Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[Azrael 5]

My concern is no-one saw this huge fire,least of all Avery being it outside his trailer! There are some anomalies:why not crush the car,why burn the body right outside your front door,why no DNA ,no physical evidence,that cannot be ruled un-contaminated?

No trace of any clean up,nor victim,they sue did a good job of destroying the body. But the flip side that cops killed her burned her remains then planted everything at Avery's is far fetched.

[truethat]

I think this case is an odd mix of him killing her but knowing that certain evidence was planted.

His convincing demeanor is because he knows 100% they planted the key in his room, for example. How does he know that? Something like "I know they planted the key in my room because I left it in the ignition when I moved the car!"

But he can't say that. So it's this odd dance between him and the police.

And as to his motive etc or why he thought he'd get away with it? Because he thought he was untouchable at that moment because of the law suit.

He sexually assaulted the woman and killed her. Burned her body and hid the car. He probably thought they wouldn't come looking for her so quickly with so much attention. He also probably thought that his lawyers would be able to prevent the cops from coming on his property.

[JTF]

SG: I admire your passion for this case, but even those who believe that the police planted evidence on the Avery compound admit that there is ample evidence of guilt.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies...nt-present.php

Notice how this article also disputes the claim that Dassey was fed inside information by the two lead detectives in this case? The 2nd interrogation of Dassey has recently been posted on Youtube and I watched the entire 1 hour 13 minute interview. Not only did Dassey arrange the meeting, but there is not a single instance where detectives fed Dassey information.

I viewed the interview as two detectives simply doing their jobs. They challenged Dassey on why some of the details given in this interview were different than the ones Dassey provided in the initial interrogation. The detectives already had a working knowledge of the evidence, so they were able to determine when they could call Dassey out on b.s.

IMO, the KISS philosophy has been replaced in this case with conspiratorial thinking and an attempt to bang square pegs into round holes. If Avery wasn't wrongfully convicted on a rape charge, this case would have been a blip on the media's radar screen.

I feel confident in asserting that this is the ONLY high profile murder case that has sparked public outrage despite a victim's burned body being discovered in the perp's backyard. In addition, the victim's cell phone and palm pilot are found in a burn barrel, the victim's DNA is found on a bullet fragment, the perp's DNA is found inside the victim's car, under the hood, and on the victim's car key.

In addition, the confessor in this case tells his mother that the perp molested him, that the entire family was frightened of the perp's anger outbursts, and a woman claims that the perp raped her a year before the perp was convicted of raping and murdering Teresa Halbach.

[SomedayGirl]

The sexual assault charge was dropped, truethat, and he was not convicted of that.

Dassey was charged with it and was convicted.

Just one of the many squirrelly parts of this case.

[truethat]

I'm not talking about what went through the system I'm talking about what I actually think happened based on the evidence.

I think his girlfriend is tossed in jail and he's bitter and angry. He's mad the photographer won't come see him knowing it's him. He gets out of control and sexually assaults her and then he realizes that it could mess up his law suit if she goes to the cops.

So he kills her. He thinks he's in the clear because OF the lawsuit and that they won't come on his property. So he hides the car and burns the body and the camera and the phone.

The third phone call was sent for some reason without hiding his phone number. His way of putting an alibi up. (Dumb)

But like I said, his demeanor is interesting to watch. When they talk about some things he gets very upset and you can tell he KNOWS that they planted the evidence, not that he thinks they did. He knows they did because he knows what really happened because he did it.

IMO YMMV

[SomedayGirl]

JTF, I already addressed most of what is in your link either in the post replying to it directly or in the one that answers Kratz's email.

I'm passionate about it because it's interesting, more an intense curiosity than a passion I suppose, not because I have any particular investment in Avery's guilt or innocence. He might have done it, might not. There's a very simple narrative that can be made that he did, but it can only work if you boot the sketchy evidence and get rid of Dassey from the story. That's not how they went and as a result, to me, the case is a mangled mess questionable actions by law enforcement, prosecutors, and a public defender which leads to questionable convictions.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl

JTF, I already addressed most of what is in your link either in the post replying to it directly or in the one that answers Kratz's email.

