Making a Murderer on Netflix (Possible Spoilers Alert)

[GooseHook]

Just finished the series today. Had a hard time watching the sequences about EDTA testing without a hundred questions running through my head.

 

What were the FBI's methods of the test?

Were there control and experimental groups to demonstrate the accuracy and precision of the test?

Why didn't the defense have a (documented) level of involvement or oversight, or at the very least, a greater degree of (documented) transparency around the test? Couldn't/didn't the defense hire a forensic chemist to conduct their own independent test validated by the FBI or some other institutional body for validity?

How is EDTA identified in any biological sample?

What are the rates and characteristics of degradation, oxidation, evaporation, etc of EDTA?

Would there not be other markers that could indicate a prior presence of EDTA by some byproduct/trace compounds left behind?

We can sequence a human genome, chemically analyze meteoric rocks that fell to earth millions of years ago for trace elements and radiocarbon dating, detect, and even replicate DNA... but we can't reliably detect the presence of a non-native chemical compound in a dried blood sample?

 

The documentary is not the final say on the matter, of course. But to me, those seem like pretty basic questions even a know-nothing like me can come up with... Seems like more could have been explored to that end...

 

I think one of the main takeaways, at least to a few of your questions, is that a judge can indeed exert a huge amount of power over the way a case is tried.

 

Many people I know who've seen the doc have complained about the framing defense. The framing defense was the last remaining option, because the judge ruled that the defense could not argue 3rd party liability (other possible suspects) as a defense.

 

That aside, the bigger ruling was in the admission of the FBI test. You don't just invent a new type of forensic test for a trial and rush it through before the prosecution rests. The test apparently used vial blood as a control to detect EDTA, which doesn't tell you anything about a dried blood stain in a car. There was also no lower detection limit established. That alone should have no scientific basis as evidence, but it was allowed nonetheless. Just makes you hope you're never accused of a crime.

[hammy83]

Just finished the series today. Had a hard time watching the sequences about EDTA testing without a hundred questions running through my head.

 

What were the FBI's methods of the test?

Were there control and experimental groups to demonstrate the accuracy and precision of the test?

Why didn't the defense have a (documented) level of involvement or oversight, or at the very least, a greater degree of (documented) transparency around the test? Couldn't/didn't the defense hire a forensic chemist to conduct their own independent test validated by the FBI or some other institutional body for validity?

How is EDTA identified in any biological sample?

What are the rates and characteristics of degradation, oxidation, evaporation, etc of EDTA?

Would there not be other markers that could indicate a prior presence of EDTA by some byproduct/trace compounds left behind?

We can sequence a human genome, chemically analyze meteoric rocks that fell to earth millions of years ago for trace elements and radiocarbon dating, detect, and even replicate DNA... but we can't reliably detect the presence of a non-native chemical compound in a dried blood sample?

 

The documentary is not the final say on the matter, of course. But to me, those seem like pretty basic questions even a know-nothing like me can come up with... Seems like more could have been explored to that end...

 

I think one of the main takeaways, at least to a few of your questions, is that a judge can indeed exert a huge amount of power over the way a case is tried.

 

Many people I know who've seen the doc have complained about the framing defense. The framing defense was the last remaining option, because the judge ruled that the defense could not argue 3rd party liability (other possible suspects) as a defense.

 

That aside, the bigger ruling was in the admission of the FBI test. You don't just invent a new type of forensic test for a trial and rush it through before the prosecution rests. The test apparently used vial blood as a control to detect EDTA, which doesn't tell you anything about a dried blood stain in a car. There was also no lower detection limit established. That alone should have no scientific basis as evidence, but it was allowed nonetheless. Just makes you hope you're never accused of a crime.

 

correct me if I am wrong... but its the state, not the judge that says you can't argue 3rd party liability.

[GooseHook]

Both. It's a case precedent, the judge has to rule whether it's applicable or not. I'm not a lawyer but common law and case law are different animals.

 

It's the core argument in the appeal documents that the judge's ruling was not justified.

[bubbagump]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

[Yanki01]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

that bothered the sh*t out of me too.

[bubbagump]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

that bothered the sh*t out of me too.

 

My wife had to remind me it was not the victims dad, but Brandons attorney. I just assumed it was her dad, because it was so bat crazy to me that he would be getting that emotional over a random victim. I literally have no idea why he broke down twice…..would think that maybe quite a red flag.

