Making A Murderer ***CONTAINS SPOILERS***
Discussion
Jayyylo said:
Scenario:
Teresa leaves Steve's place and stops at the side of the road to call brother/weird ex-boyfriend, have a pee in the bushes (would you want to use the toilet in Steve's trailer) etc. Steve's brother passes by and recognises her then stops and goes to chat. He hits her on the head then throws her in the back of his truck and they go to the quarry. She is burnt there.
that scenario doesn't explain her blood (from hair) in the back of her RAV4Teresa leaves Steve's place and stops at the side of the road to call brother/weird ex-boyfriend, have a pee in the bushes (would you want to use the toilet in Steve's trailer) etc. Steve's brother passes by and recognises her then stops and goes to chat. He hits her on the head then throws her in the back of his truck and they go to the quarry. She is burnt there.
she must have been murdered/unconcious and put in it for either hiding or transportation purposes
the sequence of events wasn't explained at all by the prosecution probably because they really had no idea themselves!
does make one wonder if more than one person involved
davamer23 said:
Amongst the many questions that the Docu raises, one I think is vitally important is Where was Teresa Actually killed? The only real evidence of her being anywhere before the bones being located in the 3 fire sites was in the back of her Toyota or by the presence of the contested bullet fragment, in his garage.
Evidence showed, what according to a forensic pathologist appeared to be Bloodied hair transferred to a carpet section in the RAV4 boot.
So if we take the contested bullet fragment with Teresa's DNA on it and the evidence of her blood and hair in the car, in the absence of any other physical evidence (as far as we've seen in Docu) Logic would dictate that,
1. She was indeed in his garage and killed there and somehow the garage was forensically cleaned after the act or a "clean room" was created before the act whereby no blood splatter/tissue etc could contaminate anything else that was in the garage at the time. Yet somehow the one bullet fragment escaped either a clean up or the "clean room"
In Dassey's confession he said they took her to the garage where they stabbed and shot her and later cleaned the blood with bleach, petrol and thinners. The put her in the RAV and drove it to the location near the crusher.Evidence showed, what according to a forensic pathologist appeared to be Bloodied hair transferred to a carpet section in the RAV4 boot.
So if we take the contested bullet fragment with Teresa's DNA on it and the evidence of her blood and hair in the car, in the absence of any other physical evidence (as far as we've seen in Docu) Logic would dictate that,
1. She was indeed in his garage and killed there and somehow the garage was forensically cleaned after the act or a "clean room" was created before the act whereby no blood splatter/tissue etc could contaminate anything else that was in the garage at the time. Yet somehow the one bullet fragment escaped either a clean up or the "clean room"
jonm01 said:
davamer23 said:
Amongst the many questions that the Docu raises, one I think is vitally important is Where was Teresa Actually killed? The only real evidence of her being anywhere before the bones being located in the 3 fire sites was in the back of her Toyota or by the presence of the contested bullet fragment, in his garage.
Evidence showed, what according to a forensic pathologist appeared to be Bloodied hair transferred to a carpet section in the RAV4 boot.
So if we take the contested bullet fragment with Teresa's DNA on it and the evidence of her blood and hair in the car, in the absence of any other physical evidence (as far as we've seen in Docu) Logic would dictate that,
1. She was indeed in his garage and killed there and somehow the garage was forensically cleaned after the act or a "clean room" was created before the act whereby no blood splatter/tissue etc could contaminate anything else that was in the garage at the time. Yet somehow the one bullet fragment escaped either a clean up or the "clean room"
In Dassey's confession he said they took her to the garage where they stabbed and shot her and later cleaned the blood with bleach, petrol and thinners. The put her in the RAV and drove it to the location near the crusher.Evidence showed, what according to a forensic pathologist appeared to be Bloodied hair transferred to a carpet section in the RAV4 boot.
So if we take the contested bullet fragment with Teresa's DNA on it and the evidence of her blood and hair in the car, in the absence of any other physical evidence (as far as we've seen in Docu) Logic would dictate that,
1. She was indeed in his garage and killed there and somehow the garage was forensically cleaned after the act or a "clean room" was created before the act whereby no blood splatter/tissue etc could contaminate anything else that was in the garage at the time. Yet somehow the one bullet fragment escaped either a clean up or the "clean room"
The garage shooting scenario was used in the Avery trial.
jonm01 said:
If you read his full confession (one of the later ones) he says it happened in the garage. Which is more believable. He also says the whole thing was planned with Avery a few days before. Either way, all of his interrogations are decidedly dodgy.
I still cannot believe that Dassey, essentially, was convicted by himself. So the jurors believed his coerced confessions, but not his testimony on the stand. London424 said:
I'm pretty sure in his confession the rape, stabbing and shooting tool place in the trailer. Remember the pictures of her tied/shackled to the bed. I don't remember anything about bleach etc in the documentary though.
The garage shooting scenario was used in the Avery trial.
Google the book (kiss the girls) he read and it was on tv as well (which he watched alot of), and the scene he described is a mish mash of the two The garage shooting scenario was used in the Avery trial.
I binged the first seven episodes tuesday night, finishd it off yesterday and now I'm sat here watching it all over again with the missus!
It's even worse on the second viewing with the benefit of hindsight of how unbelievable the whole thing is.
Just one or two of the major flaws in the prosecution case are bad enough, but there are actually lots of them, and then when you combine them with the numerous smaller flaws it just beggars belief that they got convicted. As if all that weren't bad enough they have appeal after appeal turned down!
It's as maddening as it is frightening.
I hope to god the tech advances quickly enough and a new, more reliable test for the presence of EDTA is invented as I think that's the only thing that will clear him, although going on what's happened so far I'm not sure anything will clear him. As his attorney said, the whole system is set up to perpetuate a conviction.
