there when he was talking to her in the driveway?) and supposedly her purse was found in one of the burn barrels (could have easily been planted) and two people saw it (just like the 16 year old girl said that Brendan said he saw the girl tied up, but later admitted she completely made it up).

[Edited on January 4, 2016 at 10:28 AM. Reason : ]

1/4/2016 10:14:32 AM

^The purse was in the burn barrel or charred remains of the purse (can't access maxim.com at work, lol)?

Quote :

"when she was shot in the garage and burned in the backyard?"

Yet her bone fragments were found at two other burn sites. And there was absolutely NO blood in the bedroom where she was cut. And there was NO blood whatsoever ANYWHERE in the garage where she was shot. Even in the cracks in the floor where they found plenty of Steven's DNA but none of hers anywhere (aside from the bullet fragment).

And there was no explanation as to why/who opened up the evidence thing that had a vial of his blood (and Scotch taped it back) and why it had a needle-sized hole in the top.

Also that blond woman who tested the DNA on the bullet fragment. I'm not exactly an expert interrogator but you could just outright tell from her face that she was hiding something. She kept fidgeting and moving her lips around anytime they asked her questions. I'm wondering if she was paid off or threatened or something.

1/4/2016 10:29:47 AM

Burnt contents of her purse (phone, camera)

^

Quote :

"It’s been over ten years since Ken Kratz helped put Steven Avery behind bars for a second time, in a mind-boggling murder trial that is the subject of the new Netflix documentary series, Making a Murderer. The series documents the trial of Avery and his 16-year-old nephew Brendan Dassey, who were both convicted of the October 31, 2005 murder of local Wisconsin photographer Teresa Halbach. Making a Murderer exposed some serious flaws in the criminal justice system, along with unflattering personal details about Kratz that did not appear to be relevant to the case, but that have nonetheless help cast Kratz as the villain in a narrative audiences are eating up: That Avery was framed by the Manitowoc County Sheriff Department as he was pursuing a $36 million dollar lawsuit against the state for his earlier wrongful conviction. But Kratz believes the public outrage over Avery and Dassey’s convictions are misplaced, and instead has accused Netflix of presenting a skewed and incomplete picture of Avery’s trial and conviction. Kratz, who is now a criminal defense attorney, spoke to Maxim about his frustrations with Making a Murderer. Are you surprised that Avery and Dassey’s ten-year-old convictions have become such a hot topic? Not at all. If you pick and choose and edit clips over a ten-year span, you’re going to be able to spoon-feed a movie audience so they conclude what you want them to conclude. That the theory of planted evidence...is accepted by some people isn’t surprising at all. The piece is done very well, and I would have come to the same conclusion if that was the only material I was presented with. Can you clarify exactly why you didn’t participate [via interviews] in Making a Murderer? In February 2013, the filmmakers were negotiating on a project with Netflix that was an advocacy piece created by and for the Steven Avery defense. There’s nothing about it that looked like a documentary. I had contact with [filmmaker] Laura Riccardi and I said I wanted to see [an earlier incarnation of the film that had previously been screened at a festival]. I said, “I’m agreeing to an interview, I want to know what you are alleging and what your angle is.” They refused. They said, “we’re not going to share anything with you,” from the film that I referenced. So I thought, well, this looks exactly like what I thought it was — I’m being set up. If I’m not being provided the same opportunity as the defense, if I’m not being shown a finished product that thousands of people had [already] seen. There’s no justification for not showing that to me unless you are trying to ambush me. How did you feel about your portrayal in Making a Murderer? I understand that my demeanor may have been very brash, even overconfident ... there was bit more bravado that I usually have, but this case kind of required that. All that notwithstanding, [the filmmakers] took lots of opportunities to mention things that happened to me three years after the case. [Ed note: this included a sexting scandal in which he sent lewd messages to a victim of domestic violence, admission of sexual addiction and a substance abuse problem.] If they aren’t casting me as a villain, you’ve got to ask, why would you include those things about me? They don't even tell you 80 percent of the evidence that the jury saw. They purposely kept all of that evidence that I showed the jury that absolutely discounted this evidence-planting theory. What was some of the evidence that was excluded from Making a Murderer? Avery’s DNA was found under [Teresa’s car’s] trunk. [Later, and in a separate correspondence, Kratz said this DNA evidence was found under the hood, suggesting that Kratz misspoke at one point in the interview.] It wasn’t blood. It was from his sweaty hands. Do the cops also have a vial of his sweat that they are carrying around? The evidence conclusively shows that Steven Avery’s hand was under the hood when he insists he never touched her car. Teresa’s phone, camera and [other contents of her purse] were found 20 feet from Avery's door, burned in his barrel...Two people saw him putting that stuff in there. This isn’t contested. It was all presented as evidence at the jury trial, and the documentary people don’t tell you that. One thing Making a Murderer doesn’t address is motive. Why would Steven Avery want to kill Teresa Halbach? Avery said he left his anger in prison -- thats not true at all. [In prison,] he created diagram of a torture chamber, [telling other inmates] "I intend to torture and rape and murder young women" after his release. The judge decided not to allow that evidence; he said it was too prejudicial. Steven’s got a legitimate claim to being upset and angry that he was unlawfully convicted. There isn’t anybody who disagreed he was legitimately wronged. He was poised to have a much better life from that point forward. But his hatred and this desire to hang onto it was so prevalent in Mr. Avery that it came out. Ten years later, are you still convinced that Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are responsible for the death of Teresa Halbach? I am convinced that Avery murdered and mutilated Halbach, and I believe that Brendan Dassey raped her and participated in the murder and helped dispose of the body. I also believe that without Steven, Brendan would not have murdered her. My sympathy was with the 16-year-old kid. He’s probably a good-hearted kid who was just curious and made some bad choices. It’s so incredibly sad, not so much in my opinion that [Dassey] did it, but that his uncle made him do it; made him cut her throat. His uncle sealed his fate, to ensure his silence. The above interview has been condensed and edited, and includes content from both a phone conversation and an email correspondence. "

