Other way around I think. Said around 2 at the trial which was right after they mentioned when the sign in log was established that afternoon.
OT: Making A Murderer on Netflix
- Thread starter dahliaclone
- Start date
Other way around I think. Said around 2 at the trial which was right after they mentioned when the sign in log was established that afternoon.
The way I see it the only two people it could possibly be is SA or Lenk. If Stevens relatives that were going hunting or the ladies brother and ex did it I don't think it is possible that the cops planted evidence just to get SA. So that would mean that either Stevens relatives or the ex and brother planted that evidence and I don't see that happening.
So to me the only 2 options are SA or Lenk. I am for sure leaning towards Lenks as being the killer. He was there when the majority of the evidence was found even though he wasn't suppose to be involved in the search. Also he had access to Stevens vial of blood.
If SA did kill her there is one thing that is for damn sure. He absolutely did not kill her where the prosecutors said he did. No freaking way.
So to me the only 2 options are SA or Lenk. I am for sure leaning towards Lenks as being the killer. He was there when the majority of the evidence was found even though he wasn't suppose to be involved in the search. Also he had access to Stevens vial of blood.
If SA did kill her there is one thing that is for damn sure. He absolutely did not kill her where the prosecutors said he did. No freaking way.
I think someone killed her, threw her in RAV4 burned her elsewhere and then tried to pin it on Avery. She was missing a couple days before it was reported. Avery was such an easy target. The only people with a motive was the police. Maybe a hit man. It was just such a messed up investigation. No other dna in rav besides that little blood. No Dna in the house. No samples taken from bedroom. No scuff marks on the bed post. I feel bad for the family but they must have some doubts without any Dna evidence. He had a crusher and smelt on the premises. No way he cleaned house and garage and left car and body parts around. Unreal that Brandon was given life with zero evidence. Brandon is the worst part of the entire thing.
No, it's not.
It may be legal, but it's not "fine." If you hand me a kid with a cognitive disability like Brendan, I could have him confessing to intentionally sinking Atlantis inside of half an hour. They told the kid that he was a liar almost 80 times in 3 hours. That's people you have been told are the good guys, and the authority, telling you you're a liar every 2.25 minutes. That's coercion, and even if it's legal, it's not "fine."
it wasn't the Sheriff, it was Kratz.
The phone calls to Auto Trader were admitted into evidence, but the judge disallowed the testimony giving it context. According to one coworker, Teresa was creeped out by them, citing that the first meeting with him he answered the door in just a bath towel. Another coworker related how she thought it was hilarious, and only told coworkers about it it in a "crazy people I've dealt with" sort of joking way. The coworker that claimed she was creeped out by Avery heard it from another coworker that heard it from Teresa.
As for leaving stuff out - the film makers admit this. They say that it was a 16 week trial, and even with 10 hours of documentary, some stuff had to be edited out. They edited out a lot of the defense as well. They felt that testimony of the two family members, combined with DNA on the bullet and no EDTA in the blood represented the strongest portions of the prosecution, and left out the chaff that wasn't as important.
I was walking out of the house when it started but Good Morning America was doing a story on this.
I just now put two and two together. Kiss the Girls was an Alex Cross novel. That specific book in mind was pretty disturbing, which made it great.
Got about halfway through Dear Zachary and was so ****** Canada let Zachary's mother out on bail that I turned off the TV.
So I just now googled the finish.
Wow. Makes me sick.
So I just now googled the finish.
Wow. Makes me sick.
didn't one Defense lawyer say the first vote of the jury prior to the dismissed lawyer was 7 voted innocent, 2 guilty and 3 undecided.....
I think this may be a case where Avery (or someone else in his family) committed the crime, AND he was framed by the police. I don't think there is much of a chance that the story the prosecution constructed of the murder is accurate. The police didn't think they had the evidence to convict him, so they framed him and created the timeline of how everything went down. That doesn't mean he didn't actually do it though, it still seems very likely given the legitimate evidence (including what wasn't presented in the documentary) that he did it. His nephew? He should be exonerated... I cannot believe what the lawyers, including his own defense did to him, and he obviously wasn't competent mentally to be interviewed on his own like that. He would've done anything they told him to do.
I don't buy that the county murdered the woman in order to frame him though... not because they aren't capable of it (some seriously terrible people there), but because I don't think they had the foresight and planning to logistically make it all happen and keep it all under wraps.
I don't buy that the county murdered the woman in order to frame him though... not because they aren't capable of it (some seriously terrible people there), but because I don't think they had the foresight and planning to logistically make it all happen and keep it all under wraps.
What about Avery's brother-in-law, Tadych? His testimony was very sketchy. Tadych said he saw Halbach taking pictures, but she was gone by 3 p.m. The bus driver said she saw Halbach from 3:30 to 3:40. the bus driver's testimony is one of the more reliable in the case. He exaggerated the height of the flames coming from Avery's bonfire. The defense mentioned him trying to sell a .22 to one of the Dassey brothers (Halbach was killed with a .22). He was quoted after the verdict as saying Avery "got what was coming to him," and "This was the best thing that could have happened," or something to that effect. He was familiar with, probably lived (although I'm not positive of that) on the Avery acreage. He clearly did not like Steven Avery and perhaps had the capability of framing him. At teh very least, his testimony was a crock of ****.
