ADVERTISEMENT

OT: Making a Murderer

chase07470 said:
Not sure how you can come to this level of conviction with the following is still in place:

Keys found in the open in the bedroom weeks after multiple searches revealed no keys.

.
Click to expand...

A key with Avery's DNA and NO ONE ELSE'S, including the owner of the key, and just happened to be found by a corrupt cop who was part of the Avery lawsuit and directly involved in covering up evidence that would prove he was innocent of his first false conviction.
 
As disturbing as all the Avery stuff is, the nephew's conviction is beyond my comprehension. That first public defender and his investigator were utterly incompetent, and laughed and smiled inappropriately over and over. Episode 10, when Dassey's case gets ignored on every level, is worse than all the other 9 hours put together. It's completely incomprehensible - he obviously has IQ issues and gave false confessions. An utter tragedy and injustice.. hope something good comes out of this documentary for both of them.
 
All you need is reasonable doubt - seems like there's tons of it in these cases...... Allowing the prosecutor to indicate that that reasonable doubt only pertains to the innocent is also ridiculous....
 
cRURah said:
The nephew was not a witness in Avery's case. He did not testify and in fact the prosecution's theory in the Avery trial was that she was killed in the garage and not tied up on the bed, raped and throat cut. The FBI tested the blood evidence and proved that it dd not come from the vial of blood from the previous trial. The key was found after the bookcase was moved forcefully and shaken. Skull fragments had evidence of gunshots. The guy's house and garage were a total mess as the man lived in a pigsty within a junk yard. The bullet fragment was easy to miss that's why they searched for it multiple times. If the police wanted to plant evidence to frame him, surely they could have done better than hypothesized and planted much more solid evidence and done it sooner. Do you really think someone else killed her, moved her car to Avery's salvage yard and then burned her body and dumped her bones in the Avery fire pit the same evening? All that and Avery or no one else in the family ever noticed? The man had a fair trial of his peers. The fact is that the jury did not buy into the defense theory that he was framed by the police. They heard the defense arguments and decided they were bullshit. I wish people would stop feeling sorry for the man who is a cold-blooded murderer. Forgotten in all this is the actual victim, a beautiful young woman who was hard at work and unfortunately had to do business with the scum of the earth..
Click to expand...

Again, maybe Avery killed her but if he did, it wasn't in the garage. No DNA evidence at all. They convicted the nephew saying she was killed in the bedroom, no dna evidence there either.

How does one DA convict two different people of the same crime stating different versions of how and where a victim was killed? Is the purpose to find the guilty party or get a conviction of whoever in what ever way works?

"If the police wanted to plant evidence to frame him, surely they could have done better than hypothesized and planted much more solid evidence and done it sooner."

If Avery wanted to cover up his crime, surely he could have come up with a better way to despise of the body than leaving burnt bones in his front yard and a car sitting in his salvage yard. Who could possibly be brilliant enough to shoot someone and leave no DNA evidence anywhere but stupid enough to not figure out a better solution for a body and a car than his own backyard? Especially in a rural area where a car and body could be burned and not found for twenty years?

But if there is a conspiracy, what better way to get a conviction than to have all the evidence appear right in front of the guys freackin house?

"The man had a fair trial of his peers."
Oh yeah, real fair.

Bottom line is you would be saying the same things about the first crime he didn't commit. Too much coincidence here on all the suspicious evidence to not have substantial doubts about what actually happened to that poor girl.

Supposedly UCLA has a much more reliable test for blood to determine if that extra substance is present. If they do and it comes back positive then I'll be satisfied they got the right guy. Until then, who really knows.
 
Akron Buck said:
A key with Avery's DNA and NO ONE ELSE'S, including the owner of the key, and just happened to be found by a corrupt cop who was part of the Avery lawsuit and directly involved in covering up evidence that would prove he was innocent of his first false conviction.
Click to expand...
That's what I don't get. Think about how many people have handled your car keys. Me, my wife, the kids, the valet at the restaurant, etc. Not even a trace of the actual owner's dna? For this to be true, Avery would have had to scrub the key with bleach, then grab it with his bare hand. Sounds like a classic setup.

