OT: Making A Murderer on Netflix

[CloneIce]

Lol. The location was far from convincing. They did better at proving it didn't happen in his trailer or garage than proving it did. I've seen nothing that links the bullet fragment to Avery's gun, other than they're both .22s.

That is because they let that part out of the documentary, as I stated. The bullet was forensically linked to Avery's gun and Albach. There was a lot that was left out of that documentary. I linked a couple articles on it, but the bullet to me was the most damning piece of evidence they left out, as well as the fact they found the contents of her purse in his burn barrel.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/2363/dont-believe-press-steven-avery-guilty-murder-michael-qazvini

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213

1. The bullet matched Avery’s rifle The bullet linked to Halbach’s DNA was forensically tied to Avery’s gun.
In Dassey’s confusing interview with police, the teen also said his uncle used a gun that hung above his bed.
Despite the exclusion of evidence dissected across the internet, the films producers are standing by their work.
“The things I’ve heard listed as things we’ve left out seem much less convincing of guilt than Teresa’s DNA on a bullet or her remains in his backyard," filmmaker Moira Demos told The Wrap.

 

[Tre4ISU]

They linked the bullet with her DNA directly to his gun. They provided a murder weapon. They just didn't mention that part in the documentary.

They also provided a location, though I don't know how convincing it was.

DNA but not blood DNA. Where was the knife used to cut her hair? If this hair was just chopped off, why can we not find any of it? Why is there no blood where this alleged scenario played out? Not only is there none of Halbachs DNA, there is other DNA which indicates the place wasn't scrubbed.

 

[Tre4ISU]

That is because they let that part out of the documentary, as I stated. The bullet was forensically linked to Avery's gun and Albach. There was a lot that was left out of that documentary. I linked a couple articles on it, but the bullet to me was the most damning piece of evidence they left out, as well as the fact they found the contents of her purse in his burn barrel.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/2363/dont-believe-press-steven-avery-guilty-murder-michael-qazvini

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213

1. The bullet matched Avery’s rifle The bullet linked to Halbach’s DNA was forensically tied to Avery’s gun.
In Dassey’s confusing interview with police, the teen also said his uncle used a gun that hung above his bed.
Despite the exclusion of evidence dissected across the internet, the films producers are standing by their work.
“The things I’ve heard listed as things we’ve left out seem much less convincing of guilt than Teresa’s DNA on a bullet or her remains in his backyard," filmmaker Moira Demos told The Wrap.

Again, none blood DNA on a bullet. The other thing they "left out" was SA's DNA under the hood of the car that they somehow didn't find until after they got Dassey to tell them SA got under the hood of the car. It's funny how they find that stuff after they have something to corroborate it. I'd still like to know how there is no finger prints anywhere with all this DNA from his hands running around this car.

 

[Tre4ISU]

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...defense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/

Hadn't seen that. Some interesting stuff there, especially on the leg irons.

 

[CY88CE11]

That is because they let that part out of the documentary, as I stated. The bullet was forensically linked to Avery's gun and Albach. There was a lot that was left out of that documentary. I linked a couple articles on it, but the bullet to me was the most damning piece of evidence they left out, as well as the fact they found the contents of her purse in his burn barrel.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/2363/dont-believe-press-steven-avery-guilty-murder-michael-qazvini

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213

1. The bullet matched Avery’s rifle The bullet linked to Halbach’s DNA was forensically tied to Avery’s gun.
In Dassey’s confusing interview with police, the teen also said his uncle used a gun that hung above his bed.
Despite the exclusion of evidence dissected across the internet, the films producers are standing by their work.
“The things I’ve heard listed as things we’ve left out seem much less convincing of guilt than Teresa’s DNA on a bullet or her remains in his backyard," filmmaker Moira Demos told The Wrap.

I never said the Doc was my only source of information. Read up on what I posted from Reddit, as well as Tre's posts, and you'll (hopefully) see what I'm saying.