1/4/2016 10:34:52 AM

I watched the whole thing but I didn't get why so many people like this, or were swayed by it. It was obvious the producers were pushing an angle, and after reading more about the evidence shown the jury, Avery definitely seems guilty.

The kid was treated badly by the detectives and his own lawyer, but statements not shown in the video (specifically things he said to his mom) make me think he was involved somehow, but I could see him getting a retrial.

But Stephen has worked with Theresa in the past, she was creeped out by him (told her boss he was weird and answered the door in his towel), he specifically requested her come out to work with him, and she ends up burned in his back yard (where he was seen burning stuff the night of the murder), her car in his junk yard, his blood under the hood of her car (which corroborates the kids unreliable testimony that he disconnected the batter).

The detectives might have planted the keys to try and help the case (but I can easily see how they just missed that too), but there's plenty evidence otherwise to think Avery is guilty.

1/4/2016 10:58:44 AM

Quote :

"his blood under the hood of her car"

Kratz said it was sweat, not blood. (and unless the evidence was presented, I wouldn't believe anything that slimebag says.)

^and how do you explain that none of her blood/DNA was found in the trailer where she was suposedly tied up, stabbed, raped and had her throat slit? or no blood/DNA in the garage where she was supposedly shot in the head? (or no blood/dna between the trailer and the garage or the garage and the burn pit) and the kid's DNA wasn't found anywhere in the bedroom where he raped her? I just don't think either of them were smart enough not to leave evidence (especially the kid), it sounds like it was supposedly a really messy murder, blood and other DNA would be all over the place.

and why were there multiple burn sites? and why was her blood and hair in the trunk of the Rav 4 if she was killed and burned at the house?... and so many other questions.

i do get that the documentary was biased and done with an agenda, but there are just so many unanswered questions.

Quote :

"The ex-boyfriend is super shady. The brother is shady."

Yeah, somehow both of them guessed her password to review her voicemail and call log, and the phone person testified that some voicemails had to have been deleted.


[Edited on January 4, 2016 at 11:21 AM. Reason : ]

1/4/2016 11:01:24 AM

Was very good and a captivating story.

There is an agenda being pushed but I think that agenda isn't about his innocence but about the way the system works. If that pushes forward innocences then that is a side result but they do present what they felt were the best arguments from both sides I believe, it is just opinion if you think they left out something important but I don't think that was intentional. There is a lot of questions that have also been answered as well if you feel the need to read more online about the case, that weren't in documentary, so a lot of obvious questions that seem unanswered were just left out from both sides.

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.

