Making a Murderer

[geoff clipp]

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.

I think that's the main thing for me. I think he did it, but not in the way the prosecution wanted it to look. That for me explains why Brendan at times gave accurate statements, but at other times was having to guess as to what the police wanted from him.

Regarding the bones in the quarry though, nobody even knows if they're hers, or even human. It's unbelievable that they were never actually tested.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

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'

I will watch the central park stuff but the points there will be relevant to the central park case, not to Brendan Dassey. His evidence was not coerced and he talked shit in court. Also, I am firmly of the belief that people only believe things happened these days of DNA evidence exists or proves it. I can tell you from long experience that DNA is not always present on things you would expect them to be, in fact I have been staggered sometimes to find that DNA is not on some items you would expect it to be on. Its 100% definitive when it is present, but it is not always present, thats the problem. I think this is the result of the CSI television culture people started watching. The lack of DNA on things throws juries all the time, I see it it monthly, and you cannot explain to many of them what I just said, they dont get it because on telly DNA proves/disproves everything. I can tell you that juries always come back to the judge in their deliberations to ask whyt DNA isnt on things, I see it with my own eyes. Sometimes it just isnt. If someone sweats or bleeds or similar, then the fluids will leave DNA. It was a shock to me to learn that some normally handled items will no have it on them, but it is so. Anyway, thats about science and stuff. For me, this business about Brendan is about what was said. If a confession is the only evidence, well I dont know what to say other than why would anyone confess to a fecking murder? We can speculate, or I can speculate, because I only know what that series showed me, and it was not very impartial. Im not trying to change anybodys mind about this, its not Twelve Angry Men, and I know Im in a minority of 3 posters who think its actually pretty straightforward, and Im not going to argue with anyone. But I honestly believe the pair of them are murdering cunts and it the whole case, and the whole debate on here and in wider culture, is an offshoot of people's general preference these days to believe in conspiracy theories.
There will be thousands of talking points in this case as a direct result of the ludicrous system they run over there of trial by TV and press conferences and interviews both before trial and even flipping during it, which is dangerous and nonsense and should be stopped.

 

[Manchester33]

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.

I understand that, but it's the evidence he gave that wasn't shown in MaM that incriminates him. They don't show it on making a murderer because it's too black and white to be made up - he isn't coerced into saying it either.

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

I will watch the central park stuff but the points there will be relevant to the central park case, not to Brendan Dassey. His evidence was not coerced and he talked shit in court. Also, I am firmly of the belief that people only believe things happened these days of DNA evidence exists or proves it. I can tell you from long experience that DNA is not always present on things you would expect them to be, in fact I have been staggered sometimes to find that DNA is not on some items you would expect it to be on. Its 100% definitive when it is present, but it is not always present, thats the problem. I think this is the result of the CSI television culture people started watching. The lack of DNA on things throws juries all the time, I see it it monthly, and you cannot explain to many of them what I just said, they dont get it because on telly DNA proves/disproves everything. I can tell you that juries always come back to the judge in their deliberations to ask whyt DNA isnt on things, I see it with my own eyes. Sometimes it just isnt. If someone sweats or bleeds or similar, then the fluids will leave DNA. It was a shock to me to learn that some normally handled items will no have it on them, but it is so. Anyway, thats about science and stuff. For me, this business about Brendan is about what was said. If a confession is the only evidence, well I dont know what to say other than why would anyone confess to a fecking murder? We can speculate, or I can speculate, because I only know what that series showed me, and it was not very impartial. Im not trying to change anybodys mind about this, its not Twelve Angry Men, and I know Im in a minority of 3 posters who think its actually pretty straightforward, and Im not going to argue with anyone. But I honestly believe the pair of them are murdering cunts and it the whole case, and the whole debate on here and in wider culture, is an offshoot of people's general preference these days to believe in conspiracy theories.
There will be thousands of talking points in this case as a direct result of the ludicrous system they run over there of trial by TV and press conferences and interviews both before trial and even flipping during it, which is dangerous and nonsense and should be stopped.