 

[CloneIce]

DNA but not blood DNA. Where was the knife used to cut her hair? If this hair was just chopped off, why can we not find any of it? Why is there no blood where this alleged scenario played out? Not only is there none of Halbachs DNA, there is other DNA which indicates the place wasn't scrubbed.

I don't know why you think those are important questions. Why can't they find hair? It's not hard to sweep it up. It burns easily if you throw it in a burn barrel. Its not hard to dispose of a knife.

 

[CloneIce]

Again, none blood DNA on a bullet. The other thing they "left out" was SA's DNA under the hood of the car that they somehow didn't find until after they got Dassey to tell them SA got under the hood of the car. It's funny how they find that stuff after they have something to corroborate it. I'd still like to know how there is no finger prints anywhere with all this DNA from his hands running around this car.

There are a lot of things in this case that make me think the prosecution planted evidence to support their case. There is also a helluva lot of evidence that Avery murdered Albach. I think he murdered her, and the prosecution planted some evidence and created some details of the murder to fit their story and improve their case. There is a minor chance that someone else in his family did it, though Avery is way more likely. I don't buy for a second any theory that the cops murdered her to frame him... not because I put it past them morally, but because the degree of planning and logistics of what happened make that almost an impossibility.

It seems to me that you are questioning the most minor of prosecution details to the nth degree while ignoring some major glaring facts that indicate he murdered her.

 

[CloneIce]

I never said the Doc was my only source of information. Read up on what I posted from Reddit, as well as Tre's posts, and you'll (hopefully) see what I'm saying.

I think there are bits of information in that thread that support the prosecution did a lot of questionable things and plenty of questionable handling of evidence. There are also plenty of bullet points in that thread that are wishful thinking at best, that would only be considered legitimate items by someone with a very major case of confirmation bias.

Anyway, I'm not supporting the county or the prosecution's version of events... I think they created a story and worked the evidence to make a stronger case and help get a conviction. That doesn't mean that he didn't kill her.

 

[Tre4ISU]

I don't know why you think those are important questions. Why can't they find hair? It's not hard to sweep it up. It burns easily if you throw it in a burn barrel. Its not hard to dispose of a knife.

Shave your head and then try to clean up all of the hair to the point where you can't find any.

There are a lot of things in this case that make me think the prosecution planted evidence to support their case. There is also a helluva lot of evidence that Avery murdered Albach. I think he murdered her, and the prosecution planted some evidence and created some details of the murder to fit their story and improve their case. There is a minor chance that someone else in his family did it, though Avery is way more likely. I don't buy for a second any theory that the cops murdered her to frame him... not because I put it past them morally, but because the degree of planning and logistics of what happened make that almost an impossibility.

It seems to me that you are questioning the most minor of prosecution details to the nth degree while ignoring some major glaring facts that indicate he murdered her.

Where are these facts? They have a murder weapon but zero blood evidence on bullet or gun. Their proposed murder site is not the murder site. The site of the torture is not the site of the torture they ran with. They have nothing on Avery's property suggesting Halbach ever bled there. They have nothing proving she was bound there. Her DNA was not on the leg irons but two other peoples were. They have a key with only Avery's DNA on it that was never dusted for prints. They have blood in the vehicle but they have no finger prints or other DNA. They have DNA under the hood but the person who collected that admitted they didn't change gloves before collecting that DNA.

They don't have a single piece of evidence that can be labeled as unquestioned. Every piece has something wrong with it. Don't feed me the bits about the phones calls or him being the last person to see her either. That's not proof of murder.

It also seems to me that you don't understand how the court system is supposed to work. It isn't the defenses job to prove innocence. It's the prosecutions job to prove guilt and they did not do that beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[CY88CE11]

I'm not saying he did or didn't kill her. I'm saying I have absolutely no idea after watching the Doc and reading up on it after. I definitely have nowhere near enough evidence to vote him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I had to guess, I would say one of Steve's family killed her and put her on his property. Then, the County didn't think they had enough evidence to convict Steve, who they "knew" was guilty, so they planted evidence to make sure they got the conviction. But again, that's little more than a WAG, which seems to be what the County was doing.