Those things just all don't add up in a way that makes really any sense. People are either really sloppy or really thorough and to believe he did this you have to believe that he was both amazingly smart and amazingly stupid all during the same time. Although I think his IQ shows he is dumb enough to do the dumb things listed above, like leave his DNA on the car, I don't think he has the ability to do the things that an expert would have trouble doing like cleaning the house and garage to the point that it was to leave not a trace behind.

1/4/2016 11:17:44 AM

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

1/4/2016 11:26:21 AM

moron said:

Quote :

"It was obvious the producers were pushing an angle"

This is such a stupid thing to say. Of course they have a bias. You don't get a documentary series about a conviction that people think was well earned through good police work. HERE ARE TEN EPISODES ABOUT THIS GUY WHO DEFINITELY DID IT AND HOW THE STATE PROVED HE DID IT AND EVERYONE DID GOOD WORK AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR YOU TO HAVE WATCHED THIS OOPS

You might not be a fucking idiot, but that was a fucking stupid thing for you to have said.

1/4/2016 11:29:00 AM

#salty.

1/4/2016 11:44:17 AM

I went to a party this weekend and within 10 seconds of someone bring this up, I realized that there were like 3 separate conversations that had all shifted to this show. is it any good :^)

1/4/2016 11:44:31 AM

Quote :

"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."

From the pictures of the garage, there was random junk EVERYWHERE. Old lawnmowers and rusty car parts and just all sorts of random clutter covered in layers of dust. Even if he had put down plastic sheets and stuff, they said she was shot something like 11 times. Even if this guy is Keyser Soze I cannot fathom that he would be capable of doing that and preventing ANY of her blood/DNA from getting on ANY of that crap he had lying around.

Plus there is still just the weird stuff how on a junkyard spanning 40 acres the woman that found the car was able to find it within 20 mins of looking (she claimed to be driven by divine intervention or whatever). And there I can't remember the details but before she started looking, the ex-bf gave her special instructions for what to do if she finds something, but didn't say anything to anyone else. And there was that audio recording of the cop calling in the license plate number a few days before the car was found and he was like "99 Toyota Rav4?" and the dispatcher confirmed it and he was just like "cool, thanks."

1/4/2016 12:02:37 PM

Quote :

"The detectives might have planted the keys to try and help the case (but I can easily see how they just missed that too)"

Really? After multiple searches for multiple days by the local County Sherriff's Dept, the keys just happen to be found out in the open in Steven's bedroom, by the Manitowac Sherrif's Department, even though they weren't even supposed to be involved in the investigation because of a conflict of interest? You really think they could just "miss" that piece of obvious evidence during multiple searches?


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

1/4/2016 12:11:10 PM

^Not just that, they were supposed to be "monitored" by the neighboring sheriff's department and the one time they didn't was the one time it was found. I think it was found by Lenk or Colborn too, the two guys who A) Had access to his blood vial and B) Would have gotten in trouble (I think?) if his lawsuit from the original case hadn't been displaced by his arrest.

1/4/2016 12:15:59 PM

Those dudes were so slimey too. And the old head of the Sherrif's Department who did the sketch of Steven for the previous rape case.

1/4/2016 12:29:50 PM

Quote :

"This is such a stupid thing to say. Of course they have a bias. You don't get a documentary series about a conviction that people think was well earned through good police work. HERE ARE TEN EPISODES ABOUT THIS GUY WHO DEFINITELY DID IT AND HOW THE STATE PROVED HE DID IT AND EVERYONE DID GOOD WORK AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR YOU TO HAVE WATCHED THIS OOPS You might not be a fucking idiot, but that was a fucking stupid thing for you to have said. "

Ha, okay. I said that because a lot of people who watched this seemed to react like they were seeing some profound insight into how the justice system worked, where they were really seeing an idealized portrayal of what the defense attorney wanted you to think happened. It was a marginally higher brow production of the murder-porn you find on Investigation Discovery.

It's interesting and entertaining, but i'm a little shocked at how certain some people leave the experience thinking he's guilty... but i guess if you binge on 10 hours of well produced propaganda, youre going to succumb to the position they are pushing.

It's a common tactic for a defense attorney to generate doubt by pointing the finger at someone else, this attorney just had balls by pointing the finger at the police themselves, a technique that only worked because of the malfeasance against Avery for the previous rape charge. This tickled peoples' conspiracy theory nerve though, and apparently in the court of public opinion, this is a very sensitive nerve (didn't work on the jury howedver).