[wheeelhouse]

Regarding the third-pary liability questions -- The rules of evidence forbid conjecture or irrelevant arguments in court. Wisconsin has case law regarding how to determine if a third-party liability argument is relevant or not. That distiction is important to keep in mind because if the test from the case law is used to keep relevant evidence from the jury, then it is either a poor test or it is being missapplied.

 

I happen to think that the test from Wisconsin case law is flawed, and even if you disagree with that, I think it is fairly clear that it was missaplied by the Judge during the trial.

 

The test essentially says that third-party evidence may be admissible if the criminal defendant can sho that the third party had (1) a motive, (2) the opportunity, and (3) some direct evidence connecting the third party to the crime.

 

The test incorrectly implies that a motive is necessary for conviction or even indictment - not true at all. In the Avery case you have a defendant who has no apparent motive, so it makes no sense for the judge to require the Avery defense to establish a clear motive in order to allow third-party liability evidence. The test also assumes that the police have collected and analyzed all direct evidence, and that the evidence collected clearly points to the defendant. Essentially I think the test gets in the way of the Judge using common sense.

 

Even though I think the test is flawed, I do think the Judge ruled correctly in the pre-trial motion. If I recall correctly, Avery had 10 or so individuals that he was claiming could have committed the crime - they were on the Avery property that day, had access to the same areas/tools that he did, etc. But essentially holding a mini trial for 10 named individuals within the Avery trial is a horrible use of resources and could only serve to confuse the jury. Not to mention that allowing a defendant to drag other people's names through the mud is not a good policy.

 

The real head scratcher is how the judge actually used the test during the trial. I remember that the prosecution convinced the judge to shut down the defense's line of reasoning regarding the voicemails on Holbach's cell. This is where the test gets in the way of common sense. There is no named third party in the defense's argument, in fact it seems like there was no way to know who the third party with access to Holbach's phone might have been. The argument was only that the police had leads that pointed to other individuals (unknown) that were not pursued, and that the cell phone evidence does not fit in the prosecution's theory of the case. If that is inadmissible evidence of third-party liability, then how is the defense supposed to mount any defense other than an affirmative one?!?

 

Its pretty clear to me that the test should only be applied in cases of a named third party. Otherwise you would essentially be excluding all evidence that suggests the defendant may not have committed the crime. How can you demonstrate that a un-named person had a motive and opportunity??

[Boydr12]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

Why do you think Avery did it? Honestly just wondering?

[Gamble Gamble]

So initially I thought the prosecutor, judge, and jury were scum, but I learned that major evidence was left out of the documentary. After reading that evidence I don't feel bad anymore that he has a lifetime sentence.

 

The case wasn't handled well. That's a fact. The author of the documentary is biased. Another fact.

 

You sir are very wrong. There was no major evidence left out. That he called and asked for her a few times because he had worked with her before and trusted her? That they found DNA under the hood of the car? Care to explain how that's major evidence? Care to explain all the evidence Kratz conveniently ignored? Care to explain Kratz now losing his legs license for inappropriately texting Sexual Assualt victims?

 

There definitely was evidence left out, in subsequent interviews with the film makers said they had to edit the footage because no one would want to watch 200 hours of court testimonies.

 

Now I still think he should be considered innocent because there is a very credible doubt on this case.

 

However to believe no damning evidence was left out is naive.

[hammy83]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

Watch Dassey's full interview where he talks and talks without much input from the detectives and explains every detail. This was of course left out of the documentary. They reference this interview in the series but never showed it leaving us all think it was those fragmented details in the interviews that were in the documentary. Once I watched the FULL interview not shown in the series it makes you wonder how a kid who is so developmentally delayed kept going and goingt on every detail with little interruption.

[bubbagump]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

Why do you think Avery did it? Honestly just wondering?

 

If you read more on the case outside the documentary there are details that are left out. Looking at the entire picture, it isn't as empty as the documentary portrays.

[swgolf12]

So initially I thought the prosecutor, judge, and jury were scum, but I learned that major evidence was left out of the documentary. After reading that evidence I don't feel bad anymore that he has a lifetime sentence.

 

The case wasn't handled well. That's a fact. The author of the documentary is biased. Another fact.

 

What major evidence are you referring to? The fact that her belongings were found in the burn barrel on the Avery property? You do realize that if SA had burned TH that the heat from the fire required to turn her body into what it was would have melted his Garage/Shed right?

 

How about the Key not being found until the 6th or 7th search, same deal with the bullet, all while people from the county he is suing are taking parts in searches, even though they have been asked not to because of the clear bias they might have.