I'm passionate about it because it's interesting, more an intense curiosity than a passion I suppose, not because I have any particular investment in Avery's guilt or innocence. He might have done it, might not. There's a very simple narrative that can be made that he did, but it can only work if you boot the sketchy evidence and get rid of Dassey from the story. That's not how they went and as a result, to me, the case is a mangled mess questionable actions by law enforcement, prosecutors, and a public defender which leads to questionable convictions.

Absolutely. Even the timing of Dassey's visit to Avery's trailer is problematic, Dassey himself giving different times and the bus driver's testimony contradicting both times (if I recall correctly).

[SomedayGirl]

Originally Posted by truethat

I'm not talking about what went through the system I'm talking about what I actually think happened based on the evidence.

I think his girlfriend is tossed in jail and he's bitter and angry. He's mad the photographer won't come see him knowing it's him. He gets out of control and sexually assaults her and then he realizes that it could mess up his law suit if she goes to the cops.

So he kills her. He thinks he's in the clear because OF the lawsuit and that they won't come on his property. So he hides the car and burns the body and the camera and the phone.

The third phone call was sent for some reason without hiding his phone number. His way of putting an alibi up. (Dumb)

But like I said, his demeanor is interesting to watch. When they talk about some things he gets very upset and you can tell he KNOWS that they planted the evidence, not that he thinks they did. He knows they did because he knows what really happened because he did it.

IMO YMMV

The problem is there's no evidence at all that there was a sexual assault other than what Dassey says. Jodi spoke to Avery twice that day, says he was completely fine. He didn't seem angry or bitter about her arrest. No one else describes him that way in the days leading up to Halloween.

"The photographer wouldn't come see him" makes no sense - she DID go see him. lol She knew exactly where she was going, she'd been there several times before. Bobby Dassey says he saw her, alive, on Avery's front porch.

It much simpler if he just snaps, reason unknown, and kills her somewhere outside (now we can understand why there's no blood in the trailer or garage). Throws her body in the back of the RAV4 (now that blood is accounted for), drives her to the burn barrel and throws her and all her possessions in it and lights it up (now the remains found there and her belongings are accounted for). He parks the vehicle and throws a couple things on it intending to deal with it later. Disconnects the battery to be sure the alarm doesn't go off (DNA on the hood latch accounted for).

He realizes the burn is not going to be fast enough or complete enough what with peeps coming home and coming over. Plus it smells. He moves what remains to the burn pit and covers most of her up with debris already there. Asks Dassey for help gathering stuff to pile on a "bomb fire".

Viola. The only evidence outstanding is the ones that are most questionable (his blood in the SUV, the bullet fragment in the garage), the pelvic bones in the quarry (which no scenario including the one presented at trial really can make sense of - it was never ID'd as being Halbach's, just burned and female and it was a half mile away), and no need to wonder how he Dextered the house and garage.

That's how it COULD have happened, dunno if that's it but it makes much better sense than the story presented at the trial. Might not have been enough to convict. Problem comes I think when they decided they'd enhance their case to make sure and then badgered a poor learning disabled 16yo into saying a bunch of crap to account for it.

[johnny karate]

If Avery did do it, it wasn't the way the prosecution described. I think they found themselves in the position of creating a theory of the crime that matched the manipulated evidence of the investigation.

Like I said before, the compromised investigation ended up obfuscating the truth.

[truethat]

From what I read, she said he was creepy and she didn't want to go see him. She only went to see him because he gave his sisters name and number to the company to get her to come out. (This is why he blocked his number on the first two calls)

The evidence of a sexual assault is in my opinion of why he killed her. He had no motive to kill her unless something happened there that day. So either he just killed her, or, IMO he sexually assaulted her in some way and she turned on him. And he knew if she reported him he'd lose his law suit.

I don't believe his nephew's story at all. I think he did it by himself and the nephew just witnessed the burning of the body.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

If Avery did do it, it wasn't the way the prosecution described. I think they found themselves in the position of creating a theory of the crime that matched the manipulated evidence of the investigation.

Like I said before, the compromised investigation ended up obfuscating the truth.

I agree with this. But if he's guilty he's right where he should be. So the idea of signing a petition to get a person who murdered an animal before and has now murdered a woman out of jail, just because the police were corrupt is apples and oranges to me.

I'm glad the cops are getting put under the radar. But in my opinion only an idiot would sign a petition asking for this guy to be released from jail. He's guilty.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

My concern is no-one saw this huge fire,least of all Avery being it outside his trailer! There are some anomalies:why not crush the car,why burn the body right outside your front door,why no DNA ,no physical evidence,that cannot be ruled un-contaminated?

