Making A Murderer ***CONTAINS SPOILERS***

[Centurion07]

Possibly. Like I said I couldn't make out what he mumbles about it.

Thinking about it though, maybe he didn't tie it to the tree and stage the photograph, but he obviously removed it from the tree so maybe that's what he's ashamed about?

[Oakey]

davamer23 said:

I think he was supposedly upset because it was a ribbon from Teresa's church where they'd held a memorial/vigil.
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.

I've seen some people on Reddit suggest he was actually crying for feeling guilty about what he did to the kid and the ribbon was merely an excuse to cover that

[Mercury00]

It's revealed in the court files that he bought the ribbon himself, then posed it and photographed it outside the church in order to use the ribbon and photo as a tool to coerce a confession out of Brendan. Sly .

[Juanco20]

Watched all this Friday and Yesterday, unbelievable what went on and that they still haven't been granted a retrial

One thing I haven't seen mentioned after scanning this thread was the video of Theresa in the second episode (I think) where she is talking about dying and wanting people to know she would die happy. Why wasn't anymore said about this or shown it court? To me it seemed like she was considering suicide or had reason to believe something was going to happen to her. If she believe her life was in danger going to Avery's house then I very much doubt she would have continued to go there

[uncle tez]

Another interesting theory online

"The police didn't kill Theresa Halbach. Andrew Colborn located that RAV4 with the assistance of Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas who illegally trespassed onto the Avery Salvage Yard on the night of November 3rd 2005. Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas suspected something was up since the Avery Salvage Yard was the last place they knew Theresa visited on Oct.31st Halloween day. They went snooping on the property and found the car. They checked the car and found the key in the ignition and blood in the cargo area. Mike or Ryan removed the key from the ignition to ensure that no one could easily move the car off of the Avery property... freaked out about this huge discovery they call the Manitowoc Sheriffs Department. Andrew Colborn fielded the call that night and went out and met Ryan and Mike at the Salvage Yard so he could view the car for himself. Ryan and Mike show him the car and to be certain its Halbachs he "calls" in the plate number to dispatch. Colborn has to "call" in... instead of "radio" in... the plate number to Manitowoc dispatch because he wasn't in his police cruiser at the moment, but rather on foot and in the "field' on the Avery Salvage property. This mistake places Colborn at the scene and in contact with Halbachs RAV4... 2 days before it is officially located on November 5th, 2005, by Pam Sturm.... This is problematic for Colborn because all call and radio transmissions to dispatch are recorded and logged onto the Manitowoc Police server. Andrew Colborn is now operating outside of police protocol at a potential crime scene that he has no official directive to be at. He tells Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas to basically STFU about what they found and not mention to anyone that they were ever on the Avery Salvage property that night. Ryan or Mike turns the RAV4 key over to Andrew Colborn. Mike and Ryan are told to go home. Andrew Colborn then immediately calls Lt. James Lenk and briefs him about the discovery of the Halbach car and breaches of protocol he committed on the Avery property, also about Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach being there. Lt James Lenk realizing that Colborn's calling in Halbachs plate is a serious mistake with potential consequences orders Andrew Colborn to remove the license plate from Halbach's car and then report to him immediately.
What James Lenk and Andrew Colborn, or the others for that matter, don't realize at this point and are completely unaware of is that Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych have kidnapped, raped, shot and then burned Theresa Halbach in the privacy of the gravel quarry off of Jambo Rd on Halloween evening. They choose to burn her body to dispose of their DNA evidence of the crimes. They hid Halbach's car in the rear of Avery Salvage and wiped it clean of their prints. I believe it is Scott Tadych's idea to secretly transport the cremains of Halbach from the gravel quarry and dispose them into Steven Avery's burn pit. Scott Tadych transports Halbach's cremains in secret by using one of Barb Jandas burn barrels from her yard. Scott Tadych fails to collect all of Halbach's cremains from the original burn site in the gravel quarry, thus leaving some behind that FBI investigators later find... but he also fails in making certain all of Halbach's cremains are out of Barb Jandas burn barrel after dumping them into Steven Avery's burn pit. This is why investigators found small bits of Halbach in Barb Jandas burn barrel. Thus making a total of three sites where Halbach's cremains are found. Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey are unaware that Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach have found Theresas car on the property and that Lenk and Colborn are now involved and in play with their scheme. .........By shear colossal luck, two completely independent frame jobs targeting one man, Steven Avery were shaping up into the perfect storm. On one front, from Lenk and Colborn regarding the RAV4, ....and on the other unconnected front by Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey regarding the cremains of Theresa Halbach. One party wasn't aware of the other's involvements at any point during the days leading up to the official discovery of Halbach's RAV4 at the Avery Salvage Yard hence why the investigation and murder trial made zero sense to anyone especially the Jury.
None of the evidence could be connected because it was all unrelated... everybody was guessing. But Buting and Strang had zeroed in on a part of it but couldn't fully form a solid defense to prove it. The Jury couldn't conceive that Manitowoc officers could have conspired to kill Theresa Halbach to frame Steven Avery as Ken Kratz insisted they had to if they wanted to follow the theory the defense presented of the frame up of Steven Avery by Manitowoc officials. And Ken Kratz was right... Imagine Scott Tadych's confused and utter relief when Steve Avery's blood was found in the Halbach car and the RAV4 key found in Steve Avery's bedroom..... he must have been like.... WTF?! A quote from Scott Tadych after Steven Avery is convicted of Theresa Halbach's murder.... "THIS IS THE GREATEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN" ..... We will see Scott, we will see....................."