 

They find the key, the only DNA evidence on the single key, not the Key ring TH carried with her and was photographed with, but this random single key found on the millionth search is SA's. So we are to believe that SA took all of her other keys off the ring, scrubbed all of her DNA from them, tossed all the other keys so they were never to be found, and then left his DNA on the one most damning piece of evidence, and hid it behind a dresser?

 

Once you take all of that into account it is very hard to argue that the key was not planted. Once you realize that it's very hard to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that there were not other forces at motion in this case.

 

Also, you have a search warrant, that doesn't mean you get unlimited access to a site for a week or so with no oversight. This whole thing is such a mess, but if the State starts back tracking, and god forbid if it was ever found to have played a role in this (and by state I mean any gov't entity) the possible future lawsuits from people who believe that their convictions were faulty would bankrupt the state, and as we all know, there is nothing gov't likes more than to maintain the status quo.

[Boydr12]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

Why do you think Avery did it? Honestly just wondering?

 

If you read more on the case outside the documentary there are details that are left out. Looking at the entire picture, it isn't as empty as the documentary portrays.

 

Oh I've read everything there is to read. I just hoped you would bring valuable information input, carry on

[Gamble Gamble]

I do not know if he did it, but if you search for 20 minutes and look up evidence supporting him being guilty, it is not as cut and dry.

 

The police made major errors. Professionals should be held to a higher standard. Also, he deserves to be considered innocent until proven guilty but the mockery of events that led to his trial tainted that.

 

I do not think he is as squeaky clean as the documentary framed the story, just like I don't think there was enough evidence to support a conviction, especially for Brendan. Like the lawyer said, it is horrible if Steve is in there erroneously but it is 10 times worse that a kid with the intelligence of Forrest Gump but the exact opposite luck of Forrest is in jail for something he was coerced confessing.

 

The interrogation should be removed from the record and a retrial should be conducted for Brendan. However, I do not claim to understand the minutiae and every nuance of criminal court proceedings.

[bubbagump]

Oh I've read everything there is to read. I just hoped you would bring valuable information input, carry on

 

Lol…….then take up his case and save him from sitting in prison!! Go show all the doubters and haters!

 

Thats the beauty of having a brain. Come to your own conclusions, and they may differ from somebody else.

[Boydr12]

I hope everybody is watching Dateline right now about Steven Avery, poked massive holes in the "DNA on the hoodlatch" evidence that people think is so damning. And is reinforcing alot of the evidence

[Gamble Gamble]

The dateline had very little non MM info. It was more like a cliff notes version of the series with little new info.

 

Boyd, you do get that the documentary does not really show the possibility of him being guilty, correct? I agree that an innocent person in prison is morally worse than a guilty person being free, but there is another side to this story that MM does not delve into.

[Boydr12]

The dateline had very little non MM info. It was more like a cliff notes version of the series with little new info.

 

Boyd, you do get that the documentary does not really show the possibility of him being guilty, correct? I agree that an innocent person in prison is morally worse than a guilty person being free, but there is another side to this story that MM does not delve into.

 

Like I said, I've read all there is to read. I'm wondering exactly what you feel are the strongest points that suggest his guilt. Honestly just wondering

[Gamble Gamble]

Who killed her then? What was their motive to kill her and how did they plant all of the evidence and/or get the cops to plant the evidence?

 

The issue I have with this is that I want to believe he is innocent, but I find it hard to believe that all of these things after the trial conspired against him. Even his fiancée said he is a monster. He called Theresa using a *67 to block his number. Cell mates in prison said he was going to create a torture chamber. Many people around him that do not have any benefit to calling him a psycho are doing just that.

 

Granted this could be propaganda but I instinctively try to filter the propaganda and use logic to discern my hypothesis.

 

Let me be clear I think he is likely innocent, but to completely think he is innocent regardless of "new" evidence, meaning non documentary evidence, means you are not allowing new information to shape your reasoning. That is a form of Dogma, which obfuscates critical thinking and objective assessment.