No trace of any clean up,nor victim,they sue did a good job of destroying the body. But the flip side that cops killed her burned her remains then planted everything at Avery's is far fetched.

I certainly don't think the cops killed Halbach, nor do I think they explicitly framed Avery. I they simply nudged the investigation in the direction they wanted it to go, and perhaps planted a piece of evidence or two to make sure the charges stuck.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

From what I read, she said he was creepy and she didn't want to go see him. She only went to see him because he gave his sisters name and number to the company to get her to come out. (This is why he blocked his number on the first two calls)

You've made a very convincing case that Steven Avery is creepy (which was never in dispute). And that's about it.

ETA: Also, I'm not sure what sources you're reading exactly, but from what I've seen most of these claims come from the prosecutor on the case, Ken Kratz. I don't know how far into the series you are, but let's just say he's proven to be less then ethical and certainly the last person to be calling anyone else "creepy".

Quote:

The evidence of a sexual assault is in my opinion of why he killed her. He had no motive to kill her unless something happened there that day. So either he just killed her, or, IMO he sexually assaulted her in some way and she turned on him. And he knew if she reported him he'd lose his law suit.

I don't believe his nephew's story at all. I think he did it by himself and the nephew just witnessed the burning of the body.

The only evidence of sexual assault comes from the nephew's "confession". So if you don't believe his story... I'm not sure on what basis you believe a sexual assault actually occurred.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

I agree with this. But if he's guilty he's right where he should be. So the idea of signing a petition to get a person who murdered an animal before and has now murdered a woman out of jail, just because the police were corrupt is apples and oranges to me.

I'm glad the cops are getting put under the radar. But in my opinion only an idiot would sign a petition asking for this guy to be released from jail. He's guilty.

There's a bit of circular logic there. We don't know Avery killed Halbach, and it's obvious the investigation and evidence that lead to his conviction are dubious at best. So I'm not sure on what you base your certainty that he is in fact a murderer.

Personally, I find it a bit chilling that we so casually disregard the rule of law as long as we're convicting someone who seems guilty.

[johnny karate]

And then there's this:

"Making a Murderer" filmmakers: Original juror believes Steven Avery was framed

Take it with the appropriate grain of salt, but this makes the second juror to (allegedly) come forward with such a claim.

[truethat]

Evidence her dead body was found on his property (This is some damn compelling evidence for christ's sake) and her body had been burned on his property. (so how exactly is this happening without his knowledge) Her car with his DNA on the trunk (forget the blood inside) was found on his property.

He called her twice and had a sexual predatory history with her. He blocked the phone calls. He admitted he was the last person to see her alive.

There's reasonable doubt and there is common sense. I am not on a jury right now.

It's obvious that he killed her. I've watched many crime shows where the person who did it tried to cover it up and almost got away with it. The reason they got convicted was usually a SMALL detail.

For example a husband said he tried to save his wife who was shot on the beach with him. But the back of her pants wasteline, had no blood on it and that's how he said he dragged her. He got busted by a lie.


So in this case the thing that stands out to me is that he called her phone two times with his number blocked. He did this because he knew if she saw the number she would know it was him. When he called her the last time he did not block the number because he knew she was already dead. It was an unconscious mistake.

I think the cops planted evidence. I think the cops cooerced a confession out of the kid. And then they had to run with the story that they built.

But the cops know and Steven knows it's a bunch of baloney. They both know that's not really how it went down.


(And to answer your other question again. MY EVIDENCE that a sexual assault occurred is based on two things. His own history. And the fact that she's DEAD. What motive would he have to KILL Her? Think about it? Why kill her?

In my opinion he sexually assaulted her and because of that he killed her.

[SomedayGirl]

Originally Posted by truethat

From what I read, she said he was creepy and she didn't want to go see him. She only went to see him because he gave his sisters name and number to the company to get her to come out. (This is why he blocked his number on the first two calls)

The evidence of a sexual assault is in my opinion of why he killed her. He had no motive to kill her unless something happened there that day. So either he just killed her, or, IMO he sexually assaulted her in some way and she turned on him. And he knew if she reported him he'd lose his law suit.

I don't believe his nephew's story at all. I think he did it by himself and the nephew just witnessed the burning of the body.