Quote :

"and how do you explain that none of her blood/DNA was found in the trailer where she was suposedly tied up, stabbed, raped and had her throat slit? or no blood/DNA in the garage where she was supposedly shot in the head? (or no blood/dna between the trailer and the garage or the garage and the burn pit) and the kid's DNA wasn't found anywhere in the bedroom where he raped her? I just don't think either of them were smart enough not to leave evidence (especially the kid), it sounds like it was supposedly a really messy murder, blood and other DNA would be all over the place."

I don't have a specific explanation, but there are a million (not literally) plausible explanations. We do know she was dead/bleeding at some point in her own car, which the documentary doesn't ever try to explain. Until Avery confesses how he did it, we'll never know. At least for that part, he is a good murderer. It's an unconnected dot in all the other connected dots of this story.


here are the connected dots as I understand them:
1) Even after released from his wrongful conviction, Avery didn't keep his nose clean, he had some assaults and weirdness in his behavior
1b) It has been shown that being in prison can make you more likely to commit criminal acts
2) He had worked with teresa many times in the past, but he creeped her out enough where she told her boss she didn't want to work with him again
3) He specifically requested her by name to come out, the last time she came out
3b) Avery called her cell phone 3x the day she was murdered
4) He and others saw her on his property before she went missing
5) Her car was found on his lot
6) Her burned bones were found in his back yard; he was seen burning stuff the night of her murder
(and how does someone put burned bones into multiple areas of your yard, without you knowing??)
7) Her DNA was found on a bullet matched to his gun
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)
9) His DNA was found in the hood of her car
10) The kid's recorded conversation with his mom, where he has no reason to lie, indicates Avery was involved (wouldn't take this as gospel still, but it fits with everything else)

Any one of these in isolation could be coincidence, but all of them together paint the picture of a murderer.

1/4/2016 1:43:26 PM

After researching some, i'm still baffled at how you can believe that the evidence points to his guilt. None of your points are concrete evidence that he murdered her, just that he asked her to come to his house and he called her. Her car on his property? Easily planted. Bones in hisbackyard? Easily planted. You don't think somebody could have come in the middle of the night and dumped them? Her DNA on the bullet? Easily plantable if someone had the body. (and she was shot, so it'd be easy to take one of the bullets and toss it in the garage).

Quote :

"We do know she was dead/bleeding at some point in her own car, which the documentary doesn't ever try to explain"

Exactly. There's no explanation of why it would be there if Avery did it. There's be reason for it to be there if she was murdered somewhere else and then transported to the burn pits. But the prosecution alleged that she was murdered at the house/garage and burned right behind it.

Quote :

"10) The kid's recorded conversation with his mom, where he has no reason to lie, indicates Avery was involved (wouldn't take this as gospel still, but it fits with everything else)"

The kid is borderline retarded, he said all kinds of things the cops wanted to hear that obviously weren't true, then didn't know how to explain to his mom that he was coerced into saying things.


[Edited on January 4, 2016 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/4/2016 1:50:19 PM

You can't believe anything his nephew said at all. He changed his story about eight times. And his cousin broke down crying saying that she made up a lot of the stuff he said.

1/4/2016 2:57:57 PM

Quote :

"After researching some, i'm still baffled at how you can believe that the evidence points to his guilt. None of your points are concrete evidence that he murdered her, just that he asked her to come to his house and he called her. Her car on his property? Easily planted. Bones in hisbackyard? Easily planted. You don't think somebody could have come in the middle of the night and dumped them? Her DNA on the bullet? Easily plantable if someone had the body. (and she was shot, so it'd be easy to take one of the bullets and toss it in the garage). "

By this reasoning, even if they found her blood everywhere, you could say this was "easily plantable". And if her car was planted, why was his DNA in her car hood? Why was his blood (!!!) in her cargo area?

What seems to be the most reasonable thing to you? It can't be that ALL this stuff was planted... and by whom? This would take a substantial amount of organization wouldn't it? Is it more reasonable that there is an Illuminati-level conspiracy to plant and fabricate all this evidence, in this small town, everyone involved has kept their mouth shut, or that Avery did it and was able to cover most, but not all, of his tracks?

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

This link has some more info not shown in the series

1/4/2016 3:09:18 PM

Quote :

"By this reasoning, even if they found her blood everywhere, you could say this was "easily plantable"."

No. Planting blood in Steven's bedroom would be much. much harder than dumping ashes in a burn pit in his backyard or putting DNA on a solitary bullet and tossing it in his garage or parking a car on his property.