[spazo]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

Watch Dassey's full interview where he talks and talks without much input from the detectives and explains every detail. This was of course left out of the documentary. They reference this interview in the series but never showed it leaving us all think it was those fragmented details in the interviews that were in the documentary. Once I watched the FULL interview not shown in the series it makes you wonder how a kid who is so developmentally delayed kept going and goingt on every detail with little interruption.

all the details were in the news before they elicited the confession. It would have been easy for him to repeat what he'd heard in the news less than a week prior, and probably multiple times (since it was his uncle being charged)

[Gamble Gamble]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

Watch Dassey's full interview where he talks and talks without much input from the detectives and explains every detail. This was of course left out of the documentary. They reference this interview in the series but never showed it leaving us all think it was those fragmented details in the interviews that were in the documentary. Once I watched the FULL interview not shown in the series it makes you wonder how a kid who is so developmentally delayed kept going and goingt on every detail with little interruption.

all the details were in the news before they elicited the confession. It would have been easy for him to repeat what he'd heard in the news less than a week prior, and probably multiple times (since it was his uncle being charged)

 

Dassey actually mentions that he described the murder in "Kiss the Girls".

 

I would love to see both get retrials with the improperly gained evidence taken out of the record.

[The Pearl]

Who killed her then? What was their motive to kill her and how did they plant all of the evidence and/or get the cops to plant the evidence? The issue I have with this is that I want to believe he is innocent, but I find it hard to believe that all of these things after the trial conspired against him. Even his fiancée said he is a monster. He called Theresa using a *67 to block his number. Cell mates in prison said he was going to create a torture chamber. Many people around him that do not have any benefit to calling him a psycho are doing just that. Granted this could be propaganda but I instinctively try to filter the propaganda and use logic to discern my hypothesis. Let me be clear I think he is likely innocent, but to completely think he is innocent regardless of "new" evidence, meaning non documentary evidence, means you are not allowing new information to shape your reasoning. That is a form of Dogma, which obfuscates critical thinking and objective assessment.

 

The defendant doesn't have to prove he is innocent. It is not up to Avery to find an alternative theory, provide a motive for anybody else, or even to prove that the cops planted evidence. What has widely been lost in this saga is not if Steven did or did not do it, it that the state has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the only question that is relevant. That is the whole purpose of a trial. A crime has been committed, the state has a theory and has to present evidence to support the theory.

 

In this case, the prosecution's theory of how Steven committed the murder and his attempt to it cover up and the evidence the prosecution presented supporting THIS THEORY, is preposterous. In fact, it is physically impossible. Not only is it impossible, it is illogical. In fact the evidence they provided contradicts the evidence they didn't find.

 

This doesn't mean Steve did not do it. It simply means the prosecution has no clue how he did it if he is guilty. The prosecution wants it both ways. It wants you to believe Steven is this mastermind clever enough to have the cleaning skills of a military level HAZMAT team in order to clean two crime scenes clean of physical evidence yet incompetent enough to leave blood in the van, yet scrub his finger prints, and leave the key laying around.

[Boydr12]

Who killed her then? What was their motive to kill her and how did they plant all of the evidence and/or get the cops to plant the evidence?

 

The issue I have with this is that I want to believe he is innocent, but I find it hard to believe that all of these things after the trial conspired against him. Even his fiancée said he is a monster. He called Theresa using a *67 to block his number. Cell mates in prison said he was going to create a torture chamber. Many people around him that do not have any benefit to calling him a psycho are doing just that.

 

Granted this could be propaganda but I instinctively try to filter the propaganda and use logic to discern my hypothesis.

 

Let me be clear I think he is likely innocent, but to completely think he is innocent regardless of "new" evidence, meaning non documentary evidence, means you are not allowing new information to shape your reasoning. That is a form of Dogma, which obfuscates critical thinking and objective assessment.

 

You have it backwards, the way the justice system works is, you have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you start with your presumed innocence. You don't start guilty, and have to be proved innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the biggest miscarriage of justice with this whole ordeal, if he ever had presumption of innocence there's no way he's ruled guilty. Although that may not be true, because of the two crooked jurors

[spazo]

Who killed her then? What was their motive to kill her and how did they plant all of the evidence and/or get the cops to plant the evidence? The issue I have with this is that I want to believe he is innocent, but I find it hard to believe that all of these things after the trial conspired against him. Even his fiancée said he is a monster. He called Theresa using a *67 to block his number. Cell mates in prison said he was going to create a torture chamber. Many people around him that do not have any benefit to calling him a psycho are doing just that. Granted this could be propaganda but I instinctively try to filter the propaganda and use logic to discern my hypothesis. Let me be clear I think he is likely innocent, but to completely think he is innocent regardless of "new" evidence, meaning non documentary evidence, means you are not allowing new information to shape your reasoning. That is a form of Dogma, which obfuscates critical thinking and objective assessment.

 

The defendant doesn't have to prove he is innocent. It is not up to Avery to find an alternative theory, provide a motive for anybody else, or even to prove that the cops planted evidence. What has widely been lost in this saga is not if Steven did or did not do it, it that the state has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the only question that is relevant. That is the whole purpose of a trial. A crime has been committed, the state has a theory and has to present evidence to support the theory.

 

In this case, the prosecution's theory of how Steven committed the murder and his attempt to it cover up and the evidence the prosecution presented supporting THIS THEORY, is preposterous. In fact, it is physically impossible. Not only is it impossible, it is illogical. In fact the evidence they provided contradicts the evidence they didn't find.

 

This doesn't mean Steve did not do it. It simply means the prosecution has no clue how he did it if he is guilty. The prosecution wants it both ways. It wants you to believe Steven is this mastermind clever enough to have the cleaning skills of a military level HAZMAT team in order to clean two crime scenes clean of physical evidence yet incompetent enough to leave blood in the van, yet scrub his finger prints, and leave the key laying around.

that's what struck me as most preposterous about their theory of the case. The prosecution calls him a horrific killer when it wants you to believe something seemingly complex was done by him, but then they propose facts that you'd have to be the dumbest person in history to do. "He chained her to the bed and cut her throat." How is there NO blood evidence anywhere on his premises if that happened? No way that guy cleans up that scene sufficiently that when police show up to search his trailer he goes "sure...go right ahead." Please.

 

The only people that had motive to kill her was the county sheriff. In everything I've read, no one accounts for that. Avery had no motive to kill. The theory was he killed her...Why? Because he felt like it? That's what you've got to go on? Meanwhile, the sheriff's department has a $36,000,000 problem they've got to find an answer to, and some of those people could be personally liable. Who's got a motive to kill here?

[hammy83]

Here is my general take on an obviously one sided documentary:

 

Steven Avery did it, or was involved….however it was a similar OJ kind of investigation. Where perhaps the police ensured (when they may not have needed to) a conviction. I feel even with this take, that he likely has enough to get a new trial as well.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was not involved. Im shocked he wasn't granted a new trial. How a judge can rule that the confession that was coerced came from a unrepresented meeting, but then allow the resulting "confession"makes zippy sense. Also, how Brandons defense who got that confession was somehow working for the prosecution. It also bothered the hell out of me, that at the appeals, that same guy (kelly maybe?) was crying on the stand about pictures of the deceased chick etc…...

 

All in all, some shady people doing some shady things, and a bias…..there was a lot of sloppy police and prosecution work and very likely unethical work done. That prosecutor still makes my skin crawl.

 

Watch Dassey's full interview where he talks and talks without much input from the detectives and explains every detail. This was of course left out of the documentary. They reference this interview in the series but never showed it leaving us all think it was those fragmented details in the interviews that were in the documentary. Once I watched the FULL interview not shown in the series it makes you wonder how a kid who is so developmentally delayed kept going and goingt on every detail with little interruption.

all the details were in the news before they elicited the confession. It would have been easy for him to repeat what he'd heard in the news less than a week prior, and probably multiple times (since it was his uncle being charged)

 

Dassey actually mentions that he described the murder in "Kiss the Girls".

 

I would love to see both get retrials with the improperly gained evidence taken out of the record.

 

Your just stated the facts from the documentary. read the book or even watch the movie and none of the murder scenes are the same as the one dassey describes. Similar... some what, but dassey goes way more into detail with things such as what they did after she was shackled in the room, details of what else Avery did to her that was absent from the book. Describing how the killed her, where how they got her to the fire etc. I'm still on the fence if Avery is a guilty or innocent man but we need to stop taking this documentary as factual and containing all the information.

[Yanki01]

!!!!!!

 

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=41338974

[Gamble Gamble]

!!!!!!

 

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=41338974

 

I think that was the right move. When I watched the documentary I was really pro Avery's innocence, but as I read more my position is moving towards Avery's guilt. Regardless I have a hard time believing that Dassey was mentally capable of committing the crime.

[Yanki01]

!!!!!!

 

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=41338974

 

I think that was the right move. When I watched the documentary I was really pro Avery's innocence, but as I read more my position is moving towards Avery's guilt. Regardless I have a hard time believing that Dassey was mentally capable of committing the crime.

 

yeah i'm still 50/50 on Avery being the murderer. Poor kid, all Brenden wanted to do was make it in time to watch Wrestlemania!!!