She didn't say he was creepy or that she didn't want to go see him (links elsewhere on the thread). Exhibit A for that - she went. There's literally nothing on Avery Road except the Avery houses and the salvage lot. She'd know, having been there several times before that, if the address is Avery Road, Steven Avery probably will be there. He gave his sister's name because it was her car - when he made the appointment he wasn't disguising his voice, he sounded like himself. He called back and asked for her specifically so again, he wasn't trying to conceal anything about who he was or where Halbach would be going.

Dassey being a witness to the aftermath could make sense and I don't have any problem with that.

Thing is I'm not at beyond a reasonable doubt with Avery. As johnny karate said, whatever happened it wasn't what was in their case. Dassey's case is appalling IMO, a real miscarriage happened there.

[truethat]

One thing that I'm not quite getting across is that he is confident in his lies. There's a difference. You can tell that he is CONFIDENT in the interrogation with the police. He knows that the key was not found in his room. He knows that the blood was not found in her car.

He knows they framed him. He's not thinking "Wait maybe someone else put it there?" "Wait maybe she came by and dropped the key in the house?" How did it get there.

He knows that they did it but the average person is thinking "They know he did it because he was innocent last time."

I'm saying "He knows they framed him because it's different from how the murder really went down and he knows how it went down because he did it."

[bobdroege7]

I watched this over the holidays and there is just one thing that I can't explain.

One of the police called in the victims plate number two days before the car was found on Avery's property.

Something is really fishy about that.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

Evidence her dead body was found on his property (This is some damn compelling evidence for christ's sake) and her body had been burned on his property. (so how exactly is this happening without his knowledge) Her car with his DNA on the trunk (forget the blood inside) was found on his property.

He called her twice and had a sexual predatory history with her. He blocked the phone calls. He admitted he was the last person to see her alive.

There's reasonable doubt and there is common sense. I am not on a jury right now.

It's obvious that he killed her. I've watched many crime shows where the person who did it tried to cover it up and almost got away with it. The reason they got convicted was usually a SMALL detail.

For example a husband said he tried to save his wife who was shot on the beach with him. But the back of her pants wasteline, had no blood on it and that's how he said he dragged her. He got busted by a lie.


So in this case the thing that stands out to me is that he called her phone two times with his number blocked. He did this because he knew if she saw the number she would know it was him. When he called her the last time he did not block the number because he knew she was already dead. It was an unconscious mistake.

I think the cops planted evidence. I think the cops cooerced a confession out of the kid. And then they had to run with the story that they built.

But the cops know and Steven knows it's a bunch of baloney. They both know that's not really how it went down.


(And to answer your other question again. MY EVIDENCE that a sexual assault occurred is based on two things. His own history. And the fact that she's DEAD. What motive would he have to KILL Her? Think about it? Why kill her?

In my opinion he sexually assaulted her and because of that he killed her.

I get that you think he's guilty, and I have no problem with that. He might actually be guilty.

But pretty much everything in this post has already been addressed. And I don't think a meaningful discussion can be had if the same arguments are rehashed over and over again.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

One thing that I'm not quite getting across is that he is confident in his lies. There's a difference. You can tell that he is CONFIDENT in the interrogation with the police. He knows that the key was not found in his room. He knows that the blood was not found in her car.

He knows they framed him. He's not thinking "Wait maybe someone else put it there?" "Wait maybe she came by and dropped the key in the house?" How did it get there.

He knows that they did it but the average person is thinking "They know he did it because he was innocent last time."

I'm saying "He knows they framed him because it's different from how the murder really went down and he knows how it went down because he did it."

You know who else might exhibit confidence during a police interrogation?

An innocent person.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bobdroege7

I watched this over the holidays and there is just one thing that I can't explain.

One of the police called in the victims plate number two days before the car was found on Avery's property.

Something is really fishy about that.

Yeah, that was definitely one of the most alarming details of the case, and one for which an explanation was never provided.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You know who else might exhibit confidence during a police interrogation?

An innocent person.

Wow!!!!!!!! Really, omg I never thought of that!


So your argument is that he's innocent and somehow someway the body just happened to show up on his property?

If he's innocent and his nephew is singing this song about how all this stuff went down, then why isn't he suggesting that the nephew did it?

