Making A Murderer ***CONTAINS SPOILERS***
Discussion
This case has so many diversions and strange occurences. If the bones were given back to the family and not tested and were from the Quarry then this is a big development in the case.
There are so many small things which have questions over them that I hope that a judge grants a new trial and we get to see whether Avery is guilty or not. I am still on the fence as I don't think there is enough evidence to say he did it but he is the most likely suspect
As for Brendan, I'm not sure how this impacts him as all of his confession would still be true but the prosecution could argue that some bones were moved after the initial fire. I am convinced that he is not guilty of murder but courts need a high burden of proof to overturn the conviction
There are so many small things which have questions over them that I hope that a judge grants a new trial and we get to see whether Avery is guilty or not. I am still on the fence as I don't think there is enough evidence to say he did it but he is the most likely suspect
As for Brendan, I'm not sure how this impacts him as all of his confession would still be true but the prosecution could argue that some bones were moved after the initial fire. I am convinced that he is not guilty of murder but courts need a high burden of proof to overturn the conviction
The jiffle king said:
This case has so many diversions and strange occurrences. If the bones were given back to the family and not tested and were from the Quarry then this is a big development in the case.
There are so many small things which have questions over them that I hope that a judge grants a new trial and we get to see whether Avery is guilty or not. I am still on the fence as I don't think there is enough evidence to say he did it but he is the most likely suspect
As for Brendan, I'm not sure how this impacts him as all of his confession would still be true but the prosecution could argue that some bones were moved after the initial fire. I am convinced that he is not guilty of murder but courts need a high burden of proof to overturn the conviction
From reading over on Reddit, I understand that Brendan has exhausted all of his appeals - the only way he doesn't spend the rest of his life in prison is if he gets a pardon.There are so many small things which have questions over them that I hope that a judge grants a new trial and we get to see whether Avery is guilty or not. I am still on the fence as I don't think there is enough evidence to say he did it but he is the most likely suspect
As for Brendan, I'm not sure how this impacts him as all of his confession would still be true but the prosecution could argue that some bones were moved after the initial fire. I am convinced that he is not guilty of murder but courts need a high burden of proof to overturn the conviction
As for finding out the truth of what happened - might as well forget that, IMO. Avery now has very motivated (expensive) lawyers involved who will throw mud at anything that implicates Avery. His current lawyer has spent years going through all the files with a fine-toothed comb looking for anything that undermines the prosecution's case and, as they're human, there were mistakes. This latest one looks like it could be terminal to their prosecution, even though it doesn't indicate he's innocent, it just indicates that there's a chance he might not be guilty.
There are a lot of similarities with the OJ Simpson case in that regard, it's very clear to everyone (including his own defence lawyers) that he did it, but their job was to highlight any doubts, incompetencies and inconsistencies and that was in part what got him off.
Could you point me to the reddit threads please? I'd be interested in seeing what they have to say.
I am not sure if Avery is guilty, but now I think there are enough questions which need answering to mean that a very different trial would be had. This latest evidence could mean a re-trial (although I have no idea how the US court system works despite having lived over there for a few years)
I do feel for Brendan. HIs confession is the only thing linking him to the crime and I don't see a pardon ever coming. No physical evidence, questioned without representation, a lawyer who actively worked against his interests and a 16 year old who was not the brightest
Havng said all of that, I don't know who did kill Teresa and whilst I've seen the theories from MAM, they are only theories
Hope there are 2 more trials and that whatever justice is in this case prevails
I am not sure if Avery is guilty, but now I think there are enough questions which need answering to mean that a very different trial would be had. This latest evidence could mean a re-trial (although I have no idea how the US court system works despite having lived over there for a few years)
I do feel for Brendan. HIs confession is the only thing linking him to the crime and I don't see a pardon ever coming. No physical evidence, questioned without representation, a lawyer who actively worked against his interests and a 16 year old who was not the brightest
Havng said all of that, I don't know who did kill Teresa and whilst I've seen the theories from MAM, they are only theories
Hope there are 2 more trials and that whatever justice is in this case prevails
youngsyr said:
There are a lot of similarities with the OJ Simpson case in that regard, it's very clear to everyone (including his own defence lawyers) that he did it, but their job was to highlight any doubts, incompetencies and inconsistencies and that was in part what got him off.
Are you referring to OJ's defence lawyers or Avery's? I only ask as having spoken to Buting and Strang in person I can assure you they 100% believe that Avery is innocent.Hi said:
youngsyr said:
There are a lot of similarities with the OJ Simpson case in that regard, it's very clear to everyone (including his own defence lawyers) that he did it, but their job was to highlight any doubts, incompetencies and inconsistencies and that was in part what got him off.
Are you referring to OJ's defence lawyers or Avery's? I only ask as having spoken to Buting and Strang in person I can assure you they 100% believe that Avery is innocent.However, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an element of cognitive dissonance with Avery's lawyers.
Seems to me that many American defence lawyers are about to suspend their critical thinking when it comes to their clients - for example I believe Cochran went to his grave believing OJ was innocent, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary and him being a very intelligent man.
Maybe some of them need that to do their job properly.
youngsyr said:
I was referring to some of Simpson's defence lawyers (specifically Shapiro, Scheck and Kardashian).
However, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an element of cognitive dissonance with Avery's lawyers.
