Making a Murderer

[TCIB]

He was defo a wrongun and probably should be locked away from others. Just going of what was presented though and what i know there is no way you can say it is "beyond reasonable doubt" it is not even close to that imo.

I also have real bad vibes about the ex and brother, dunno why but summat ain't right there.

 

[Blue Maverick]

In regards the DNA testing can't even see how it was allowed in court as the the woman carrying out the test admitted it had been contaminated in fact after reading up they are actually investigating in the USA at how bad their testing is for contamination.

 

[M18CTID]

Glad it's not just me! So glad to read a sensible post. The Brendan Dassey evidence is critical, and despite the uproar about an 'appropriate adult' (an Avery!) not being present, he was indeed clear and detailed. Taking away his recorded interviews, just look at him giving evidence in the court room at his trial and listen to the shite he says. He 'could have got it from a book' he said. Well could have and did do are two distinct things, and he does not read many books Im sure. It was a feeble defence. Listen to the phone calls to/from his mum after he was charged. She was certain Avery had done it, immediately. They were all different when a special camera crew with an agenda are in their house years after the fact. What the programme makers did was focus on people and personalities and characters, and perceived grudges and wrongdoing. It is absolutely not a fair balanced documentary, as some posters have mentioned, there is other evidence not mentioned at all in that series. Guilty as fuck wrong uns, the pair of them. But that isnt as exciting and scandalous as a skewed series

I honestly don't know why you attach so much relevance to this. Dassey is of below average intelligence and has learning difficulties. He comes across as incredibly easy to manipulate. The way they coerced some of that confession out of him and without a lawyer present was a fucking disgrace. Thank fuck you weren't around to give an opinion when Stefan Kiszko was wrongly convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed because he too had learning difficulties and he too had a confession coerced out of him.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I honestly don't know why you attach so much relevance to this. Dassey is of below average intelligence and has learning difficulties. He comes across as incredibly easy to manipulate. The way they coerced some of that confession out of him and without a lawyer present was a fucking disgrace. Thank fuck you weren't around to give an opinion when Stefan Kiszko was wrongly convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed because he too had learning difficulties and he too had a confession coerced out of him.

I place emphasis on for this reason. People make an issue of what he said to the investigators, but as any barrister will tell you its what they say in court in front of a jury that matters. That is where people judge and decide. And his evidence there was nonsense and a sure indication of guilt. And in any case, I do not agree that anything he said was in any way coerced. It was not.

 

[Manchester33]

I just hope you're never in a jury if I'm on a charge.

1. The blood tube was found to have been tampered with and the tests done by the FBI looking for EDTA in the blood were unconventional and unverified and Averys people were not allowed to carry their own tests. The FBI tests only proved that EDTA was not found in the blood, not that it was not there.
2. As far as I recollect Stevens DNA was never found in the vehicle.
3. The DNA on the bullet was said to be Teresa's BUT there was no DNA available for Averys team to test as they failed to keep the sample, as they should have done.
4. The key was found by local police who should not have been there looking as it was thought they had an agenda. However it was found on the FIFTH search of a small bedroom, not. The first second third or fourth. Not only that it was found in plain view and unbidden.
5. The key had Averys DNA (was it placed there) but importantly it didn't have hers... on a car key that she uses.
6. The bloodbath that allegedly happened I. The bedroom, then in the garage is questionable beyond belief. There was not an iota of her DNA traced anywhere, on the walls (and it would have been on the walls if her throat was cut when she was alive as per the prosecution), carpets, bed, bed clothes, or in the garage where the job was completed, not a spec and I'm certain you'd agree that they were not the most hygienic and cleanest of people.
7. For what reason was here blood in the car? She was murdered and butchered in the house and garage and burned in the burn pit. if they did move her blood splattered mangled body would there only be a small smidgen of blood in the car? I wouldn't have thought so.

Digest this and I might read your second paragraph and respond abou Brendan Dassey.