Again, (and it's kind of annoying that you just keep dismissing what I'm saying out of a knee jerk reaction instead of considering it)

Go watch the interrogation video. He's CONFIDENT about two particular bits of evidence.

An innocent person isn't going to automatically say "The cops had to have planted it."

The won't know how it got there. They'd be confused. They'd be suspicious.

He's not acting like that.

Also please don't waste time arguing this man is innocent. I"m not willing to have that discussion because I just think it's a ridiculous assertion.

The only issue is if the cops framed him in order to get the confiction and that his nephew who is innocent was dragged into it.

[SomedayGirl]

Originally Posted by truethat

I agree with this. But if he's guilty he's right where he should be. So the idea of signing a petition to get a person who murdered an animal before and has now murdered a woman out of jail, just because the police were corrupt is apples and oranges to me.

I'm glad the cops are getting put under the radar. But in my opinion only an idiot would sign a petition asking for this guy to be released from jail. He's guilty.

My name won't be appearing on a petition either. LOL However, I am not as sanguine about corruption. If it comes to light that police did in fact manipulate of manufacture evidence, it won't matter to me if he's guiilty or not - he should be immediately released. If they'd tamper with evidence to get a conviction of a guilty person (assuming that's the case for Avery) there's no reason for them not to do it to other, less assuredly guilty people or even outright innocent people (Dassey for example). If a poisoned tree is allowed to stand it's a bad precedent and a frightening signal to law enforcement.

Insert old saw here some variant about one quilty person going free...

[truethat]

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl

My name won't be appearing on a petition either. LOL However, I am not as sanguine about corruption. If it comes to light that police did in fact manipulate of manufacture evidence, it won't matter to me if he's guiilty or not - he should be immediately released. If they'd tamper with evidence to get a conviction of a guilty person (assuming that's the case for Avery) there's no reason for them not to do it to other, less assuredly guilty people or even outright innocent people (Dassey for example). If a poisoned tree is allowed to stand it's a bad precedent and a frightening signal to law enforcement.

Insert old saw here some variant about one quilty person going free...

Yeah I can understand this argument. But the guy is so creepy. Makes me wish for the days of the Star Chamber!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Chamber

[lionking]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The only evidence of sexual assault comes from the nephew's "confession". So if you don't believe his story... I'm not sure on what basis you believe a sexual assault actually occurred.

There's no physical evidence of sexual assault, stabbing or murder. Not a trace of DNA. No blood, tissue or semen. Not a fingerprint of the victim, nor were Avery's fingerprints in the SUV. No evidence of materials like bleach to clean things up. These two simpletons were nonetheless criminal masterminds who cleaned up things so thoroughly that forensic experts with weeks to do their jobs found nothing.

Come off it. These guys have trouble walking and chewing gum. The lack of physical evidence in the trailer is the biggest problem with the prosecution case in my view. Amongst many other problems well articulated by you and SomedayGirl.

[lionking]

Jeez, "creepy" is now grounds for conviction......

[Caper]

Originally Posted by JTF

In the weeks leading up to the murders, Avery called Halbach's workplace several times requesting that Halbach return to his residence. Avery called Halbach 3 times on 11/31/05, and he used the Star 67 feature for the first two phone calls. Avery lured her to the residence by claiming that his sister would meet Halbach at the Avery compound. Avery's last phone call was recorded approximately an hour after Halbach's arrival at the Avery compound. Avery did not use the Star 67 feature for this phone call. Avery left a message wondering why Halbach didn't show up in an attempt to create an alibi.

To me this is pretty damning evidence. The most damning. I might even convict base on this. It almost kills my fantasy that he is again innocent and framed by the police.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

So your argument is that he's innocent and somehow someway the body just happened to show up on his property?

I'm not saying he's innocent at all. I'm simply offering an alternative theory to yours.

Also, Steven Avery was not the only person who lived on or had access to that property. This has been point out numerous times.

Quote:

If he's innocent and his nephew is singing this song about how all this stuff went down, then why isn't he suggesting that the nephew did it?

Maybe because he doesn't think the nephew did it.

Quote:

Again, (and it's kind of annoying that you just keep dismissing what I'm saying out of a knee jerk reaction instead of considering it)

You're not giving me much to consider. Your arguments primarily consist of points that have been addressed or refuted, and I guess what could only be called your gut feeling that he's guilty.