 

[CloneIce]

Shave your head and then try to clean up all of the hair to the point where you can't find any.

This happens dozens of times each day at thousands of barber shops and salons across America. Anyway, it's about the least important question in this case, so I am not sure why you are so worried about it or find it telling.

 

[tzjung]

mistake...

 

[CloneIce]

It also seems to me that you don't understand how the court system is supposed to work. It isn't the defenses job to prove innocence. It's the prosecutions job to prove guilt and they did not do that beyond reasonable doubt.

Oh, I think I have a better idea than you do. I've been on multiple juries and found men innocent after long and tense deliberations - so spare me the patronizing explanations on the court system. I also don't just make stuff up like you did - never once did I offer an opinion that he should have been found guilty based on the evidence and the case. In fact, in fact if I was on the jury I would probably argue for his innocence, even if I believed he was guilty based on the evidence, due to all the issues with the case. But if I was on the jury, I certainly would not find the specific absence of hair or a knife to cut the hair to be key to the case.

You say there is no evidence, but there is plenty of evidence that you are ignoring. In your post, you are actually confusing "proof of murder" with evidence. Maybe I should give you a patronizing explanation to explain the difference between the two? Don't kid yourself, the fact that her body and belongings were burnt on his property - the last place she was known to go, is evidence. The bullet is evidence. The DNA is evidence. His creepy obsession with her and multiple calls on the last day she was alive is evidence (not proof of murder - these are different things).

 

[BBHMagic]

It seems to me that you are questioning the most minor of prosecution details to the nth degree while ignoring some major glaring facts that indicate he murdered her.

Shave your head and then try to clean up all of the hair to the point where you can't find any.



Where are these facts? They have a murder weapon but zero blood evidence on bullet or gun. Their proposed murder site is not the murder site. The site of the torture is not the site of the torture they ran with. They have nothing on Avery's property suggesting Halbach ever bled there. They have nothing proving she was bound there. Her DNA was not on the leg irons but two other peoples were. They have a key with only Avery's DNA on it that was never dusted for prints. They have blood in the vehicle but they have no finger prints or other DNA. They have DNA under the hood but the person who collected that admitted they didn't change gloves before collecting that DNA.

They don't have a single piece of evidence that can be labeled as unquestioned. Every piece has something wrong with it. Don't feed me the bits about the phones calls or him being the last person to see her either. That's not proof of murder.

It also seems to me that you don't understand how the court system is supposed to work. It isn't the defenses job to prove innocence. It's the prosecutions job to prove guilt and they did not do that beyond reasonable doubt.

CloneIce which of the things Tre listed here (and he didn't even list half of it) are "questioning the most minor of prosecution details to the nth degree" as you say? You don't think those are serious concerns? I believe Steven Avery could have possibly been the murderer but the evidence points to it not occurring as they described.

 

[HitItHard58]

I don't know why you think those are important questions. Why can't they find hair? It's not hard to sweep it up. It burns easily if you throw it in a burn barrel. Its not hard to dispose of a knife.

Well they're important because they would actually prove that those things happened. If everything went down the way it supposedly did, they definitely should have found some indisputable evidence. Steve and Brendan couldn't possibly get rid of all signs of damning evidence if they actually raped and killed Halbach in his trailer.

There are a lot of things in this case that make me think the prosecution planted evidence to support their case. There is also a helluva lot of evidence that Avery murdered Albach. I think he murdered her, and the prosecution planted some evidence and created some details of the murder to fit their story and improve their case. There is a minor chance that someone else in his family did it, though Avery is way more likely. I don't buy for a second any theory that the cops murdered her to frame him... not because I put it past them morally, but because the degree of planning and logistics of what happened make that almost an impossibility.

It seems to me that you are questioning the most minor of prosecution details to the nth degree while ignoring some major glaring facts that indicate he murdered her.