[Dr Murdoch]

Was it Ryan Hillegas and Mike Halbach who looked at each other nervously, almost making sure they said the same thing, when asked if anyone had been searching on the Avery property?

[Ayahuasca]

Disgusting treatment of the vulnerable 16 year old.

Horrific indictment of small town USA justice.

If anyone doubts that local county courts can be corrupt take a look at the kids for cash scandal when a county court judge was dishonestly jailing innocent youngsters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scan...

Mrs A used to be a criminal lawyer (both defence and crown prosecution) and she said that in the UK there is absolutely no way that either of them would have been convicted.

[Pommygranite]

I think he did it.

So much is missing from the documentary and there's so much bias against the prosecution that I just feel way too much is sympathetic for The 2 blokes.

I think they killed them but the police tried to make the case stronger and added evidence or reinforced evidence to ensure a clear conviction utilising DNA (which cleared him from the first crime).

I think the young lad did participate but just froze when the seriousness of it all became clear and was mixing up what he and Steven agreed to say with what he was fed happened.

The only defense was the being framed arguement.

They never explained how they quickly got the young guy in and knew he was prt of it.

They added a lot of irrelevant stuff such as the prosecutor sexting stuff

How were the police/someone else supposed to have killed her at the same time she had an appt at the yard and then get rid of the body and tie it in all without a lot of planning.

The big one is that Steven Avery just never ever seemed all that bothered or stressed throughout.

[Centurion07]

Pommygranite said:

I think they killed them but the police tried to make the case stronger and added evidence or reinforced evidence to ensure a clear conviction utilising DNA (which cleared him from the first crime).

If you're prepared to admit that some of the evidence was planted/false/whatever, how can you rely on the rest of it to say they did it?

"Beyond reasonable doubt" means just that. Surely faking or "reinforcing" evidence creates reasonable doubt?

For me, there are just too many holes in the prosecution's case and as their attorney pointed out when asked about bias, the vast majority of the prosecution's case WAS shown in the programme.

Not only that, but they weren't allowed to question evidence that would've pointed the finger at someone else. The deleted voicemails being a case in point.

[Pommygranite]

Centurion07 said:

Pommygranite said:

I think they killed them but the police tried to make the case stronger and added evidence or reinforced evidence to ensure a clear conviction utilising DNA (which cleared him from the first crime).

If you're prepared to admit that some of the evidence was planted/false/whatever, how can you rely on the rest of it to say they did it?

"Beyond reasonable doubt" means just that. Surely faking or "reinforcing" evidence creates reasonable doubt?

For me, there are just too many holes in the prosecution's case and as their attorney pointed out when asked about bias, the vast majority of the prosecution's case WAS shown in the programme.

Not only that, but they weren't allowed to question evidence that would've pointed the finger at someone else. The deleted voicemails being a case in point.

But that's the point - the documentary only shows what they want us to. The Jury saw everything and much more was seen to prove the case than we saw.

We only got shown what would give us the viewer the reasonable doubt.

I get this feeling the hatred for Steven Avery goes way back to things he did when young that we haven't hear about and the police wanted him locked up - framed him the first time but the second time was a him and the police wanted to make sure he stayed locked up...

[jammy_basturd]

Pommygranite said:

They never explained how they quickly got the young guy in and knew he was prt of it.

The "confession" from Brendan was months (4 or 5) after SA was arrested. With the confession, the prosecutors managed to turn a key defence witness into a key prosecution element.

Pommygranite said:

They added a lot of irrelevant stuff such as the prosecutor sexting stuff

I don't believe this came up in the trial?

Pommygranite said:

How were the police/someone else supposed to have killed her at the same time she had an appt at the yard and then get rid of the body and tie it in all without a lot of planning.

The big one is that Steven Avery just never ever seemed all that bothered or stressed throughout.

Personally I think either TH was killed on the Avery property by SA's brother/cousin put the police decided to make sure the evidence pointed to SA. Or TH committed suicide on or near SA's property and again the police wanted to make sure SA was framed.

[jammy_basturd]

Pommygranite said:

But that's the point - the documentary only shows what they want us to. The Jury saw everything and much more was seen to prove the case than we saw.

We only got shown what would give us the viewer the reasonable doubt.

But the majority of the prosecution (7 to 4 I think) initially thought SA was not guilty. Apparently 3 jurors just would not budge in their guilty verdict and eventually over several days they somehow came to a unanimous guilty verdict on murder, but not guilty of mutilating a corpse?!

