Making a Murderer (Netflix) - New info
- Thread starter Adebisi
- Start date
-
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!
- 6,338
- 7,144
And his blood was in her car. And her bones were in his burn barrel on his property. And a bullet was found in his garage with her DNA on it. And her car key was found in his house. And Steve had raped a family member previously. And the murder weapon was on the wall of his house. And...
The idea his blood was planted is ludicrous. Do an experiment: cut your finger, drip blood on a table, and time how long it takes to coagulate. It's just a few minutes (minutes to 15 minutes to 30 minutes depending on where I read.) The idea that Steven bled, then left his house, someone then came in and siphoned up his blood before it clotted, then planted it in a car, is just absolutely impossible.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 2
- 1
- 6,338
- 7,144
James
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 2,804
- 7,056
You guys are fucking retarded, the documentary clearly lays out specific and technical contradictions to everything you've listed. I'm not going to bother rehashing the argument on those grounds, the show stands on its own, I'm arguing that you're clearly retarded, brain damaged, or otherwise mentally deranged on some level to be able to entertain your line of thinking. There's NO MOTIVE for the state to frame an innocent man that they're about to have to pay out shitloads of money to? You expect me to believe Ken fucking Kratz over the word of a man who previously proved he was falsely convicted?
Not going to happen. Re-evaluate your entire lives, shitbags.
Not going to happen. Re-evaluate your entire lives, shitbags.
- 6
- 1
- 1
Yeah. Needing to pay out taxpayer money to a falsely convicted person is bad enough. Needing to pay out taxpayer money to a falsely convicted person that was the focus of one of the most popular crime documentaries of the past decade that has helped spawn an entire new genre of television is terrifying. That's the type of shit that opens the possibility of people getting put in prison due to their actions. The motive is incredibly strong to double-down and bury as much as possible.
- 1
- 6,338
- 7,144
I can't tell if you're trolling or not? The documentary is demonstrably false, for example how it tried to put forth the idea that Avery's blood was taken from the phlebotomy tube and planted that way. Please explain how Avery's blood got in her car, keeping in mind that blood clots/dries within minutes.
- 2
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,620
- 14,359
Kathleen's team not only explained how, but actually re-created various scenarios showing how in this second season.
She also hired quite a few very reputable forensic scientists who are ready to refute every aspect of the original forensic testimony. Forensic scientists I recognize from shows like Forensic files that have a ton of experience and have been a part of a lot of criminal investigations.
Did you actually watch any of the first or second season?
She also hired quite a few very reputable forensic scientists who are ready to refute every aspect of the original forensic testimony. Forensic scientists I recognize from shows like Forensic files that have a ton of experience and have been a part of a lot of criminal investigations.
Did you actually watch any of the first or second season?
- 2
Lanx
<Prior Amod>
- 66,100
- 150,632
Lanx
<Prior Amod>
- 66,100
- 150,632
did you see the cut? it was on the joint, and it was fresh.
do you know what that means? everytime you bend your finger, you reopen that wound again and again.
go ahead, cut yourself
Noodleface
A Mod Real Quick
- 38,374
- 16,281
The only thing they prove is Kratz theory was wrong. No one has been able to prove Avery was framed.
OU Ariakas
Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
- 7,476
- 21,182
Murder in this country requires a juror to be 99% sure there is no other explanation other than the prosecutions assertions to bring back a guilty verdict. In both of these cases the procecutions cases get fucking destroyed by facts and proof that their story could not physically happen.
In both cases you default to the guilt of the accused simply because there is no better explanation. It's like you need to blame someone and they are just guilty enough.
- 6,338
- 7,144
No she didn’t. She uses blood from a vial that has an anticoagulant in it. That’s how her example blood could sit in a testtube for hours and hours and hours without clotting. She did not use real blood. Real blood clots in minutes.
For her scenario to be plausible someone would have to get Avery’s blood within minutes of him bleeding. And the idea of picking up a large amount of real blood within minutes using a pipette is laughable. I’d love to know how someone magically knew he was bleeding, broke into his house, got his one minute old blood, transported it to the car, and planted it, before it clotted.
Do y’all really think Zellner put forth ANY plausible alternative theories? I did like her blood experts thoughts on the blood splatter on the back door of the RAV4. He seems totally correct there. But her just picking every other male and accusing them of the murder was deplorable.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 1
- 1
Lanx
<Prior Amod>
- 66,100
- 150,632
yea blood on the ignition, blood flakes spread throughout the area, not a single fingerprint. huge dab of "sweat dna" on the hood release, no fingerprints. Steven Avery is a master criminal at covering up his tracks, just don't let him nick himself.
- 2
OU Ariakas
Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
- 7,476
- 21,182
- 6,338
- 7,144
You guys keep changing the subject. Zellners scenario was not plausible. She did not use unmodified blood, and there isn’t a plausible explanation for how Stephen can bleed and his blood show up in a vehicle within minutes without it coagulating.
James
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 2,804
- 7,056
If this is the only reason you think Steven Avery has to be guilty, you're an idiot. They did use blood that clotted *within minutes* to perform their test of how the blood got into the car. In fact, they specifically used it because the dried flakes of blood found on the carpet should have left a blood stain, but they didn't. Bobby and Scott Tadych knew and had access to Steven's blood, and further Bobby was found to be looking at mutilated pictures of women's corpses.
There's no mixtures of blood, there's no fingerprints, and blood spatter analysis has proven that what the state claimed happened, didn't. There is nothing more to this case than the state trying to cover its ass, as the lies have stacked up the severity of retribution has multiplied and furthered the state's need to cover its ass. America will not be great until this travesty of justice is rectified and fixed, permanently.
- 4
James
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 2,804
- 7,056
Also, if Kratz's theory was wrong, ipso facto Avery was framed by the prosecution.
- 3
OU Ariakas
Diet Dr. Pepper Enjoyer
- 7,476
- 21,182
He is innocent until proven guilty; the state must bring the plausible story and it has to be 99% plausible. That is why I asked if you think his first trial was fair. I am actually with you and Noodle in thinking the most likely killer IS Avery; but that is not the point of the documentary. The point is to show just how badly the state railroaded him at every turn and used unethical and sometimes illegal tactics that were then approved by a sitting judge.
So yes, now it is hard for someone to prove that he is innocent but they never adequately proved his guilt in the first place.
Noodleface
All of this applies to the Michael Peterson case also. He is the most likely killer, but that is not the point. You cannot just be the most likely you have to be the killer without a shadow of a doubt. - 2
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,620
- 14,359
Easiest way to assume he was framed was when they said insurance wasn't going to cover the 36 million in wrongful conviction case. How much money does that county have? Would it bankrupt them or come close?
- 2