Making a Murderer.

smootness said:
No. Again, the DNA was not 'found from sweat'. That's just what the prosecution argued. It was simply DNA, likely from skin cells. That's all that was known. And the technician who took the sample testified on the stand that he/she did not change gloves after processing other evidence that had Avery's DNA on it. So it's entirely possible that DNA was transferred onto the hood latch by the technician. It wasn't considered big evidence at the trial, from everything I can tell.

Brendan said a lot of things only after the police or his own attorney told it to him. It's entirely possible someone mentioned Avery's gun above the bed before Dassey ever said anything about it, just like happened with her being shot in the head, her body being found on Avery's property, the car, etc. I haven't read all of the interviews, but I would put good money on this being the case.

No, I do not think he is innocent simply because the cops planted evidence. I do, however, think it casts doubt on pretty much every single piece of evidence obtained in the case. If he was clearly guilty, even without the planted evidence, then why did the cops feel they needed to plant it? And once I acknowledge that the key and blood were likely planted, I can't take any piece of evidence as trustworthy. I just can't.

I don't feel sympathy for Steven Avery because I think he's a great guy. I feel sympathy for him because he spent 18 years in prison for something he didn't do and is likely sitting in prison again for something he didn't do. Simple as that. Burning his cat alive and running his cousin off the road, while deplorable behavior, does not make him a murderer and does not mean he should spend his life in prison. Our society doesn't work that way, and it's a good thing it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, but he didn't serve 18 years for something he didn't do. 6 of those years were from the assault on his cousin.

Avery was the last person she was ever seen with. Her car was found on his property. Her bones/belonging were round right outside his door in a burn barrel that multiple people saw him use on the night in question. Circumstantial evidence for sure, but we are talking about common sense; not whether a jury should convict.

(that is ignoring the DNA, key, blood, and nephews confession). Which, BTW, the little girl originally told authorities that Brendan was distraught over what he had seen or done with Avery. Though, months later she changed her story too.
 
gilesfan said:
Just FYI, but he didn't serve 18 years for something he didn't do. 6 of those years were from the assault on his cousin.
Click to expand...

This is both true and false. He was serving concurrent terms, so he would have served those 18 years with or without the assault conviction. He would have served 6 at most for that conviction, yes, without the rape conviction, but I'm unsure how this means much. Even if you want to subtract those from the 18, he still served over a decade for something he didn't do. But again, the 6 years weren't tacked on. It was concurrent.

Avery was the last person she was ever seen with. Her car was found on his property. Her bones/belonging were round right outside his door in a burn barrel that multiple people saw him use on the night in question. Circumstantial evidence for sure, but we are talking about common sense; not whether a jury should convict.
Click to expand...

And there are serious issues with all that evidence. First, after reading some more, there is actually a question as to whether or not Avery's house was her last stop that day. She also took pictures at another house ('around 3 or 3:30' according to that homeowner initially) that afternoon, and there is some question as to the exact timeline. But once the car was found on Avery's property, the other house was dropped from the investigation. And the car and body being on that property are things I am well aware of and are not convincing to me. And I'm not talking about a jury. If I believed that evidence convincing for me, then I would find it convincing for a jury as well. But I don't. The bones being in two other places is highly suspect and actually points more to the body being burned elsewhere. And the car on his property would be extremely dumb for him to do and is a pretty easy way for someone else to tie him to it.

(that is ignoring the DNA, key, blood, and nephews confession). Which, BTW, the little girl originally told authorities that Brendan was distraught over what he had seen or done with Avery. Though, months later she changed her story too.
Click to expand...

Yes...once she was on the stand and sworn to tell the truth, she admitted she made it up. Why would that help the case against Dassey or Avery?

And I do ignore those bits of evidence. For good reason. Once I've thrown that out (and you've admitted you would throw some of it out as well), why in the world would I consider the bones, the car, the hood latch DNA, etc. convincing? Sure, were it all just coincidence it would be unlikely. But it's not coincidence. It's a police department with motive to frame, with evidence that they likely framed. And once a police department starts planting evidence, it's pretty easy to suddenly find a whole lot of evidence that looks like too much of a coincidence.
 
smootness said:
This is both true and false. He was serving concurrent terms, so he would have served those 18 years with or without the assault conviction. He would have served 6 at most for that conviction, yes, without the rape conviction, but I'm unsure how this means much. Even if you want to subtract those from the 18, he still served over a decade for something he didn't do. But again, the 6 years weren't tacked on. It was concurrent.