Also, what the hell with the DNA technician's DNA getting into the control sample? Even if it didn't affect the actual sample, you have to question the conditions of that lab when the technician is coughing into the test tube.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithK7624
RUbanks said:
Right. On top of that, the guy from the FBI said that all samples in the truck were negative for EDTA...despite the fact that they supposedly only tested three, not all of them. And despite the fact that you in no way can authoritatively say that EDTA isn't present on any sample. How could you possible make that assertion and feel okay about yourself?

As for the bullet supposedly with DNA on it, the tech testing it somehow found her own DNA in the negative control. That made the test invalid. But she somehow used the whole sample, so she decided to submit a deviation so the results could be used. That's just not how it should work. You're basically presenting "evidence" that's, at best, flawed and misleading.

And they searched his bedroom at least twice before finding the key? And the guy who magically found the key just happened to be James Lenk. I'm sure that was a coincidence.

It's not about conspiracy theories or even whether Avery did it, though. It's about the fact that he didn't get a fair chance in life, and the fact that the system is so screwed up. To me, the bigger travesty is what happened to Brendan Dassey. Dassey was a learning-disabled kid who didn't know any better, and was just abused by Kachinsky and his sidekick O'Kelly. These were people who were supposed to be defending him, and they practically coerced him into confessing things he didn't do. Dassey being interrogated without counsel or a parent present and being spoon-fed what to say was bad enough, but what O'Kelly did, with Kachinsky's help, was horrifying.

You can't send someone to jail for the rest of their life just because they're odd or a little creepy or you think maybe they did something. That's not the way it should work, at least, but it all too often does for people without the knowledge and resources to defend themselves.
Click to expand...
The test was also rushed and they didn't test the vile to see if that would test positive
 
Theory:

it's called "Making of a Murderer" because the real point of the filmmakers is to imply that being wrongly convicted of a crime and imprisoned is what took him over the edge in eventually becoming a killer. There's a moment where a cellmate says that Avery told him about how he'd make a torture chamber, etc.
 
chase07470 said:
Again, maybe Avery killed her but if he did, it wasn't in the garage. No DNA evidence at all. They convicted the nephew saying she was killed in the bedroom, no dna evidence there either.

How does one DA convict two different people of the same crime stating different versions of how and where a victim was killed? Is the purpose to find the guilty party or get a conviction of whoever in what ever way works?

"If the police wanted to plant evidence to frame him, surely they could have done better than hypothesized and planted much more solid evidence and done it sooner."

If Avery wanted to cover up his crime, surely he could have come up with a better way to despise of the body than leaving burnt bones in his front yard and a car sitting in his salvage yard. Who could possibly be brilliant enough to shoot someone and leave no DNA evidence anywhere but stupid enough to not figure out a better solution for a body and a car than his own backyard? Especially in a rural area where a car and body could be burned and not found for twenty years?

But if there is a conspiracy, what better way to get a conviction than to have all the evidence appear right in front of the guys freackin house?

"The man had a fair trial of his peers."
Oh yeah, real fair.

Bottom line is you would be saying the same things about the first crime he didn't commit. Too much coincidence here on all the suspicious evidence to not have substantial doubts about what actually happened to that poor girl.

Supposedly UCLA has a much more reliable test for blood to determine if that extra substance is present. If they do and it comes back positive then I'll be satisfied they got the right guy. Until then, who really knows.
Click to expand...
Or at least crush the car?
 
RBS05 said:
They in no way proved any such thing.
Click to expand...
They didn't have to prove it. The blood was in the car. Where's the proof that it came from the vial? There is absolutely no evidence that it did only pure speculation on the part of the defense. A jury can;t assume that the police are crooked based only on the allegations of the defense. What other defense did this guy have? This was OJ all over again but thankfully for the victim's family this jury was not prejudiced against the police.
 