All that said I fully appreciate this is very much one sided documentary but, for the evidence given in court I cannot see that there will be much more the prosecution could throw at this that hasn't already been said.

1 - the blood tube was never tampered with. Here's a quote from a less biased source than the 'making a murderer' series producer:

Furthermore, two national experts - including the chair of the committee that writes the industry standards on drawing blood samples - told OnMilwaukee that such blood vials are supposed to have holes pierced in their rubber stoppers. According to the experts, that’s how the blood gets into the vial.

Not only is it not uncommon, but it’s the way the vials - in this case, according to court records, a purple-stopped Vacutainer - are supposed to work.

2 - Steven's DNA was found in the vehicle in the form of blood stains and on the hood hatch of the car in the form of sweat. (Brendan Dassey told police in his testimoney that Avery was sweaty when he was with him and that he removed the battery from the car after they dumped it on the property).

3 - Yes, the DNA, found on a bullet in Steven Avery's garage, that was shot from his gun had her DNA on it. The fact that there was 'no more evidence to test' was the effect of ineptitude rather than anything malicious.

4 - The key was hidden in his bedside table, they believe he'd some how lodged it behind one of the draws, it was only found when Lenk pulled the draw away from the wall and examined it thoroughly (Moving draws around, shaking it, turning it upside down etc), hence why it fell on the floor in plain sight. Lenk was also being monitored again, do you honestly think he'd risk his life to frame this man? Seriously?

5 - The DNA found on the key (of Steven Avery) was again from Sweat molecules. Is it unfathomable to think that perhaps he wiped the key and accidentally a drop of sweat fell onto the key afterwards? If someone else planted the key, where was their DNA? Do you think they had a can of Avery's sweat that they could just use to soak any evidence they found?

6 - This is the defenses best argument, they should have done way more to push this angle (I think both defense lawyers were poor tbh). The prosecution would argue that there was lots of blood in the car, they HAD been cleaning the garage that day (Dassey said this in his testimony, his mother confirmed that he had 'bleach stains' in the trousers he was wearing that day. The two lawyers talk about 'blood splatter' and have an expert on the documentary, yet they didn't get any expert into the court to talk about it? Why? They should have focused their entire defense on this if they thought it was good enough to save him, but we all know the blood in the RAV4 was enough to prove she was killed on the property.

7 - I have no experience in murdering someone, but if it was me, before I'd shot them I would have covered the room in sheets or something to block the rest of the 'blood splatter' and then rolled the body up in said sheets before removing it. They had time to clean the garage in the day because they could pass it off as a chore, they couldn't be seen cleaning a car of a woman they've just murdered so got rid of it before anyone saw them. (Hence why they didn't clean it properly).

I know a lot of these are arguments that can be speculated about, but this is fact: When samples are sent to the FBI they are tested anonymously, the people who would have tested the samples would have had no bias what so ever in framing Avery in the first place. The result of these DNA tests are FACT. Steven's DNA was in the car, her DNA was in the car and in the burn pit, she was shot by a bullet that came from his gun. Brendan's testimony gave prosecutors no doubt that they committed the murded because he gave them evidence that he, nor the prosecutors at the time, had any access too.

The local PD were naive in his first case, they need reform, regardless of Avery because they clearly aren't fit for purpose. Regardless, the facts point to two people, and fortunately they will rot in prison for the rest of their lives.

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

I place emphasis on for this reason. People make an issue of what he said to the investigators, but as any barrister will tell you its what they say in court in front of a jury that matters. That is where people judge and decide. And his evidence there was nonsense and a sure indication of guilt. And in any case, I do not agree that anything he said was in any way coerced. It was not.

You need to look into the case of the central park 5 if you think that confessions cant be coerced out of a minor, especially one with learning difficulties like in Brendan's case, the central park 5 gave theirs in front of their parents, these confessions were reversed in court under oath and they still went to prison for many years, when there was no DNA evidence and the confessions all contradicted each other. Also who knows what was said to Brendan off camera before they started recording his interviews to confuse, pressurise and influence him.