I said quite clearly I think Avery is guilty, but I am not sure on Brendan. There is no evidence at all, not from Avery, DNA, finger prints nothing other than a confession, who's validity can be questioned, if that isnt reasonable doubt I dont know what is. The court didnt play the part of the interview where Brendan says he was all confused by the police, that in itself is reasonable doubt for me.

edit: In the case of the central park 5 there was DNA evidence, just not of any of those who were sentenced for the crime and they were convicted on the strength of their coerced confessions. The real culprit was caught for a different crime, similar in nature and confessed to it much further down the line, leading to their convictions being quashed.

 

[Manchester33]

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.

The bone fragments found in the quarry were never identified as being hers. Nor were they even identified as being human. There were numerous animal bones found in the quarry where they found this 'hip bone fragment'.

The blood was in her car because they were going to dump her body in a pond.

They concealed and cleaned the blood in the garage because it was pre planned that he was going to kill her there. They cleaned any spillage with bleach. They had time to think about this and fortunately they didn't have time to think of anything else. Hence why he did a sloppy job everywhere else.

Ask yourself this. If someone was out to frame him, why didn't they plant her blood in the garage?

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

I understand that, but it's the evidence he gave that wasn't shown in MaM that incriminates him. They don't show it on making a murderer because it's too black and white to be made up - he isn't coerced into saying it either.

What about the part of the interview when he says he is confused that wasnt played in court? Who knows what had been said to him before the interview, promises could have been made that he could be go home if he said what they wanted him to, thus him thinking he was going back to school and not knowing he was in very serious trouble, you dont know that he wasnt coerced, you are just blindly taking the word of the police who's main motivation was to nail Avery.

 

[mcfc1981]

ever thought dassey was fed a story off camera about what to say??
he was prob told don't have a lawyer present that is a sign of guilt

u believe he put plastic sheets down too cover the DNA evidence in the garage......do u think he also put sheets down in the bedroom while raping her??

 

[CityStu]

The bone fragments found in the quarry were never identified as being hers. Nor were they even identified as being human. There were numerous animal bones found in the quarry where they found this 'hip bone fragment'.

The blood was in her car because they were going to dump her body in a pond.

They concealed and cleaned the blood in the garage because it was pre planned that he was going to kill her there. They cleaned any spillage with bleach. They had time to think about this and fortunately they didn't have time to think of anything else. Hence why he did a sloppy job everywhere else.

Ask yourself this. If someone was out to frame him, why didn't they plant her blood in the garage?

Fair enough on the quarry - still they found bone in the drums didn't they? Whole thing could have been avoided if they'd uncovered the burn site properly and confirmed that the body was lying there (adjacent bones being next to each other and the like).

How do you explain his blood in the car with no fingerprints?

I find it hard to believe that they cleaned everything in that incredibly cluttered garage comprehensively with bleach. Some of the stuff in there was noticeably filthy as well.

I don't think the police killed her (see the Reddit theory that somebody posted), but that they planted the blood to make the case against Avery more likely to stick. They wouldn't have had access to Malbech's blood.

 

[Manchester33]

ever thought dassey was fed a story off camera about what to say??
he was prob told don't have a lawyer present that is a sign of guilt

u believe he put plastic sheets down too cover the DNA evidence in the garage......do u think he also put sheets down in the bedroom while raping her??

They're good points, don't get me wrong, but you're knit picking and speculating. There is so much evidence to prove these men a culpable.

I've looked for an article I read a month or so ago about this case - Have a read of these theories, with an open mind and see what you think afterwards. It'd be interesting to see if it changes your mind.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/c...7717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

 

[Manchester33]

Fair enough on the quarry - still they found bone in the drums didn't they? Whole thing could have been avoided if they'd uncovered the burn site properly and confirmed that the body was lying there (adjacent bones being next to each other and the like).

How do you explain his blood in the car with no fingerprints?

I find it hard to believe that they cleaned everything in that incredibly cluttered garage comprehensively with bleach. Some of the stuff in there was noticeably filthy as well.

I don't think the police killed her (see the Reddit theory that somebody posted), but that they planted the blood to make the case against Avery more likely to stick. They wouldn't have had access to Malbech's blood.

I suppose it's all impossible to explain completely. No one knows for 100% who killed her other than the people who did.

My gripe about the series is that they depict it as this huge mis-carriage of justice, when in reality, Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are the only suspects in the case.

Read the articles I posted above, they're really interesting.