And there are serious issues with all that evidence. First, after reading some more, there is actually a question as to whether or not Avery's house was her last stop that day. She also took pictures at another house ('around 3 or 3:30' according to that homeowner initially) that afternoon, and there is some question as to the exact timeline. But once the car was found on Avery's property, the other house was dropped from the investigation. And the car and body being on that property are things I am well aware of and are not convincing to me. And I'm not talking about a jury. If I believed that evidence convincing for me, then I would find it convincing for a jury as well. But I don't. The bones being in two other places is highly suspect and actually points more to the body being burned elsewhere. And the car on his property would be extremely dumb for him to do and is a pretty easy way for someone else to tie him to it.

Yes...once she was on the stand and sworn to tell the truth, she admitted she made it up. Why would that help the case against Dassey or Avery?

And I do ignore those bits of evidence. For good reason. Once I've thrown that out (and you've admitted you would throw some of it out as well), why in the world would I consider the bones, the car, the hood latch DNA, etc. convincing? Sure, were it all just coincidence it would be unlikely. But it's not coincidence. It's a police department with motive to frame, with evidence that they likely framed. And once a police department starts planting evidence, it's pretty easy to suddenly find a whole lot of evidence that looks like too much of a coincidence.
Click to expand...

There are questions to whether the "second set of bones" were human remains.

You believe a kid now got a conscious and decided to tell the truth? I find it more likely she originally told the truth being as she was so young and didn't know to lie to detectives. But, once she told the family what she told them, they convinced her to change the story.
 
gilesfan said:
There are questions to whether the "second set of bones" were human remains.

You believe a kid now got a conscious and decided to tell the truth? I find it more likely she originally told the truth being as she was so young and didn't know to lie to detectives. But, once she told the family what she told them, they convinced her to change the story.
Click to expand...

I don't find that story any more believable than her not liking Brendan or being 13 and not realizing the seriousness of her police interview, then getting on the stand while her cousin is on trial for murder and suddenly understanding how serious her words are, realizing she's under oath, and coming clean. Especially given that she broke down on the stand, which would be strange if she was just up there saying what she was told to say.

Regardless, I have no idea how anyone can take any of her statements seriously. It's something else I can't trust, so it certainly doesn't help prove Brendan's guilt to me...especially given that I still can't fathom that a word of what he said actually took place. He claims her throat was slit in the bedroom. No one actually believes that. So why confess but still lie about parts of it? And why did he have no idea what the police were trying to get him to say when they tried to pry that she was shot in the head from him?

I can't believe Brendan had anything to do with it.
 
I believe Brendan helped with the cleanup; probably not realizing it at the moment until seeing bones or something that made him realize what he was doing and felt a sense of guilt. That version (which I've believed all along) lines up with what the girl said. The details he made up during his confession where clearly just trying to make the detectives "happy," but is really too dumb to come up with a coherent story.
 
I just don't really buy that. He was involved in the clean up but not the crime? Why would Avery involve someone else if it wasn't necessary?

And the only thing tying Brendan to this case in any way is his own testimony...testimony that the police had motive to get and that his own attorney helped them get. So if you don't buy part of his testimony, why would you buy any of it?

The only other thing tying him to it is his cousin, who completely recanted her story when under oath during trial.
 
popcorn_stephen_colbert.gif
 
smootness said:
I just don't really buy that. He was involved in the clean up but not the crime? Why would Avery involve someone else if it wasn't necessary?

And the only thing tying Brendan to this case in any way is his own testimony...testimony that the police had motive to get and that his own attorney helped them get. So if you don't buy part of his testimony, why would you buy any of it?

The only other thing tying him to it is his cousin, who completely recanted her story when under oath during trial.
Click to expand...

Because he needed help cleaning up. You are also assuming he makes rationale decisions. THere are reports Avery molested Dassey so who knows what type of role Avery could want Dassey to play.
 
gilesfan said:
Because he needed help cleaning up. You are also assuming he makes rationale decisions. THere are reports Avery molested Dassey so who knows what type of role Avery could want Dassey to play.
Click to expand...