[Pommygranite]

jammy_basturd said:

Pommygranite said:

They never explained how they quickly got the young guy in and knew he was prt of it.

The "confession" from Brendan was months (4 or 5) after SA was arrested. With the confession, the prosecutors managed to turn a key defence witness into a key prosecution element.

Pommygranite said:

They added a lot of irrelevant stuff such as the prosecutor sexting stuff

I don't believe this came up in the trial?

Pommygranite said:

How were the police/someone else supposed to have killed her at the same time she had an appt at the yard and then get rid of the body and tie it in all without a lot of planning.

The big one is that Steven Avery just never ever seemed all that bothered or stressed throughout.

Personally I think either TH was killed on the Avery property by SA's brother/cousin put the police decided to make sure the evidence pointed to SA. Or TH committed suicide on or near SA's property and again the police wanted to make sure SA was framed.

But that's my point - how did the young lad get dragged into it.

And the sexting wasn't about the trial it was that the producers of the TV programme into play simply to make the prosecutor look even worse even though it didn't really have anything to do with the trial.

However the theory further above looks pretty good!

Maybe the brother/cousin did do it - their story looked shifty as.

Anyway Brendan Rodgers did it

[Centurion07]

Pommygranite said:

And the sexting wasn't about the trial it was that the producers of the TV programme into play simply to make the prosecutor look even worse even though it didn't really have anything to do with the trial.

You don't think it says anything about his morals/principles which, in the case of a prosecutor, should be spot on.

Do you not think it casts doubt on his professional morals and therefore his conduct when utilising evidence i.e. he may have had doubts or even KNOWN some of the evidence was shaky but still used it anyway?

[Pommygranite]

Centurion07 said:

Pommygranite said:

And the sexting wasn't about the trial it was that the producers of the TV programme into play simply to make the prosecutor look even worse even though it didn't really have anything to do with the trial.

You don't think it says anything about his morals/principles which, in the case of a prosecutor, should be spot on.

Do you not think it casts doubt on his professional morals and therefore his conduct when utilising evidence i.e. he may have had doubts or even KNOWN some of the evidence was shaky but still used it anyway?

The guy might be a sleazy douche but it doesn't mean he would happily send an innocent man to jail for life, I mean c'mon.

I get it, I thought the prosecutor was a dhead but that inclusion was simply another angle to influence the viewer.

It was a great series but the manipulation of the audience is what is making me question that all may not be as the viewing seems.

[Centurion07]

Pommygranite said:

The guy might be a sleazy douche but it doesn't mean he would happily send an innocent man to jail for life, I mean c'mon.

I get it, I thought the prosecutor was a dhead but that inclusion was simply another angle to influence the viewer.

It was a great series but the manipulation of the audience is what is making me question that all may not be as the viewing seems.

If he's prepared to do that I don't think it takes a huge leap of faith to envisage him doing something he shouldn't in order to secure a conviction of someone that they've been after for years and has already embarrassed the authorities.

Ignoring that though, and let's pretend that some huge key pieces of prosecution evidence weren't shown, none of the doubts and issues the defence raised were answered.

Read the interviews with the attorneys involved. The programme was a fairly accurate representation of the trial.

As said, initially the jury was thinking not guilty.

[jammy_basturd]

Pommygranite said:

But that's my point - how did the young lad get dragged into it.

No reason based in evidence. Up till that point I don't believe the police had any reason to suspect BD had anything to do with it. But the defence suggested that they had no way to make this stick to SA, so turning BD from key defence witness to key prosecution witness was a stroke of genius by the prosecution side.

That the prosecution used one story (from BD) to convict SA, which differed to the story they used to convict BD just makes the whole thing even more unbelievable.

[jammy_basturd]

Centurion07 said:

If he's prepared to do that I don't think it takes a huge leap of faith to envisage him doing something he shouldn't in order to secure a conviction of someone that they've been after for years and has already embarrassed the authorities.

I think the prosecution let his prejudices get the better of him. As the defence said, Kratz went for the prosecution regardless, rather than seeking to discover the truth.

[silobass]

jammy_basturd said:

But the majority of the prosecution (7 to 4 I think) initially thought SA was not guilty. Apparently 3 jurors just would not budge in their guilty verdict and eventually over several days they somehow came to a unanimous guilty verdict on murder, but not guilty of mutilating a corpse?!

Can't work that one out either. 7 people said he was innocent, 3 said not sure and only 2 said guilty after. Then they all decide guilty? I don't think so.

I just don't see how they find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt given that 7 thought he was innocent first.

[Centurion07]

According to some one or two of them felt pressured into voting guilty as one/some of those three that voted guilty right from the start were connected with local law enforcement. I'll see if I can find where I read that.


ETA: here we go: http://time.com/4167915/making-a-murderer-steven-a...

Edited by Centurion07 on Friday 22 January 17:04

Edited by Centurion07 on Friday 22 January 17:04