Ataylor1989x said:
Theory:

it's called "Making of a Murderer" because the real point of the filmmakers is to imply that being wrongly convicted of a crime and imprisoned is what took him over the edge in eventually becoming a killer. There's a moment where a cellmate says that Avery told him about how he'd make a torture chamber, etc.
Click to expand...

In other words you didn't watch the series.
 
TreyA said:
I really liked it but have to wonder what the filmmakers left out. I don't want to give any spoilers so I'll leave it at that.

Abro1975 - pretty sure each episode was about 1 hour.
Click to expand...
They left out a lot. The guy is guilty as all hell.They didn't mention his confession. They didn't mention that there is a film clip of him describing to other inmates how he would like to build the perfect tourcher chamber for girls in his basement. There is a lot of dambing evidence that they just didn't mention.
 
hiwater said:
They didn't mention his confession.
Click to expand...

Because no such thing exists, he never confessed he always maintained his innocence. The only confession was that sham that was coerced form his nephew that was not even admitted into the Avery trial because it was so full of holes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TreyA
Ataylor1989x said:
Theory:

it's called "Making of a Murderer" because the real point of the filmmakers is to imply that being wrongly convicted of a crime and imprisoned is what took him over the edge in eventually becoming a killer. There's a moment where a cellmate says that Avery told him about how he'd make a torture chamber, etc.
Click to expand...
It's actually called "Making a Murderer" despite what the thread title says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TreyA
cRURah said:
They didn't have to prove it. The blood was in the car. Where's the proof that it came from the vial? There is absolutely no evidence that it did only pure speculation on the part of the defense. A jury can;t assume that the police are crooked based only on the allegations of the defense. What other defense did this guy have? This was OJ all over again but thankfully for the victim's family this jury was not prejudiced against the police.
Click to expand...
YOU said they PROVED it didn't come from the vial of blood. They didn't prove that. Now you can change your argument all you want. There is no proof it did come from the vial because there was no test, and still is no test, that can scientifically prove what the prosecution's "test" (using quotes because it was not based in scientific fact) was alleging they proved.

If I'm on a jury, and I hear the prosecution's expert witness on blood testing say that he could be 100% certain of the DNA associated with three particular samples that he never actually tested, I'm throwing out the whole thing.
 
cRURah said:
They didn't have to prove it. The blood was in the car. Where's the proof that it came from the vial? There is absolutely no evidence that it did only pure speculation on the part of the defense. A jury can;t assume that the police are crooked based only on the allegations of the defense. What other defense did this guy have? This was OJ all over again but thankfully for the victim's family this jury was not prejudiced against the police.
Click to expand...
Dude,

The vial of blood had a puncture in it. Choosing to believe that, that puncture happened any other way than someone syringing into it to get a sample to spread around this crime scene is more of a reach than believing any scenario that points to Avery's innocence.
RUBigFrank said:
only been through episode three - but it appears that both sides of the story have a lot of issues. Most troubling is how the prosecution side has behaved. Avery is no saint - but the system in Manitoc and Wisconsin overall is very troubling.
Click to expand...
Get ready for episode 4. You'll be furious by the end of it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RUJohnny99
chase07470 said:
Dude,

The vial of blood had a puncture in it. Choosing to believe that, that puncture happened any other way than someone syringing into it to get a sample to spread around this crime scene is more of a reach than

Get ready for episode 4. You'll be furious by the end of it.
Click to expand...


That's how the blood gets in the tube. Have you never had blood drawn?

 
RUMBA-JK said:
Charge to the jury was pretty cut & dried - rule on what was presented in the trial - and do not go and do you own independent outside research / amateur detective work. The way the case was prosecuted & defended left no real options - jury deliberated for about 45 minutes & found the guy guilty.

We all wondered how it would have turned out if the defense had put forth challenges to the evidence presented by the prosecution - if the defense had give some reason to question.
Click to expand...


So let me get this straight:

You were part of a jury where multiple members felt that the prosecution's case was severely flawed, and filled with as many holes as a piece of "Swiss cheese", yet you still voted to convict the guy as guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

You have an obligation as a citizen of this country to make a conscientious decision completely irregardless of what a judge or lawyer does or doesn't say. If you have questions as to whether or not the guy is guilty then it is your sworn duty to vote 'innocent'. There should be no other choice.