It's even worse on the second viewing with the benefit of hindsight of how unbelievable the whole thing is.
Just one or two of the major flaws in the prosecution case are bad enough, but there are actually lots of them, and then when you combine them with the numerous smaller flaws it just beggars belief that they got convicted. As if all that weren't bad enough they have appeal after appeal turned down!
It's as maddening as it is frightening.
I hope to god the tech advances quickly enough and a new, more reliable test for the presence of EDTA is invented as I think that's the only thing that will clear him, although going on what's happened so far I'm not sure anything will clear him. As his attorney said, the whole system is set up to perpetuate a conviction.
Prosecutors in the case, chiefly Ken Kratz, have complained about the skewed view given by the Docu in favour of Avery/Dassey missing out chunks of the states evidence. This however shows that the Docu also did not show all of the defence material, make of it what you will.
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-pro-steven-aver...
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-pro-steven-aver...
If only everyone (anyone!) else in the whole affair had their humanity.Thought it was a good series. Terrifying that in rural areas, the legal and justice system is so poor. I'll be more inclined to stick to the speed limits in WI now!
One thing that kept irritating me was the continual statements from the prosecution in the courtroom to the jury that they were here to "find out who killed Theresa". Not strictly true - their job was to decide whether Avery was guilty of it or not - not to end the trial with someone to blame for the murder.
Avery was obviously an angry man. A psychologist would tell you that what he did to the cat probably shows he has some serious issues. His threats in his letters to the kids about their mother were also pretty violent, and running someone off the road and pulling a gun on them isn't normal behavior. Looks like Jody, the ex-fiance has started to give some more insight into him this week too.
The trouble with a documentary like this is that when you watch it, you expect an obvious twist so subconsciously root for him (or maybe that's just the way the film makers push you). Presented with the "evidence" in a court room with no other input or prior knowledge would probably give you a different perspective. I think he did it, but the police screwed up by trying to make sure he was convicted. The irony is their "help" could have been the reason he walked away - and may still do.
One thing that kept irritating me was the continual statements from the prosecution in the courtroom to the jury that they were here to "find out who killed Theresa". Not strictly true - their job was to decide whether Avery was guilty of it or not - not to end the trial with someone to blame for the murder.
Avery was obviously an angry man. A psychologist would tell you that what he did to the cat probably shows he has some serious issues. His threats in his letters to the kids about their mother were also pretty violent, and running someone off the road and pulling a gun on them isn't normal behavior. Looks like Jody, the ex-fiance has started to give some more insight into him this week too.
The trouble with a documentary like this is that when you watch it, you expect an obvious twist so subconsciously root for him (or maybe that's just the way the film makers push you). Presented with the "evidence" in a court room with no other input or prior knowledge would probably give you a different perspective. I think he did it, but the police screwed up by trying to make sure he was convicted. The irony is their "help" could have been the reason he walked away - and may still do.
Zeek said:
Presented with the "evidence" in a court room with no other input or prior knowledge would probably give you a different perspective.
Based on the evidence we saw presented, I don't see how you could come up with anything other than a "not guilty" verdict.The EDTA test was said to be inaccurate when a negative result is shown.
I think most regular people are incapable of cleaning a crime scene so it's totally void of forensic evidence yet we're supposed to believe this dumb redneck managed it, including cleaning the crack in the cement floor?!
He's that aware of the need to cover his tracks yet he just parks her blood-soaked car at the back of his garden when he has a perfectly good crusher on site.
There are just SO many issues with and holes in the prosecution's case that I cannot get my head around how he's been found guilty, and remains in prison to this day.
How on earth did a jury find Brendan guilty on the back of his "confessions" when it's clear to even Brendon himself that the two detectives co-erced him into it?
A judge decides to remove Len Kochinsky for allowing Brendon to be interviewed without a representative, yet allows the "evidence" from those same interrogations to be used in court?!
Unbelievable.
Like I said, absolutely shocking from start to finish.
I still can't figure out why he would've transported her body in the RAV4 (to explain her hair-streaked blood) 20 metres or whatever it was to the burn pit that can't get hot enough to create the bones found there anyway.
I don't believe he is necessarily innocent, but the prosecution certainly did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by any stretch of the imagination, and that's what counts. It has to.
I don't believe he is necessarily innocent, but the prosecution certainly did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by any stretch of the imagination, and that's what counts. It has to.
Just finished watching episode 4 and am truly shocked by the American 'legal' system the show portrays. From Brendans first lawyer whose only concern seemed to be to get him to plead guilty to the obvious tampering with the evidence by Lenk. If this was fiction it would be a great story, but that it happened in real life in a country that aims to be the 'leader of the free world' is shocking.
Oakey said:
What was the deal with the blue ribbon and Len's investigator?
I think either he was ashamed he placed it on the desk for Brendan to see or HE tied it to the tree at her church so he could take a photo and then use that to put pressure on Brendan.I only remember as I know I couldn't quite make out what he blubs when faced with the video of his little desk display.
Centurion07 said:
I think either he was ashamed he placed it on the desk for Brendan to see or HE tied it to the tree at her church so he could take a photo and then use that to put pressure on Brendan.
I only remember as I know I couldn't quite make out what he blubs when faced with the video of his little desk display.
I think he was supposedly upset because it was a ribbon from Teresa's church where they'd held a memorial/vigil. I only remember as I know I couldn't quite make out what he blubs when faced with the video of his little desk display.
I think it was a performance to remind the jury of the victim, possibly at the behest of the prosecution? Wouldn't be the first time he was doing things that ultimately benefitted the state.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff