Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

Khane_sl said:

The only real argument in this thread is whether or not you can look to any evidence found by the investigation team as credible enough to backup a personal theory on whether or not Avery killed her. Everyone here agrees he was railroaded and the case and subsequent verdict were a sham.

Some people seem to think you can look at certain evidence the investigators have found as credible enough to formulate a theory. Most of us know that once you lose credibility, especially in regards to gathering evidence, nothing you say or do can be trusted. As such no evidence found in this case by these investigators can be trusted.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't trust anything Manitowoc was involved in when it comes to Avery. If they wrote him a speeding ticket in 2005 I'd probably have called it bullshit. They needed to go above and beyond to be impartial and play it straight up and they didn't.

Jive Turkey_sl said:

Haven't seen any of that. Not surprised someone who thinks sexting a client is rape would come to that conclusion though

Click to expand...

She's not a client, she was a victim of a crime, and he was using the prosecution against her bf as leverage.

But I get that you can't see the difference I guess.

A guy who is waiting for a $36 million dollar check gets impatient waiting for all that money and decides to rape and murder a woman that he telephonically arranges (which she seems un-frightened to see him in her voicemail) to come visit his property in the middle of a weekday in full view of various people coming and going from said property. Once he gets her inside his trailer and commences with said raping, he gets a knock on his door, and answering it, he sees his nephew with the mental capacity of a 9 year old. Rather than saying, "I'm busy", he invites said nephew in to witness, participate in, and eventually confess about all the subsequent rapiness and other crimes that happen. Luckily for him, the nephew does not seem to possess any DNA, since none of it gets anywhere during the entire afternoon and evening.

Later, after much raping, stabbing, cutting, slitting, etc, that happens without any blood loss, the woman is dragged to the garage where she is shot eleven times, again without any blood loss, and also without making any sound. Later that evening, they burn the woman's body a few yards away from where several people live, without the horrifying and distinctive smell caused by a burning body.

At some point during this time, the guy and his nephew drive the woman's car (after first taking some of her bloody hair and drawing pictures with it in the back of the vehicle) to what they think is a perfect hiding spot behind 3 or 4 branches, which is located very close to a large and inconvenient car-crusher. They do this without leaving any fingerprints or the tiniest bit of DNA in the car, except for a lot of smeared blood in very obvious spots.
Three days later the police come asking questions and want to look around inside the trailer. The guy lets them do it, knowing he is safe because all of the raping, stabbing, cutting, slitting, etc, that happened in his carpeted trailer happened without any blood loss. The very next day, this guy leaves for his family's cabin 100 miles away, but decides not to bring the woman's car key, bones, teeth, cell phone, camera, etc. to dispose of far away because he knows he's loved by the Manitowoc police department and they will never suspect him and search his property.

So I'm just playing devil's advocate here because in general I agree with the point that paragraph is trying to make. It doesn't seem likely that SA is the type of guy capable of pulling off everything we've been told about the case.

The question I have though, is if hypothetically you ignore the trailer torture/rape/kill stuff as well as the "clean up" that had to happen, at that point it's way less crazy of a story right? At that point this girl is killed on this property somehow and then has her body and car disposed of by some dumb guy and the police likely still planted evidence to ensure a conviction.

There are a couple reasons I ask that question and a couple items that are the biggest reasons I still question his innocence (not if he should have been found guilty).
1. Even though that asshole prosecutor broadcast the story told above to the entire world on live TV AND used that same story again to convict Brendan, that isn't the narrative used to convict Steven. In fact he pretty intentionally avoids any sort of timeline or story of the crime whatsoever just because of how messy that gets. It's not even until his closing arguments that he flips things to the garage. Would it have been impossible for this to happen in his bedroom AND for Steven clean it up? Yeah...most definitely. But this wasn't brought up in his trial and in fact the charges relating to the story created from BD's confession were ultimately dropped (since the confession wasnt used as evidence). Unfortunately, none of that is relevant, just unfair it was ever brought up in the first place.
2. They do find SA's DNA on the car other than the "planted" blood, the documentary just didn't tell you that. They find non blood DNA on the hood latch of the car. Now just recently it came to light that an investigator at the scene didn't change gloves and there was potential for cross contamination. None of this was discussed in the series, but was in the trial. There are questions with this evidence just like there are questions with all the evidence. Again, I'm not arguing against reasonable doubt. What I am saying is that if that is his DNA and it didn't come from contamination why is he opening the RAV4's hood?
3. The show has this giant drop the mic moment when they open the blood sample and see the hole in the lid. This didn't end up playing out in court to the same degree because it turns out that extracting blood from these samples by a syringe to be used for blood comparisons is common place. Beyond that, while we have a defense expert able to put some doubt on the testing procedure done, I personally am unsure why there is much reason to doubt the FBI's findings. Does this FBI agent have some connection to the Manitowoc cops? I question why that evidence was allowed to be presented in the middle of the trial like it was, but the actual findings? If there's no EDTA in those samples that blood probably didn't come from the vial. If that's the case, where did it come from? Is this enough evidence to declare him guilty? No...that's not what i'm arguing.
4. BD's 3/1 confession sets up a more believable series of events. The very first thing he tells police is that when he got to Steven's place he sees the girl in the back of the RAV4 within the garage. This is the first thing he tells them about the crime before their interrogation tactics create the story outlined in Cad's copy/paste. Later he says they were going to throw her into a pond before deciding to burn the body. The film makers don't give us any of this, because they don't want the viewer to even speculate on a time line that could possibly make sense. We get to hear everyone in the show say "where's the blood?" in the show several times as well as the focus on the torture in the bedroom. Where's her blood? It's all over the RAV4.

The evidence we're given points to someone on the Avery property committing the crime and beyond that, probably points to Steven being the prime suspect. To me that is still the most simple explanation. The girl goes there, something happens and then the killer does a poor job of cleaning it up. Following that the cops do some really shady and illegal shit to ensure a conviction.

The alternatives, outside of it being someone that lives on that Avery property other than Steven, are just so far out in WTFland that I can't give much validity to the theories.

Someone unrelated to Avery kills her and knows he can frame SA because of his history with the county police...
OR someone else unrelated kills her and the cops relocate her remains in order to frame SA
OR cops kill her and then frame him.

I think the bottom line is pretty clear here. The guy was railroaded by a corrupt legal system and that's disgusting, but I don't think it's a stretch to question if he had any involvement in her death. Cad, that comment you posted just points out how bullshit the bulk of Brendan's confession was.

Ambiturner_sl said:

I don't see why nobody's even considering that she may have committed suicide.

People do it every day.

Click to expand...

So she takes photos of the van Steven is selling, drives some distance away from it but still around the county and offs herself? Then the cops find it, shoot her a couple times with a 22, throw some blood around the RAV4 and plant the evidence on the Avery property? That scenario is equally as out there as anything outside of someone on the Avery property being the murderer.

The more realistic than anything else scenario goes like this:
1. TH shows up to SA's property, something happens and is killed, lets just assume by SA for now.
2. SA puts her body in the back of the RAV4, BD comes over and sees it
3. SA plans to dump the body in a pond (as said in BD's confession), but decides instead to burn the corpse at the quarry
4. Body burns too slow, SA collects what he can and takes her to his house where he can burn tires along with the body
5. SA stores core on lot, planning to crush it later
6. Cops fine car, plant a ton of evidence on top of their already strong suspicion that SA is the killer

That scenario has less holes, matches up with what we know about the crime scene, and is way less complicated than anything else anyone has suggested. It also jives with some details that came out of BD's confession that weren't forced out of him.

The thing I want to stress again though, is that I definitely think he was fucked by the system and should not have been found guilty based on the evidence presented. Just that the honest, most simple explanation for what happened is that someone on that property killed her.