You are exhibit A of what's wrong with our justice system.
 
cRURah said:
The FBI tested the blood evidence and proved that it dd not come from the vial of blood from the previous trial.
Click to expand...

The FBI does not have an accurate test to determine that. It was completely made up in order to save the prosecution's ass.

Did you not catch the part where the FBI testified that even though there were samples that he didn't even look, he could guarantee with 100% certainty that they also did not contain EDTA?

Yep, seems legit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ole Cabbagehead
Let's also not forget the convenience of the searchers, a two person team, entering a property with literally THOUSANDS of abandoned vehicles, and within the 2nd row of cars from where they start looking, just magically find the missing Toyota. And they happened to be the ONLY people in the massive volunteer army that were issued a camera, "just in case" they were to find anything.

Yep, seems legit.
 
cRURah said:
They didn't have to prove it. The blood was in the car. Where's the proof that it came from the vial? There is absolutely no evidence that it did only pure speculation on the part of the defense. A jury can;t assume that the police are crooked based only on the allegations of the defense. What other defense did this guy have? This was OJ all over again but thankfully for the victim's family this jury was not prejudiced against the police.
Click to expand...

Why was there a hole in the vile, then? There is absolutely no reason at all for it to be there. The lab techs that use those viles don't remover samples that way. So some person that doesn't work in that lab, had access to the vile and for some unknown reason, put a hole in the top? That is an absolute, 100% fact.

Why would someone do that? Clearly there has to be some kind of motive. They didn't just do it for kicks on a Friday night.
 
The lab takes the cap off (the cap that was punctured to obtain the sample from Avery), swab the blood from the tube, and then replace the cap. They don't use a new cap - a new cap could be contaminated.
 
TreyA said:
The lab takes the cap off (the cap that was punctured to obtain the sample from Avery), swab the blood from the tube, and then replace the cap. They don't use a new cap - a new cap could be contaminated.
Click to expand...

They stated the exact opposite in the film. The people that work directly with those samples said there was absolutely no legitimate reason for it to have a puncture mark in the cap. None.
 
I don't recall that being said.
Did you watch the video above? That's how and when a tube cap is punctured.
 
TreyA said:
I don't recall that being said.
Did you watch the video above? That's how and when a tube cap is punctured.
Click to expand...

Nope, and won't. I don't care. They clearly stated in the doc that it wasn't done that way in the Manitowoc County lab.

If what you say is true, they would have no reason to get the FBI involved. The reason it was a major issue was precisely BECAUSE of the unusual nature of the vile and the appearance of tampering.
 
From the transcript of the show:

It could not have been better. The seal was clearly broken on the outside of the box and inside the box is a Styrofoam kit. The seal is broken in that. We pulled the Styrofoam halves apart and there, in all of its glory, was a test tube that said "Steven Avery," inmate number, everything on it. The blood is liquid. And get this. Right in the center of the top of the tube is a little tiny hole. Just about the size of a hypodermic needle. Yes. And I spoke with a LabCorp person already who told me they don't do that. [laughs] You can... Have you fallen on the floor yet or no? Think about it, Dean.

Read more at: http://transcripts.foreverdreaming.org/viewtopic.php?f=524&t=24357
 
The only way for blood to enter the vacutainer during a draw is through a needle that punctures the tube cap. The lab company that tests the blood does not add or remove blood from the tube through a hole in the tube cap. They remove the cap and replace the cap when done. No, the lab company does not puncture the cap and they answered this question correctly. It's just that the defense and I guess most people don't understand how blood is collected from a person and that the puncture is a part of the collection process.
 
My theory is that Avery let Celebrity status go to his head. After he was exonerated for the first crime, he became the poster child for the Innocence project. Feeling like he was then above the law, he murdered the young woman thinking that he had the sympathy of the masses and would never be a suspect, But guess what ? - the guy isn't very bright and he made really stupid mistakes covering up his crime.
 