Quote :

"Is it more reasonable that there is an Illuminati-level conspiracy to plant and fabricate all this evidence"

As far as I know, the only planted evidence would be the keys in the bedroom, the solitary bullet in the garage, the ashes in the backyard and nearby barrels, and a few of his blood smears in the Rav 4. None of that would be hard to plant. When they started the search, it went on for 7? days, and the owners were not allowed on the property. The keys were found days after the first search. The bullet was found months after the first search.

And I'm not completely convinced that he's innocent, I just think there's too many unanswered questions and a whole lot of shady shit going on in the investiagation. I don't think the authorities killed her. More than likely one of her friends/relatives, and the authorities used it as a convenient way to arrest him and get the lawsuit against them dropped. Or possibly the authorities hired someone to do it... I don't know.

1/4/2016 3:20:09 PM

Quote :

"As far as I know, the only planted evidence would be the keys in the bedroom, the solitary bullet in the garage, the ashes in the backyard and nearby barrels, and a few of his blood smears in the Rav 4. None of that would be hard to plant. When they started the search, it went on for 7? days, and the owners were not allowed on the property. The keys were found days after the first search. The bullet was found months after the first search. "

So the defend Avery ,your idea is just that all the physical evidence linking him to the crime was planted...? That seems pretty uninspired doesn't it?

But we are pretty sure the blood wasn't planted, because it didn't have the preservative in it.

But l grant that hypothetically, it's easy to plant the keys and bullet, but much harder to plant the ashes-- this was a large quantity of ashes, how did it get moved around? Shouldn't it be easy to prove that the ashes were moved from another location?

1/4/2016 3:47:35 PM

Just for the record, I'm not saying that the man is innocent -- he could be guilty or innocent, I don't know. What I AM saying is that, based off of what I saw in the documentary, there was some real shady shit going on and a lot of very "convenient" happenings that led to the evidence that was uncovered. I feel like there is a lot bigger story here that we just don't know about.

Quote :

"But we are pretty sure the blood wasn't planted, because it didn't have the preservative in it. But l grant that hypothetically, it's easy to plant the keys and bullet, but much harder to plant the ashes-- this was a large quantity of ashes, how did it get moved around? Shouldn't it be easy to prove that the ashes were moved from another location?"

Just stating facts here, but one of the forensics/science experts that was brought in said that the test that was performed didn't prove that the preservative wasn't in the blood, it just proved that it wasn't detected. She said that it is quite possible to do a test on this blood and just not detect the preservative even if it were there.

On the topic of the bones/ashes being moved around, they had some kind of external investigator that has experience with bodies being burned. They did say that typically when burned human remains are moved, it is very easy to get the "large" particles but it is nearly impossible to get ALL of them and that the very small bone fragments would remain at the original burn site. There was a second burn pit elsewhere on his property (further from his actual house/garage) where fragments from her pelvic bones were found as well as the burn barrel closer to Dassey's home.

[Edited on January 4, 2016 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ]

1/4/2016 3:58:29 PM

Quote :

"So the defend Avery ,your idea is just that all the physical evidence linking him to the crime was planted...?"

That's the thing, there was hardly any physical evidence that tied him to the murder except the key in his room that was found out in the open, only after multiple searches, the one bullet that was found months later after multiple searches, the ashes and the blood in the truck. Only the blood was actually tied to him (and maybe his DNA was on the key? i don't remember, but I think it was more than obvious that the key was planted).

Quote :

"But we are pretty sure the blood wasn't planted, because it didn't have the preservative in it."

Supposedly the FBI stopped using the test that was done to show this because it had been shown to be inaccurate.

Quote :

"this was a large quantity of ashes, how did it get moved around? Shouldn't it be easy to prove that the ashes were moved from another location?"

I don't know how it got moved around, and if avery did it, I don't know why he would burn her in his backyard, then move a small amount to a quarry down the road, but leave the majority in his backyard. Why would he do that? And why wouldn't he just use the incenerator on his property? And yes, you probably could prove the ashes were moved, but I don't think the investigators really wanted to prove that. And I'm trying to recall, I thought one of the forensic witnesses made some statement about the multiple burn sites

1/4/2016 4:02:09 PM

Quote :

"and maybe his DNA was on the key? i don't remember, but I think it was more than obvious that the key was planted"

Not just that, the key had zero DNA from Teresa on it. Take a look at your car key -- you use it probably multiple times a day and the little crevices and buttons and stuff have tiny particles of dust in them. That stuff is full of your dried sweat, tiny flakes of skin, hairs, etc. Her key had only HIS DNA on it though. It is almost as if the key they found had been completely scrubbed clean of everything and that his DNA had somehow been placed on it.

