Making a Murderer-Netlfix

just sickening wrote:

The blood seemed definitely seemed planted due to the condition of the blood in the evidence room, but he also could've been wearing cotton or fabric gloves and bled through, leaving blood but no finger prints.

This was not in the "documentry" but the clerk of courts has explained why the styrofoam (sp?) box containing the blood had the evidence tape broken. That was blood that was used to check for DNA in Avery's 1st case - the rape case. Cops came back and opened it way back then and that was the blood that exonerated Avery.

As for the hole in the top of the tube that the defense attys got all excited about, that hole is how blood gets IN the test tube.

Totally Evil Private Coach wrote:

The cops didn't do any of those things. If you know law enforcement, they will do simple minor things to make a conviction easier. They will not go to the complex actions required to do what's listed above. There is no way they planted the blood evidence in the car. They have no motive (the cops aren't paying anything in that lawsuit), and the risk/reward is off the charts bad for them. They gain nothing by planting the evidence and risk losing job/pension while going off to prison if caught.

It's fun to be amateur sleuth and imagine the cops doing all these evil things, but Steven Avery killed that woman.

This is the exact sort of circular thinking that prevented Steven Avery from getting a fair trial. Twice. Cops couldn't have done it because they aren't capable of doing anything like that. Police get away with misconduct all the time because they are given the benefit of the doubt.

Cops do bad things all the time. They shoot people who are no threat. Of course they are capable of having killed her. Motive doesn't just have to be financial. It is relevant though that officers could have been subject to discipline or dismissal. It is also true that they would have suffered reputational damage both individually and collectively. I'm not saying that those motives were so strong that it would make committing a murder and framing Steven Avery for it but murder is not a product of rational thinking. They certainly broke protocols and planted evidence and that risks the exact same things you are alleging would have prevented them from committing murder. There was an evident amount of personal animus towards Steven Avery, which is also motive.

From what I understand, the Defense could only present an alternative suspect theory if they had evidence of motive, means, and opportunity. The judge concluded the Defense could not meet this threshold for anyone other than Brendan Avery. But the Defense was hamstrung by law enforcement, who apparently declined to seriously investigate anyone other than Mr. Avery. So, the police both set him up and then hamstrung his defense.

The same detectives blatantly railroaded the kid into a bs confession. If they could be so gung-ho as to coerce a confession on video tape, as they did, I wouldn't put anything past them.

Avery might be guilty, but the development of his case was chock full of seemingly bias methods and poor policing.

One thing that struck me was conversation with Avery and his girl friend on the supposed day and close to time of the murder. Girlfriend described Avery as calm and loving. Very strange that he could behave that way, just minutes from a viscous killing.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

From what I understand, the Defense could only present an alternative suspect theory if they had evidence of motive, means, and opportunity. The judge concluded the Defense could not meet this threshold for anyone other than Brendan Avery. But the Defense was hamstrung by law enforcement, who apparently declined to seriously investigate anyone other than Mr. Avery. So, the police both set him up and then hamstrung his defense.

In Wisconsin this is called "Denny Evidence" after the case of State v. Denny. The defense sought to introduce evidence that another person (they listed 4 actually) killed her. The court kept it out as the defense could not provide any real evidence to support those theories. Wisconsin requires that there be a "legimate tendencey" to show the alternate suspect had motive and opportunity and there is also some evidence to directly connect a third person to the crime charged which is not remote in time, place or circumstances, the evidence should be admissible.

The defense could not connect anyone else to the actual crime. There was no evidence anyone else did it. If there had been, it would have been allowed in.

XY wrote:

The same detectives blatantly railroaded the kid into a bs confession.

The kid also confessed to his mom on the phone in a jail call.

Like most, I watched the documentary before I read anything on the case and I leaned toward thinking he was innocent, and I strongly believe that the nephew had nothing to do with it based on the interrogation tapes.

More than the interrogation, his first attorney and the investigator were absolutely despicable. He told similar stories to the cops and the investigator until they badgered him..and he obviously was not bright enough to withstand that.

I now tend to think Avery is guilty, and I also believe the cops were dirty and planted evidence. Both can be true. But the things that still bug me

1. The evidence kit and the testing to determine if the blood was planted.

2. The key - there is just no way that wasn't planted. And how did it have only Avery's DNA and not the victim's? There's no reasonable explanation for that.

3. The car - how quickly the lady found it - could be luck but really defied the odds.

4. The call on the license plate

Not really relevant...

but I was disturbed how in the Avery case the prosecutor made a point of saying that it was Avery alone that murdered her (since Dassey couldn't be trusted as a prosecution witness they had to bail on that), and then he was able to convict Dassey - I wish that closing statement could have come into play. He basically used two completely different versions of what happened to get two convictions.

I understand that. I am just pointing out the circular logic that is implied by it. The cops refuse to investigate anybody else for the crime. They didn't investigate her ex-boyfriend, which would be extremely standard in such a case. The defendant (who they had a bias against) is then told there isn't sufficient evidence to bring an alternative theory of the crime. Hmm, the police don't investigate anybody else and then the victim can't bring up any alternative theories. That sounds like a fair process. Wait, that sounds pretty much like what happened when he was railroaded for a rape and assault he didn't commit.

I understand that. I am just pointing out the circular logic that is implied by it. The cops refuse to investigate anybody else for the crime. They didn't investigate her ex-boyfriend, which would be extremely standard in such a case. The defendant (who they had a bias against) is then told there isn't sufficient evidence to bring an alternative theory of the crime. Hmm, the police don't investigate anybody else and then the victim can't bring up any alternative theories. That sounds like a fair process. Wait, that sounds pretty much like what happened when he was railroaded for a rape and assault he didn't commit.