Quote:

Go watch the interrogation video. He's CONFIDENT about two particular bits of evidence.

I've watched it. And offered you other reasons he might be confident. You have dismissed them out of hand.

Quote:

An innocent person isn't going to automatically say "The cops had to have planted it."

An innocent person who had previously been railroaded by the very same police force who are now interrogating him might.

Quote:

The won't know how it got there. They'd be confused. They'd be suspicious.

He's not acting like that.

Maybe because he believes the police are framing him a second time. I don't specifically recall, but I seem to remember Avery making that clear throughout the series. He thinks the Manitowoc County police framed him back in 1985. Now he thinks they're framing him again. I'm not sure why you think this is such a leap.

Quote:

Also please don't waste time arguing this man is innocent. I"m not willing to have that discussion because I just think it's a ridiculous assertion.

You should perhaps read my posts. I've never even approached such an assertion, and have made it quite clear how I feel about that issue.

Quote:

The only issue is if the cops framed him in order to get the confiction and that his nephew who is innocent was dragged into it.

I agree. That is the only issue. Or certainly the most important one.

[Samzilla]

Originally Posted by truethat

One thing that I'm not quite getting across is that he is confident in his lies. There's a difference. You can tell that he is CONFIDENT in the interrogation with the police. He knows that the key was not found in his room. He knows that the blood was not found in her car.

He knows they framed him. He's not thinking "Wait maybe someone else put it there?" "Wait maybe she came by and dropped the key in the house?" How did it get there.

He knows that they did it but the average person is thinking "They know he did it because he was innocent last time."

I'm saying "He knows they framed him because it's different from how the murder really went down and he knows how it went down because he did it."

There is another possibility that explains why he knows they framed him.

[truethat]

You have a dead body on your property that has been burned. You are innocent and feel like you have been framed by the police.

A. Where did the body come from?

B. Who killed her?

Later during the investigation your nephew confesses to killing the woman with you. You know you are innocent.

What would your reaction be? "Oh they cooerced a confession out of him" or "What the hell is going on? Did my nephew do this? Is my nephew guilty and trying to blame this on me? Does this explain how a dead woman's cremains wound up on my property after I met her?"

Or "Nope he's innocent too. The cops are lying!" I know most people aren't really going to stop and consider this point. They'll just ignore it, but it's important in my opinion.

I would think the normal reaction of an innocent man who is sitting there wondering how a dead woman's burned body showed up on his property would at least wonder if the nephew had something to do with it.

The only other explanation is that you think the cops murdered her.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by lionking

Jeez, "creepy" is now grounds for conviction......

That, and making phone calls regarding a legitimate business transaction.

It really is interesting to see the different reactions to this case, and how perfectly they echo the very problems highlighted in the documentary.

Apparently, some people seem guilty enough to not be granted that same rights and privileges as the rest of us. And I find it frightening there are those who are okay with that.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

That, and making phone calls regarding a legitimate business transaction.

It really is interesting to see the different reactions to this case, and how perfectly they echo the very problems highlighted in the documentary.

Apparently, some people seem guilty enough to not be granted that same rights and privileges as the rest of us. And I find it frightening there are those who are okay with that.

This and the comment to which you are replying are stupid. I'm sorry. No one is saying "There's a creepy guy, **** his rights"

Again..............THERE...........IS...........A ......DEAD............BODY .........ON........HIS ...............PROPERTY

He met her and was the last one to see her alive.


If you don't think he killed her, then who do you think killed her? As you yourself pointed out, it's an isolated area. Not a well traveled place.

Are you suggesting a stranger came in and killed her? Her boyfriend? Her boss? His sister?

And again. He's HOME............and someone BURNS A BODY on his property and he doesn't notice?


Stop playing games. You're ignoring the actual evidence and acting like the only evidence they do have is the planted evidence.

Hello...........dead body????

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

You have a dead body on your property that has been burned. You are innocent and feel like you have been framed by the police.

A. Where did the body come from?

B. Who killed her?

Later during the investigation your nephew confesses to killing the woman with you. You know you are innocent.

What would your reaction be? "Oh they cooerced a confession out of him" or "What the hell is going on? Did my nephew do this? Is my nephew guilty and trying to blame this on me? Does this explain how a dead woman's cremains wound up on my property after I met her?"