I think Avery is guilty and the police just added to some evidence to strengthen their case, but I am not so sure on Brendan, did the murder happen in the bedroom like he said in his 'confession', if so there was the mother of all clean up operations or was she shot in the garage like was said in Avery's trial with the gun from Avery's bedroom? There wasnt a single piece of DNA evidence linking Brendan to the murder, the only evidence is the 'confession'

 

[Manchester33]

I honestly don't know why you attach so much relevance to this. Dassey is of below average intelligence and has learning difficulties. He comes across as incredibly easy to manipulate. The way they coerced some of that confession out of him and without a lawyer present was a fucking disgrace. Thank fuck you weren't around to give an opinion when Stefan Kiszko was wrongly convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed because he too had learning difficulties and he too had a confession coerced out of him.

They only showed part of his interview on MaM. Read his full interview. He's incredibly descriptive, from this they know he is lying to them later on. He is also given the chance to have a lawyer present twice which he refuses twice.

Earlier in his interview he tells them about what Avery said to him, in detail. What Teresa was saying, whilst tied to the bed, in detail. They weren't even being to pushy with him. They seemed quite nice compared to most interrogators investigating a murder case.

I'm certain someone with an IQ as low as his couldn't have come up with this much false information, and the fact that it matches up to physical evidence they found speaks volumes.

 

[CityStu]

So why is her blood in the car and why were there bone fragments found in the quarry?

And if they were so meticulous as to cover the room in sheets, wipe down keys, deep clean the garage, etc. then why did they leave obvious blood stains in the car (with no fingerprints), burn the body in the backyard (or move the bones there) and leave the car on their property?

I don't doubt that the documentary was one-sided, but there is simply too much missing or unexplained evidence for me to believe he is guilty - at least in a way the prosecution considered.

 

[Phil1]

They only showed part of his interview on MaM. Read his full interview. He's incredibly descriptive, from this they know he is lying to them later on. He is also given the chance to have a lawyer present twice which he refuses twice.

Earlier in his interview he tells them about what Avery said to him, in detail. What Teresa was saying, whilst tied to the bed, in detail. They weren't even being to pushy with him. They seemed quite nice compared to most interrogators investigating a murder case.

I'm certain someone with an IQ as low as his couldn't have come up with this much false information, and the fact that it matches up to physical evidence they found speaks volumes.

The phone conversations that were taped with his mum should be enough to realise he was easily led. He was taken advantage of by a corrupt police force desperate to put Avery away. They literally told him to say she was shot in the head after several attempts at coaxing it out of him.
The fact of the matter is, the verdict is as unsafe a verdict could be and regardless of how Avery appears to come across a retrial should have been the least he received.
I'm only on episode 5 though so maybe the weight of evidence against him is yet to come.

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

They only showed part of his interview on MaM. Read his full interview. He's incredibly descriptive, from this they know he is lying to them later on. He is also given the chance to have a lawyer present twice which he refuses twice.

Earlier in his interview he tells them about what Avery said to him, in detail. What Teresa was saying, whilst tied to the bed, in detail. They weren't even being to pushy with him. They seemed quite nice compared to most interrogators investigating a murder case.

I'm certain someone with an IQ as low as his couldn't have come up with this much false information, and the fact that it matches up to physical evidence they found speaks volumes.

So you think she had her throat cut in the bedroom and the body was moved to the garage where they shot her? Why isnt there any of Brendan's DNA anywhere? They cleaned up the bedroom but left behind the gun, the key and the car? Why go to such lengths to conceal Brendan's presence just to leave so much other evidence of the crime?? The confession was the only evidence he was guilty, again I point you to the central park 5 case as proof of how police can confuse, intimidate and pressurise off camera to get what they want on camera.