He had very qualified attorneys and over a quarter of a million dollars to use to defend himself. He had access to investigators and had resources that very few defendants have. His attorneys without doubt investigated potential alternative suspects and that is why they filed a "Denny Motion" to try and show the jury someone else killed her.

I dont think in this case it works to say the cops did not investigate alternative suspects. They were invesitgated - by the defense.

And just saying she had an "ex" means nothing. Everyone has an ex, if the body had shown up on his front yard that would be one thing. It showed up on Avery's.

Does this show improve as it goes along?

I was bored after 30 minutes and haven't gone back to it yet

Doubler wrote:

1. The evidence kit and the testing to determine if the blood was planted.

Yes, this seemed very suspect to me. I'm generally skeptical of cutting edge forensic technology that isn't widely implemented. There are plenty of instances where expert testimony was used to help convict someone only to find out later they were using junk science.

So the FBI expert testified that the blood did not come from a test tube. I would be curious to see the same test done for the actual blood in Avery's test tube. Perhaps the defense contemplated this test but ruled it out because it was too risky (it could help corroborate the FBI expert).

So if you are on the jury, how do you vote? You 'tend to think' he's guilty. That to me is the definitin of 'not guilty.' So he shouldn't be in prison.

TV shows wrote:

Does this show improve as it goes along?

I was bored after 30 minutes and haven't gone back to it yet

If it has not gotten your interest by now, I suspect it won't. I am a bit amzed it has gotten the attention it has - at least outside of Wisconsin. I get the attraction here as it happened here, but was a little suprised about its out of state interest.

I think it drags a bit too.

Standard Responder wrote:

He had very qualified attorneys and over a quarter of a million dollars to use to defend himself. He had access to investigators and had resources that very few defendants have. His attorneys without doubt investigated potential alternative suspects and that is why they filed a "Denny Motion" to try and show the jury someone else killed her.

I dont think in this case it works to say the cops did not investigate alternative suspects. They were invesitgated - by the defense.

And just saying she had an "ex" means nothing. Everyone has an ex, if the body had shown up on his front yard that would be one thing. It showed up on Avery's.

This is a stupid post. He's got two attorney's who he spent $250,000 on and you think that's enough resurces to look into alternative theories? Are you crazy. It took teams of 10-20 like 7 searches to find the key out in the open in his house. Think about how many copy man hours were spent searching Avery's house alone.

Another Avery family member could easily have done it. Dassey's brother and step dad- that's a great theory. They plant evidence on Steve, the brother confesses to help them. The cops planted evidence = not guilty for Steven.

That's hard to answer. I would say based on everything I know now I'd vote not guilty. But there was a lot of information we have that wasn't presented to the jury. if I was on the original jury with the information I had it's not as easy to answer. I still think I'd have enough doubt. It sounds like many jurors had doubt but were convinced by a few to reach the 'compromise'.

Could the Pro-Guilty please explain this:

We know he's not very smart. But smart enough to know he's about to get paid a few milly.....

All evidence or no evidence aside...

What motive could drive him to risk this so much to kill Theresa? What psychologic force was so empowering to make him do this?

innocent#123 wrote:

What motive could drive him to risk this so much to kill Theresa? What psychologic force was so empowering to make him do this?

Maybe the 18 years he just spent in prison? His wife at the time is in prison for DUI convictions, the dude is sexually deprived and has a deep hatred for women. He is all over the news for his wrongful conviction and a huge sympathetic figure. Maybe in his mind, he thinks he wont be suspected because of what he already went through and the fact that hes about to win a huge monetary settlement from the county. And he thinks he's smart enough to get away with it. The fact that he specifically requested that she come, the *67 phone calls, and the call he placed at 4:35 really bother me. I can see how a nitwit like Avery would think of that as covering his tracks.

That said, I also don't believe he was proven guilty. No blood, no evidence to back up Dassey's confession (funny that it was thrown out in Avery's trial, but the sole basis for conviction in Dassey's), the blood vial with a hole from a hypodermic needle. One thing I haven't seen discussed is the pending financial settlement and how that might lend motive to other family members. Were family members already asking for money? and did Avery already refuse? Are Tadych and the other Dassey kid dumb enough to think the settlement would get passed on to Avery's sister (and by extension, them) with Avery out of the way? Too many questions, not a clue if he did it, which means to me there was reasonable doubt.

Cutting out Tadych & others from the $ would be more of a motive than Avery had. But ask any alcoholic what prompts them to drink. Most hate drinking and wish they were sober but they have to drink. They can not not drink and lose theirs families because they can not stop. It's odd. I bring this up because if there is something wrong with Avery maybe the urge could not be subsided and he felt compelled.

For awhile it seemed every other thread on letsrun was about the corrupt cops killing innocent people. Yet now it is impossible for a Wisconsin cop to be corrupt?

Pretty much all of the evidence I can make a plausible explanation for defense or prosecution except the blood. I think this is what draws me in to this. What about the blood? Where is it? And why was it not found?

Cyyvffvyvyf wrote:

I believe in the following

Avery killed her "somewhere" (off the property). That's why we couldn't find any blood anywhere on the property.

...

I believe that it's off the property (well maybe on the property, but at the far end) and not in the garage because...

Would he really shoot a woman a rock through away from his parent's house and his sister's house. Too many people coming and going. His brother in law (neighbour) was not his best friend... Doesn't make sense...