There's a part of me that feels like Steve is guilty. Dude resembles John Wayne Gacy way too much to not at least seem suspicious and being accused of two crimes like this seems way too coincidental. On the other hand, I could definitely see him being completely innocent and actually being a pretty good guy. No matter what you, I, the people of Manitowoc county, or the hundreds of thousands of people who watched that documentary think, you can't put somebody away for life because of what you think happened. Most people who watched this are well aware of the evidence that was left out and none of it changes my mind even slightly. The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those two were guilty and I don't see how that's even debatable.

 

[VTXCyRyD]

That is because they let that part out of the documentary, as I stated. The bullet was forensically linked to Avery's gun and Albach. There was a lot that was left out of that documentary. I linked a couple articles on it, but the bullet to me was the most damning piece of evidence they left out, as well as the fact they found the contents of her purse in his burn barrel.


http://www.dailywire.com/news/2363/dont-believe-press-steven-avery-guilty-murder-michael-qazvini

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213

1. The bullet matched Avery’s rifle The bullet linked to Halbach’s DNA was forensically tied to Avery’s gun.
In Dassey’s confusing interview with police, the teen also said his uncle used a gun that hung above his bed.
Despite the exclusion of evidence dissected across the internet, the films producers are standing by their work.
“The things I’ve heard listed as things we’ve left out seem much less convincing of guilt than Teresa’s DNA on a bullet or her remains in his backyard," filmmaker Moira Demos told The Wrap.

This is the same bullet with DNA that was contaminated with the Lab Tech's DNA. Meaning that sample shouldn't have been trusted because the sampling media could have been contaminated from prior test with Halbach's DNA as well. She contaminated the only piece of evidence and the remainder was destroyed with her crappy testing skills.

 

[cyclonenation5]

Well they're important because they would actually prove that those things happened. If everything went down the way it supposedly did, they definitely should have found some indisputable evidence. Steve and Brendan couldn't possibly get rid of all signs of damning evidence if they actually raped and killed Halbach in his trailer.



There's a part of me that feels like Steve is guilty. Dude resembles John Wayne Gacy way too much to not at least seem suspicious and being accused of two crimes like this seems way too coincidental. On the other hand, I could definitely see him being completely innocent and actually being a pretty good guy. No matter what you, I, the people of Manitowoc county, or the hundreds of thousands of people who watched that documentary think, you can't put somebody away for life because of what you think happened. Most people who watched this are well aware of the evidence that was left out and none of it changes my mind even slightly. The state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those two were guilty and I don't see how that's even debatable.

"Being accused of two crimes like this seems way too coincidental" sounds dangerously close to you holding an accusation against him that has been proven to be false.

 

[BBHMagic]

"Being accused of two crimes like this seems way too coincidental" sounds dangerously close to you holding an accusation against him that has been proven to be false.

Didn't the judge do that in his sentencing too?

 

[HitItHard58]

"Being accused of two crimes like this seems way too coincidental" sounds dangerously close to you holding an accusation against him that has been proven to be false.

Natural human suspicion I guess. I was merely trying to point out that he very well could be guilty and there are reasons to be suspicious but that's not enough to convict him. I definitely would have voted not guilty if I was on the jury.

 

[CloneIce]

CloneIce which of the things Tre listed here (and he didn't even list half of it) are "questioning the most minor of prosecution details to the nth degree" as you say? You don't think those are serious concerns? I believe Steven Avery could have possibly been the murderer but the evidence points to it not occurring as they described.

Why did you quote a later post he made after I made that statement that you quoted? I posted that statement after a couple of posts regarding hair, knives used to cut hair, and questioning how DNA was found under the hood of the car only after Dassey told him to look there (which made sense to me as the witness directed them to look in a specific place) while not mentioning some pretty key facts like, oh, I don't know the fact her body and possessions turned up in the burn barrel of the last man to see her who was obsessing over her and getting her specifically to his house. So the statement you quoted has nothing to do with my quoted post and doesn't apply to it at all, and your question doesn't apply to my statement either.

I don't understand where you would possibly get the idea that I don't think the items you quoted from his later post are "serious concerns." Good Lord I have stated over and over that I think the prosecution planted evidence to aid their conviction. That doesn't mean I am convinced he is innocent. I think he is most likely the murderer.