Or "Nope he's innocent too. The cops are lying!" I know most people aren't really going to stop and consider this point. They'll just ignore it, but it's important in my opinion.

I would think the normal reaction of an innocent man who is sitting there wondering how a dead woman's burned body showed up on his property would at least wonder if the nephew had something to do with it.

The only other explanation is that you think the cops murdered her.

Maybe he did wonder that, and it wasn't depicted in the documentary. Maybe he did think the cops murdered her, and his nephew was part of the frame-up. Maybe he didn't wonder who killed her because he didn't care.

Or... maybe he's an emotionally disturbed man with an IQ in the 70s with very good reason to distrust anything a cop says to him who simply didn't respond in a way that random people on the internet think he should have.

[truethat]

Maybe that's your reply to what I posted?

We're just picking on this poor mentally retarded man who is completely innocent and convicting him because he's "creepy."

It's got nothing to do with the dead burned corpse of the murder victim on his property, her car on his property and the phone calls and admission that he met her that day.


I mean damn some people scare the crap out of me. In a normal murder case without any of the drama or corruption, he'd be GUILTY as CHARGED.

But because some documentary tells you that the cops did it, people follow along like lemmings instead of using any critical thinking at all.

It's freakin' scary how people don't think any more.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Well, they didn’t choose him. At least not for that. They starting filming his story after he was exonerated from his 1985 wrongful conviction and released from prison. The ensuing drama literally unfolded in front of the cameras.

I skipped over this, but it is important. This is what makes the doco so compelling and possibly unique. No need for re-enactments or file footage. The evasions and prevarications of police and prosecutors are there for all to see. The bullying of Dassey and his retraction of evidence he gave which was surely dodgy. The admission by forensic experts of contamination of the "magic bullet". It's all there, and if people watched it without blinkers they would see, at least, a benefit of reasonable doubt.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

This and the comment to which you are replying are stupid. I'm sorry. No one is saying "There's a creepy guy, **** his rights"

Again..............THERE...........IS...........A ......DEAD............BODY .........ON........HIS ...............PROPERTY

He met her and was the last one to see her alive.


If you don't think he killed her, then who do you think killed her? As you yourself pointed out, it's an isolated area. Not a well traveled place.

Are you suggesting a stranger came in and killed her? Her boyfriend? Her boss? His sister?

And again. He's HOME............and someone BURNS A BODY on his property and he doesn't notice?


Stop playing games. You're ignoring the actual evidence and acting like the only evidence they do have is the planted evidence.

Hello...........dead body????

He was not in an isolated area all by himself. Other people lived on that property. And it was a large, unsecured property that just about anyone could have access to.

I don't know who killed Teresa Halbach. It very well could have been Steven Avery.

It could have been the ex-boyfriend. We don't know. And since the police never asked him for an alibi or even treated him like a suspect, we'll never know.

It could have been Brendan Massey's stepfather and/or older brother. We don't know. What we do know is that these two alibied each other, and offered testimony against Avery. And then they had their alibis contradicted by a neutral third party. This, by the way, was discovered by the defense because the police never bothered to follow up on it.

And there might be other suspects. We don't know, and we never will, because the police focused their investigation on Steven Avery from the very beginning.

I'll say this again for the people who have no interest in paying attention: I'm not arguing Steven Avery is innocent. I don't know one way of the other if he is.

What I am arguing is that he was convicted by unethical and possibly illegal means by a system that completely steam-rolled over due process. And just because they might have gotten it right doesn't make it okay, because the next time it might happen to someone who isn't quite as easy to despise as Steven Avery.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

It's freakin' scary how people don't think any more.

You're clearly showing us all how it's done.

[truethat]

I love how discussing the actual evidence is of no interest.

Everyone agrees the cops were wrong. Do you see anyone saying so what?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by truethat

I love how discussing the actual evidence is of no interest.

The evidence has been discussed.

And those discussions pretty much go like this:

You make an assertion based on a piece of evidence ("Avery is guilty because the body was burned on his property").

Someone else offers a rebuttal ("Avery was not the only person to live on or have access to that property").

You ignore the rebuttal and reassert your original argument ("Avery is guilty because the body was burned on his property").

If you are really interested in discussing the evidence, then you need to begin to address the counterarguments regarding that evidence instead of just repeating your own arguments. We're all aware of the evidence. Simply repeatedly pointing out that it exists in no way advances the discussion.