"Right in the center of the top of the tube is a little tiny hole. Just about the size of a hypodermic needle. Yes. And I spoke with a LabCorp person already who told me they don't do that. [laughs] You can... Have you fallen on the floor yet or no? Think about it, Dean. If LabCorp didn't stick the needle through the top, then who did?"

The phlebotomist.
The end.
 
TreyA said:
The only way for blood to enter the vacutainer during a draw is through a needle that punctures the tube cap. The lab company that tests the blood does not add or remove blood from the tube through a hole in the tube cap. They remove the cap and replace the cap when done. No, the lab company does not puncture the cap and they answered this question correctly. It's just that the defense and I guess most people don't understand how blood is collected from a person and that the puncture is a part of the collection process.
Click to expand...
As someone who has had many tubes of blood drawn, it works exactly as Trey has stated. It's standard procedure and I've never had blood drawn any other way. The defense had only one strategy and that was to claim Avery was framed. It worked for OJ, why not try it for Avery?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TreyA
TreyA said:
"Right in the center of the top of the tube is a little tiny hole. Just about the size of a hypodermic needle. Yes. And I spoke with a LabCorp person already who told me they don't do that. [laughs] You can... Have you fallen on the floor yet or no? Think about it, Dean. If LabCorp didn't stick the needle through the top, then who did?"

The phlebotomist.
The end.
Click to expand...

Should have mentioned that to the FBI. Would have saved them a lot of time and money.

Of course, you know more about it than they do, I'm sure.
 
cRURah said:
My theory is that Avery let Celebrity status go to his head. After he was exonerated for the first crime, he became the poster child for the Innocence project. Feeling like he was then above the law, he murdered the young woman thinking that he had the sympathy of the masses and would never be a suspect, But guess what ? - the guy isn't very bright and he made really stupid mistakes covering up his crime.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like leaving all of that blood evidence on his property.

Oh wait...
 
Hawks!!! said:
Yeah, like leaving all of that blood evidence on his property.

Oh wait...
Click to expand...
We don't know where she was killed. He could have taken her to a remote part of the property and shot her outdoors. the salvage yard was 400 acres. Remember that her blood was found in the back of her RAV4. And evidence was presented that her body had been in the back of the vehicle after she was shot.
 
cRURah said:
We don't know where she was killed. He could have taken her to a remote part of the property and shot her outdoors. the salvage yard was 400 acres. Remember that her blood was found in the back of her RAV4. And evidence was presented that her body had been in the back of the vehicle after she was shot.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is exculpatory evidence that shows it wasn't Avery.

She was already near his trailer. Witnesses establish that fact. Why would he take her to some remote part of the property, kill her, then take here all the way back to the trailer to burn the body?

Occam's razor fits in here somewhere. Then why wouldn't he just dispose of the vehicle. He had the means (car crusher) and had been using it in the previous 24 hours to the crime. Or at the very least, hide the vehicle somewhere in the middle of all those cars where it would have taken months to find, instead of right there at the front entrance with a few twigs and branches to cover it up. He's dumb, but not *that* dumb.

The whole thing doesn't even pass a basic smell test.
 
Hawks!!! said:
Should have mentioned that to the FBI. Would have saved them a lot of time and money.

Of course, you know more about it than they do, I'm sure.
Click to expand...


-The defense brought in the FBI.

-I'm not sure but it is possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Knight Shift

The Athletic Big Ten Dark Horse (by voting)

Replies
0
Views
347
Rutgers Football
Knight Shift
Knight Shift
R

Somewhat OT but a good movie about NIL in its Infancy

Replies
4
Views
373
The Round Table
RURahh
R
R

OT: Somerville

Replies
67
Views
3K
Rutgers Football
retired711
R
R

OT: Anyone here an expert on trust beneficiary tax implications?

Replies
6
Views
554
Rutgers Football
retired711
R
J

OT: Seattle

Replies
52
Views
2K
Rutgers Football
RC1991
R
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back