1/4/2016 4:11:48 PM

And that comes back to the DNA inconsistencies.

He cleans all the DNA off the car key, but then leaves his back on it and drops it in his room?

If anything this murder plays out more like it was a combination of two people, one that was really smart and got the task of cleaning up the DNA in the garage, and the trailer. The other person was in charge of getting rid of the evidence and the car. But the reality is that both people charged are not smart enough to do this stuff, but they would be dumb enough to make the mistakes they made. That part doesn't add up, why would you scrub that garage to the point it was, and the house, then leave behind the most easily spotted evidence. They even managed to get rid of the knife they used, but left the key behind? None of it adds up as presented. Even if he is guilty, which very well could be so, doesn't seem like it would have been brutal at all but very clean instead.

There was just so little real police work done and I think the police got excited at the idea that they could push this thing along fast, get rid of the lawsuit, and get this guy out of the way. And you can't ignore that it worked, settled for 400k instead of 36 million.

1/4/2016 6:20:17 PM

moron knows he's guilty because he's white

1/4/2016 8:03:17 PM

That, and all the evidence conveying his guilt.

1/4/2016 8:34:12 PM

What I can't figure out is how they knew to start questioning the kid.

Did he mention something to someone before they interviewed? seems like an attempt to get him to confess because of his low IQ.

I think he is innocent. I don't trust that DA at all. I don't believe the sweat thing at all and it was never allowed. Just like how the kid saying they "got to his head" was never shown.


Anyone else see similarities in the Brad Cooper case?

1/4/2016 9:20:13 PM

they questioned him because of what his sister said

1/4/2016 9:36:47 PM

So it seems this is a must watch show right?

Compare/contrast to the S1 Serial podcast plz.

1/4/2016 11:59:26 PM

I haven't watched/listened to either, but this one seems like a way bigger deal.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 12:07 AM. Reason : He did it, folks.]

1/5/2016 12:06:10 AM

Quote :

"they questioned him because of what his sister said"

I think it was the cousin, not sister? Either way, the girl was questioned because the cops went back and re-interviewed everyone in the family and when interviewing her at the very end she said that BD had been acting funny. This leads them to question him further. Later she says he admitted to her about seeing the body/being there that night.

She then later recants that testimony on the stand, saying she made it all up, and he never told her that. What she said essentially comes down to if you think she is telling the truth then trying to cover for him, or making stupid shit up for attention/because she is dumb.

1/5/2016 6:38:55 AM

Some new things regarding the case:

1-A father of a Manitowoc county sherriff's deputy and a relative to a clerk's office worker served on the jury.
2-A jury member has come out and said that they "feared for their personal safety" during the process.

1/5/2016 9:57:21 AM

^source?

1/5/2016 10:13:48 AM

everyone on my facebook thinks this dude is innocent, therefore he is definitely guilty.

1/5/2016 10:18:07 AM

Quote :

"A father of a Manitowoc county sherriff's deputy and a relative to a clerk's office worker served on the jury."

wtf!? I don't know much about the jury selection process but I thought that was done by the court itself.

Also that juror that had to leave due to a family emergency said there was a lot of weird stuff going on too. I wonder how deep this goes.

1/5/2016 10:52:37 AM

Quote :

"That evidence included DNA from Mr. Avery’s sweat found on a latch under the hood of Ms. Halbach’s Toyota RAV4, a discovery made by investigators after they were led there by Mr. Dassey, Mr. Kratz said."

Do they didn't find that sweat DNA until the kid told then his story and they were working in confirming it.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html?_r=0&referer=

How do you people explain the DNA being on the latch, tested only after hearing the kid's story on what happened?

1/5/2016 11:22:59 AM

Never said the guy was innocent, just that something bigger is at play here.

V Not necessarily. If weird shit was going on (IE juror's safety being a concern), maybe he felt a moral obligation to reach out to them and give them reassurance. Either that or he was seduced by Barb's shoulderless red top at that one part in the documentary.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

1/5/2016 11:44:25 AM

Did anyone else find it creepy how involved with the family the excused juror became?

1/5/2016 11:47:10 AM