Yes a .22 is small but if they found a bullet in the garage with her DNA that supposedly killed her, it obviously was a pass through. An exit wound from any caliber bullet would bleed a lot, especially from the head or face.
OT: Making A Murderer on Netflix
- Thread starter dahliaclone
- Start date
Bullets ricochet within the skull of small animals but they found this one in the garage. Got it.
Why was her blood in the SUV at all if she was killed and burned at the Avery residence?
I suppose this is an insignificant question too.
It's so obvious. They were carrying her out to the burn barrel and got tired. It would be extremely disrespectful to put the woman you just raped and murdered on the ground like a piece of trash so they put her in the back of the car for a few. Brendan was carrying her chopped up bloody hair in his hand and saw some dust which he naturally wiped up with the hair. Pretty simple stuff here people.
The fact that .22 caliber bullets will often richochet inside skulls is a fact, not an opinion.
That fact doesn't preclude bullets passing through, especially if multiple shots are fired. The exact same thing doesn't happen every time. This is a really simple concept. Got it?
Oh geez. Actually I have seen wounded deer finished off that way. There heads did not explode and blood did not splatter everywhere.
Anyway, I was pointing out some facts regarding .22 caliber rifles and why its incorrect to assume blood must be splattered all over the garage to the point where nobody could possibly clean it up, as has been contended repeatedly in this thread. And I have also said repeatedly that there should obviously be some blood, its just faulty to assume there automatically must be splatter all over the gun and the garage. If you don't want to accept these facts, I guess that is your choice.
Ugh. Of course there would be blood. I was responding to the contention that there should be blood splatter from "blow back" on the gun, and all over the garage. That is not the same as a head wound bleeding.
This argument has its own flaws though. Its based on the assumption that any cleaning that occurred must involve cleaning every square inch of the garage, to remove all DNA from all surfaces in the garage. If there was blood in one area of the garage, you don't automatically assume the killer must have cleaned every surface area in the entire garage to eliminate blood from that area. Well, if I am a defense lawyer I try to make the jury think that, but its a flawed assumption in reality.
These are all interesting questions, and if I was the defense I would raise them to try to develop reasonable doubt. I just don't understand why people think they are conclusive.
Any thoughts on this, Ice?
Edit: Too late, just saw your response after posting.
I thought I read that bleach had not been detected on the garage floor, but could be mis-remembering.
Last edited:
1. Like I have said over and over, I don't believe the prosecution's version of events, and I highly doubt it went down the way they said.
2. There are ways, including the simplest - putting something down under the victim so blood doesn't get on the garage itself at all, and disposing of it (plastic tarp or whatever). In general, I believe most people exaggerate the inafallibility of DNA evidence, from watching crime shows on TV. People are convinced that there is always collectible, indisputable DN evidence at every crime scene, and this is not always the case.
I think these are good ways to raise reasonable doubt, as the defense did. I just don't find them conclusive either way, asit seems some of you do.
I don't think that was ever said. Also, I had heard that Brenden Dassey had bleach on his clothes when he returned home that night. I don't know if it is true or not, but they definitely left details out of this documentary to fit their agenda.
I don't think anyone here feels there is "conclusive" evidence either way in this case. That's the point. The prosecution didn't prove their case, but he still went to jail.
How do you know? Did Netflix provide all the evidence that was provided in court? Do you know this for sure?
I don't find it conclusive either. There is reasonable doubt because it is not conclusive. Reasonable doubt. You obviously have reasonable doubt. Should not have been convicted with reasonable doubt. The jury ****ed-up. At least one juror has said so recently, and the one that was dismissed couldn't believe the guilty vote because there was a majority for acquittal when he was dismissed.
In seeing the evidence presented both in the documentary and from reading the other side of the case there is no way he should have been found guilty.
Most people have seen the list of things that the prosecution has said was left out of the documentary. None of those things were as good as the evidence provided in the documentary. Kratz himself said the best piece of evidence left out was the DNA on the hood on the Rav4. He also claimed it was sweat when that is just his theory, and the man that opened the hood admitted to not changing his gloves.
There was evidence left out on the defense too, but just like the prosecution's, it wasn't as significant.
Why the hell would avery kill someone when he is weeks from getting $36 million? let's not overthink this whole thing. WHO had the most to gain by teresa's death and avery being put in jail???!!!
