Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,147
214,433
the thing is, when not in the presence of the cops and left to write his side, Brendan doesnt mention anything about a body or a pond , he claims he and a friend was playing playstation games all day, the mom saw him and then he went over to SA's to watch the "bombfire" after that he came home. that story makes more sense than the hunter and Bobby Dassey's bullshit timelines. the bus driver knows her schedule better than those two fucking stunads.
 

Slaythe

<Bronze Donator>
3,389
141
the thing is, when not in the presence of the cops and left to write his side, Brendan doesnt mention anything about a body or a pond , he claims he and a friend was playing playstation games all day, the mom saw him and then he went over to SA's to watch the "bombfire" after that he came home. that story makes more sense than the hunter and Bobby Dassey's bullshit timelines. the bus driver knows her schedule better than those two fucking stunads.
Yeah I can't disagree with any of this. There's ton of inconsistency when it comes to everything BD said over the course of his interrogations.

But the question I have is still the same. What do you personally think the easiest explanation for her killing is? If you say anything other than someone that lives on that property killing her, I think you're buying into some pretty nutty conspiracy theories.
 

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
73,147
214,433
If I had to choose somebody, then I pick her ex. Dude checks her voicemail heard a bunch of messages from SA about their meeting at his place and got jealous. Perhaps he followed her there and thought he saw something naughty going on and in a fit of rage followed TH's rav 4 after it left and then he signalled her to stop. Then murdered her and drove the body/her car back to the Avery property, threw some sticks over the car and then walked back to his own car. That's the best I got, no idea who burned the body and kept moving the remains around
 

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,080
19,632
I'm not sure you understand the issue with the blood vial and the EDTA. It isn't like a medication vial where you stick a needle through the top and draw up the blood. They have a system set up so you can tell if it had been tampered with that whoever left the pin prick wasnt aware of.

The FBI also stopped doing that test 10 years prior because it was unreliable. A positive test means there's definitely EDTA while a negative test doesn't mean anything.

The garage also has deer blood everywhere, but apparently they called in the Wolf or something who was able to clean everything perfectly while still leaving a believable mess.

What most likely happened is the same as what happened in the first place. They got tunnel vision on SA and did everything they could to make him appear guilty. He's not a good guy so the ends justify the means
 

Slaythe

<Bronze Donator>
3,389
141
The FBI also stopped doing that test 10 years prior because it was unreliable. A positive test means there's definitely EDTA while a negative test doesn't mean anything.
So I understand that you're telling me it's unreliable and also that the defense expert told us it's unreliable, but that FBI agent sure didn't think it was. What i'm saying is that if I'm on that jury, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe otherwise. Is the FBI in cahoots with the Manitowoc police department?
 

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,080
19,632
If one expert says it works and another expert says it doesn't work, that doesn't reach the level of reasonable doubt in your opinion? Why do you automatically believe one over the other?
 

Slaythe

<Bronze Donator>
3,389
141
If one expert says it works and another expert says it doesn't work, that doesn't reach the level of reasonable doubt in your opinion? Why do you automatically believe one over the other?
No. If that was the standard to establish reasonable doubt, no one would ever be found guilty over scientific evidence, because the defense is always going to find someone to provide an alternative. In this instance, I don't know why I'm supposed to think that FBI agent wasn't being truthful.

I feel like I have to repeat this every post, but I'm not talking about reasonable doubt. I do not think Steven Avery should have been found guilty in that trial. I think he very much deserves another trial. I just also think there's a realistic possibility that he also killed that girl.
 

Khane

Got something right about marriage
20,626
14,374
No. If that was the standard to establish reasonable doubt, no one would ever be found guilty over scientific evidence, because the defense is always going to find someone to provide an alternative. In this instance, I don't know why I'm supposed to think that FBI agent wasn't being truthful.

I feel like I have to repeat this every post, but I'm not talking about reasonable doubt. I do not think Steven Avery should have been found guilty in that trial. I think he very much deserves another trial. I just also think there's a realistic possibility that he also killed that girl.
And what makes you think it's reasonable to assume he killed her? You know why you're picking the wrong witness to believe in that supposedly 50/50 shot on the EDTA evidence? Because the prosecution had already proved they're not trustworthy.

But you've already stated you're playing devil's advocate.
 

Slaythe

<Bronze Donator>
3,389
141
And what makes you think it's reasonable to assume he killed her?
In a legal sense? There probably isn't anything reasonable. Someone did though and I don't see how it was anyone other than someone on that property.

For this specific part though again I struggle to see how the Manitowoc corruption implicates the FBI.
 

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,080
19,632
No. If that was the standard to establish reasonable doubt, no one would ever be found guilty over scientific evidence, because the defense is always going to find someone to provide an alternative. In this instance, I don't know why I'm supposed to think that FBI agent wasn't being truthful.

I feel like I have to repeat this every post, but I'm not talking about reasonable doubt. I do not think Steven Avery should have been found guilty in that trial. I think he very much deserves another trial. I just also think there's a realistic possibility that he also killed that girl.
He said he was 100% sure the blood had no EDTA. His own employer, the FBI, stopped doing the test because it wasn't reliable. He also said he was 100% sure that blood he didn't even test had no EDTA in it.

If you don't see any reason to think he might not be completely truthful, then nothing I can say will change your mind.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,740
9,159
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.
And all this based off a retard's statement you don't even believe is real. Lawyers gonna laywer
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,740
9,159
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.
....
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.
This has pretty much been my point all along
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,882
50,904
In a legal sense? There probably isn't anything reasonable. Someone did though and I don't see how it was anyone other than someone on that property.
There was no identified murder scene on the property, the few items of hers and the remains could have been carried there in a small box. The DNA evidence tying Avery to her was almost certainly planted due to the timelines/way it was discovered.

So I don't see why you'd conclude it had to be someone on that property. She could have been killed anywhere, and by anybody.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,740
9,159
If I had to choose somebody, then I pick her ex. Dude checks her voicemail heard a bunch of messages from SA about their meeting at his place and got jealous. Perhaps he followed her there and thought he saw something naughty going on and in a fit of rage followed TH's rav 4 after it left and then he signalled her to stop. Then murdered her and drove the body/her car back to the Avery property, threw some sticks over the car and then walked back to his own car. That's the best I got, no idea who burned the body and kept moving the remains around
The ex was certainly shady, but I think the best explanation for his shiftiness is that he was complicit in the planting of evidence. Imagine the cops going to him, saying 'we know this guy killed your ex girlfriend and we want to make sure he's nailed for it'. Would explain some of his indirectness and vagueness when being questioned
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,740
9,159
I'm not sure you understand the issue with the blood vial and the EDTA. It isn't like a medication vial where you stick a needle through the top and draw up the blood. They have a system set up so you can tell if it had been tampered with that whoever left the pin prick wasnt aware of.
Do you mean the system of signing out the evidence? Because if I'm not mistaken, the EDTA test was simply to find out if the anticoagulant was present in the blood samples taken from inside the car. That has nothing to do with any specific system to see if the vial was tampered with. But you're right in that an absence of evidence in that test is not evidence of absence
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,882
50,904
Do you mean the system of signing out the evidence? Because if I'm not mistaken, the EDTA test was simply to find out if the anticoagulant was present in the blood samples taken from inside the car. That has nothing to do with any specific system to see if the vial was tampered with. But you're right in that an absence of evidence in that test is not evidence of absence
I wonder if the blood on the dash could have been anybody's, and the blood was replaced with Avery's at some point between collection and the lab. As soon as you start wondering if the cops are corrupt, anything can happen. Makes everything so questionable.
 

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,740
9,159
I wonder if the blood on the dash could have been anybody's, and the blood was replaced with Avery's at some point between collection and the lab. As soon as you start wondering if the cops are corrupt, anything can happen. Makes everything so questionable.
I wouldn't call this unreasonable