Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info

Noodlemod_sl said:

This documentary leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. I am of the thought that he did it and there was simply not enough physical evidence so they falsified evidence for a slam dunk (the key, maybe the blood, the bullet, maybe even moving the body behind his house instead of the barrel) - i think without these pieces it would be reasonable to believe based on his past that he was innocent. Things like his sweat being found on the hood/key certainly make me question the thought of a complete setup, it's just not feasible they had that to plant. I would guess she was killed somewhere else, burned in the barrel and then moved behind his house. She was thrown in the car to transport her from the kill site to Avery's house and then the car was ditched and then moved back by Colbourn(sp) - in reference to his strange phone call.

Just my thoughts anyways. No one truly knows if Avery is innocent besides Avery himself.

Click to expand...

Yeah but you also think the WM3 were/are guilty so is it possible you probably just lean pessimist on this sort of thing?

I've brought up a scenario similar to what you state often in this thread simply to provide a plausible scenario where he did actually do it. That doesn't mean he did and I don't think given current evidence you can even prove that to be true, but I walk away from the doc with a similar sour taste, but it doesn't really have anything to do with his guilt or innocence. I think the film makers do a really great job of accomplishing two things. 1) showing just how railroaded he was by a corrupt legal system and 2) develop a whole ton of compassion for the presumably innocent SA. I feel like only one of those is actually legitimate.


The rape discussion dominating the last few comments has gone a little off the rails. None of that, other than the prosecutor being shitty and tainting the jury pool early, really matters since it didn't come up in Avery's trial. It was awful, but obviously that guy knew what he was doing. Avery spent 18 years as a convicted rapist. It's easy to force that connection again. This part only applies to BD since his confession is really the only thing that gets him convicted.

Noodlemod_sl said:

Yeah I get that. I just figured there was some dead skin cells along with the sweat.

Click to expand...

Right just so you understand it would not be difficult to get Avery's DNA on something with access to his own house.

BD's conviction most likely got Avery convicted as well. Whether it came up in the trial or not, all the jurors were from that shitty small town. They undoubtedly knew the other guy had confessed. Just because they didn't play it for them doesn't mean shit. In fact, not playing it for them probably makes it worse.

Cad_sl said:

BD's conviction most likely got Avery convicted as well. Whether it came up in the trial or not, all the jurors were from that shitty small town. They undoubtedly knew the other guy had confessed. Just because they didn't play it for them doesn't mean shit. In fact, not playing it for them probably makes it worse.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah. I agree completely. That was my comment about Kratz knowing what he was doing when he tainted the jury pool. Of course everyone in that county linked SA to sexual assault very easily and that would definitely impact that jury.

All I was pointing out is that the prosecution didn't end up using BD's confession in Avery's trial. In the end any rape charge was dropped. It wasn't part of their case and as such made me question why we're spending so much time talking about it as the motive, when this isn't what was argued (in SA's trial specifically).

Maester Chuk_sl said:

Jt said the motive for killing TH was rape and I questioned how he came up with that based on any of the evidence found.

Click to expand...

You know what I thought was funny was when the judge wouldn't allow them to present evidence of any third parties without motive.

I know thats the wisconsin statute so its not really the judge's discretion but I'd have stopped and said, can we prevent the state from introducing evidence about my client without motive then as well? Because they have none. "Rape is its own motive!" "I allege the other guys wanted to rape her as well." "Ok then, carry on"

???

Noodlemod_sl said:

but I would still believe he did it.

Click to expand...

This is the part I don't get, why do you believe he did it if you believe the police planted the 3 key pieces of evidence? (Key, bullet, blood in car). Other than those there's literally nothing tying Avery to her death.

Cad_sl said:

This is the part I don't get, why do you believe he did it if you believe the police planted the 3 key pieces of evidence? (Key, bullet, blood in car). Other than those there's literally nothing tying Avery to her death.

Click to expand...

Because they're not mutually exclusive.

Noodlemod_sl said:

He was the last person to see her alive, her body and vehicle are both found on his property, the bullet has her dna on it (but I will throw this out thanks to 1980's lady fucking it up), his dna is on the vehicle in both blood and 'sweat', plus the suspicious circumstances that she even came to the property (has this been verified?).

It seems to me a stretch that the police would kill TH just to frame him, I don't buy that theory. Did they make sure they slam dunked it? I think so.

Click to expand...

Right, so without the 3 key pieces of evidence, we have:

He was the last person to see her alive (how do you know this?)

her body and vehicle are both found on his property

the suspicious circumstances that she even came to the property (has this been verified?)

Noodlemod_sl said:

Right. So like I said - if I was on the jury I could not in good conscience give a guilty verdict even though I believed him to be guilty.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's just your imprecise language that gets me all OCD...

but if you believe him to be guilty, then you believe he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If you believe him not guilty, you think the state has not met their burden of proof for guilt.

To say you would vote not guilty but believe him guilty is a little mind boggling.

You believe he did it, but at some standard of proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt... ? Right?