...which also came only from Brendan's confessions. It's pretty amazing how much of the case hinges on Brendan's confessions.

I'm not saying your scenario can't be a possibility. But there is pretty much nothing to make me believe that's the way it happened, so I don't believe it.
 
smootness said:
...which also came only from Brendan's confessions. It's pretty amazing how much of the case hinges on Brendan's confessions.

I'm not saying your scenario can't be a possibility. But there is pretty much nothing to make me believe that's the way it happened, so I don't believe it.
Click to expand...

Why are you so sure averys innocent when even his own lawyers aren't sure his innocent?
 
Krgrecw said:
Why are you so sure averys innocent when even his own lawyers aren't sure his innocent?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't think anyone could be sure of his innocence. I would think that one could be sure that the state's case was so screwed up that it shouldn't have resulted in a conviction.
 
Julio3000 said:
I wouldn't think anyone could be sure of his innocence. I would think that one could be sure that the state's case was so screwed up that it shouldn't have resulted in a conviction.
Click to expand...

Thats reasonable. Im fine with another trial, but I think he will be found guilty again.
 
Julio3000 said:
I wouldn't think anyone could be sure of his innocence. I would think that one could be sure that the state's case was so screwed up that it shouldn't have resulted in a conviction.
Click to expand...

Some people in here think he's innocent. I agree with your point.
 
When Making a Murderer debuted on Netflix in December, it launched a fiery worldwide discussion about whether the pair had received fair trials, whether they were truly guilty — and whether the series’ creators Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi willingly excluded evidence of Avery’s guilt or merely did a brilliant job of pointing out how quickly we can change our minds about someone’s guilt or innocence. And, thus, the precarious nature of the justice system because of it.

Now Investigation Discovery will present new details and new perspective on the Avery convictions in a new special Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty, premiering Saturday, Jan. 30, at 9/8CT. Produced by NBC News’ Emmy Award-winning Peacock Productions and hosted by everyone’s favorite Dateline NBC guy Keith Morrison, Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty reveals the latest intriguing developments in the story, and takes an in-depth look at the evidence, the controversy and the key players in the case. New interviews include:

Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi — Making a Murderer filmmakers

Jerry Buting — Former defense attorney in Avery Case

Ken Kratz — Former Calumet County DA, prosecutor in the Avery and Dassey cases and perhaps Making a Murderer‘s most hated figure.

Brad Dassey — Brendan Dassey’s half-brother

Michael Griesbach — author of The Innocent Killer and former Manitowoc County ADA,

Peter Massey — forensic expert, University of New Haven

Tom Kertscher — Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter

So tell us — did you watch Making a Murderer? Did you think the series purposefully sought to exonerate Avery or was intended to make viewers think in terms more broad-based than his guilt or innocence. Will you watch Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty? Sound off in the comments section below.

Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty premieres Saturday, Jan. 30 at 9/8CT on Investigation Discovery.

Everyone should watch that. New Interviews and it'll be impartial.
 
smootness said:
I just don't really buy that. He was involved in the clean up but not the crime? Why would Avery involve someone else if it wasn't necessary?

And the only thing tying Brendan to this case in any way is his own testimony...testimony that the police had motive to get and that his own attorney helped them get. So if you don't buy part of his testimony, why would you buy any of it?

The only other thing tying him to it is his cousin, who completely recanted her story when under oath during trial.
Click to expand...

How do you explain the phone call to his mother where he admits to all of it? Why would he lie at that point?
 
Carp said:
How do you explain the phone call to his mother where he admits to all of it? Why would he lie at that point?
Click to expand...

I thought it was self-explanatory. The detectives were screwing with his head. Telling him they were going to tell his mother if he didn't.
 
bravesnumberone said:
I thought it was self-explanatory. The detectives were screwing with his head. Telling him they were going to tell his mother if he didn't.
Click to expand...

God I hate the detectives interviewing him. It's one of the few instances I can think of where I wanted to punch someone for watching them do something non-violent. They were straight up manipulating him and you could feel the tension they were creating to make him do what they wanted to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top