Seems to me that many American defence lawyers are about to suspend their critical thinking when it comes to their clients - for example I believe Cochran went to his grave believing OJ was innocent, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary and him being a very intelligent man.
Maybe some of them need that to do their job properly.
What is your deal here?However, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an element of cognitive dissonance with Avery's lawyers.
Seems to me that many American defence lawyers are about to suspend their critical thinking when it comes to their clients - for example I believe Cochran went to his grave believing OJ was innocent, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary and him being a very intelligent man.
Maybe some of them need that to do their job properly.
At every turn and every post you are there to say how guilty he is and how beyond reproach the police and prosecutors were / are.
Whether Avery did it or not i don't know 100%, but you seem 100% sure he did it......
Not sure if you are trying to be different or edgy or just make out to people 'I know about this stuff...alright..."
Very odd....
ape x said:
youngsyr said:
I was referring to some of Simpson's defence lawyers (specifically Shapiro, Scheck and Kardashian).
However, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an element of cognitive dissonance with Avery's lawyers.
Seems to me that many American defence lawyers are about to suspend their critical thinking when it comes to their clients - for example I believe Cochran went to his grave believing OJ was innocent, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary and him being a very intelligent man.
Maybe some of them need that to do their job properly.
What is your deal here?However, it wouldn't surprise me if there's an element of cognitive dissonance with Avery's lawyers.
Seems to me that many American defence lawyers are about to suspend their critical thinking when it comes to their clients - for example I believe Cochran went to his grave believing OJ was innocent, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary and him being a very intelligent man.
Maybe some of them need that to do their job properly.
At every turn and every post you are there to say how guilty he is and how beyond reproach the police and prosecutors were / are.
Whether Avery did it or not i don't know 100%, but you seem 100% sure he did it......
Not sure if you are trying to be different or edgy or just make out to people 'I know about this stuff...alright..."
Very odd....
miniman said:
Finished watching S2 last night. It's a pretty depressing indictment on small town America one way or another.
Zellner was pretty scathing (but not unreasonably) about Dassey's team (Nyrider et al). Nyrider kind of had her arse handed to her in the En Banc hearing compared to the state lawyer.
Some of the basics still don't add up for me. If you have a junk yard, car crusher and any number of years of experience in dismantling and destroying vehicles, would you really park the Rav 4 on your land and prop a couple of branches against it? If you were burning the body, you'd surely have that car ready to be turned into baked bean tins pretty swiftly.
Where was the evidence of *any* activity in Avery's hovel? If the s
t they claim went down actually happened, where's the blood? If the Averys were stupid enough to burn the remains in a pit 100 yards from the alleged murder scene, how were they clever enough to clean up the scene?
Very strange.
I'm about half way through S2. I have to agree that the notion that anyone was killed in the way it is claimed in the bedroom seems fanciful to me. It would have been an absolute bloodbath. Zellner was pretty scathing (but not unreasonably) about Dassey's team (Nyrider et al). Nyrider kind of had her arse handed to her in the En Banc hearing compared to the state lawyer.
Some of the basics still don't add up for me. If you have a junk yard, car crusher and any number of years of experience in dismantling and destroying vehicles, would you really park the Rav 4 on your land and prop a couple of branches against it? If you were burning the body, you'd surely have that car ready to be turned into baked bean tins pretty swiftly.
Where was the evidence of *any* activity in Avery's hovel? If the s
t they claim went down actually happened, where's the blood? If the Averys were stupid enough to burn the remains in a pit 100 yards from the alleged murder scene, how were they clever enough to clean up the scene? Very strange.
I hear what people are saying about it being one-sided and whatnot but the fact is that the whole prosecution case is circumstantial and very, very thin. Having said that, the suggested methods by which the police went about planting evidence seem rather far fetched too.
youngsyr said:
WilliamWoollard said:
SA refused to admit to the rape that he originally went to prison for, even though he would get parole if he admitted it. He was steadfast in his denials all the way through his sentence, meaning he served more time in prison rather than admit it and get out and start rebuilding his life.
He also admitted all his crimes previously at the first opportunity, albeit non of them were on the same scale. I do get the feeling that he would have admitted it if he’d done it. He has zero form for lying to the cops.
That's just speculation about his character (as shown to you by Netflix) though. He also admitted all his crimes previously at the first opportunity, albeit non of them were on the same scale. I do get the feeling that he would have admitted it if he’d done it. He has zero form for lying to the cops.
The facts are that Avery was stalking the victim and trying to hide the fact that he specifically requested her to come to his property on the day of the murder.
In addition, her remains were found on his property and he was the last to see her alive.
No one had any motive to kill her.
Those are all particularly damning, but I agree not absolutely conclusive.
I don't think I've got to the stalking bit yet. Was he?
So, things get stranger still.
A witness who was ignored originally in 2005 (it appears to have been documented) has come forward again claiming Bobby Dassey was seen pushing TH's car with a six foot beared man; interesting considering he was the main prosecution witness and we already know about his computer, etc, etc.
Role on season 3 of MaM.
A witness who was ignored originally in 2005 (it appears to have been documented) has come forward again claiming Bobby Dassey was seen pushing TH's car with a six foot beared man; interesting considering he was the main prosecution witness and we already know about his computer, etc, etc.
Role on season 3 of MaM.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55203379e4b...
The statement which has been made and the motion for remand and stay of appeal
The statement which has been made and the motion for remand and stay of appeal
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff