OT: Making A Murderer on Netflix

[CloneIce]

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.

I don't think things went down exactly as the prosecution said they did. But there are many, many cases where the police and prosecution cannot find "indisputable" evidence. Most cases where guilt or innocence is completely indisputable don't go to trial. And a great defense lawyer will make almost anything disputable.

I would probably lean towards saying it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt if I was on that jury. I disagree that it is not debatable - legal experts are absolutely debating that point, and many many people have been found guilty on significantly less evidence... including Avery himself in the previous case!

 

[CloneIce]

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.

Eh? Really? That was the only piece of evidence? This has to be first time I have seen people claim that finding the victim's body and possessions in a burn barrel of the last person she was confirmed to see is not a piece of evidence.

 

[BBHMagic]

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.

Sorry I wasn't trying to offend you. I was just assuming, based off of the tone of all your posts, that your statement was a general address to the things being discussed.

Like I mentioned earlier, I too believe he could have been the murderer, but the evidence points to it not occurring how they say it did. This leaves the strong possibility that it was committed by someone else.

 

[BBHMagic]

Eh? Really? That was the only piece of evidence? This has to be first time I have seen people claim that finding the victim's body and possessions in a burn barrel of the last person she was confirmed to see is not a piece of evidence.

It was obviously not the only piece of evidence, but it was the only piece of evidence that put her in the house. That is important especially since it's credibility is very questionable.

 

[CY88CE11]

Eh? Really? That was the only piece of evidence? This has to be first time I have seen people claim that finding the victim's body and possessions in a burn barrel of the last person she was confirmed to see is not a piece of evidence.

I think what he's saying is that she contaminated the only sample that was found. They used her results as evidence in the trial, and the test was run outside of protocol. They admitted it, saying, "well, some amount of common sense has to apply". NO. It's a scientific test. It's not about assuming what the result should be.

 

[Boxerdaddy]

This just seems crazy to me. I was under the assumption that there might be a slant to what was presented (to make him seem innocent)...but after reading the pro-defense reddit page (https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...defense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/) I just don't know. I think i'm with the majority here who thinks that he could have done it but the evidence was just not there and seems falsified at nearly every turn.

EDIT: Never thought about the temperature required to incinerate bone...I'm sure i'm on some sort of watchlist now after googling that.

 

[cwood1967]

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.

Why is the bloody hair pattern left in the SUV if her hair was cut off?

 

[CloneIce]

This just seems crazy to me. I was under the assumption that there might be a slant to what was presented (to make him seem innocent)...but after reading the pro-defense reddit page (https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...defense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/) I just don't know. I think i'm with the majority here who thinks that he could have done it but the evidence was just not there and seems falsified at nearly every turn.

EDIT: Never thought about the temperature required to incinerate bone...I'm sure i'm on some sort of watchlist now after googling that.

That reddit page is pretty slanted too of course. Some of those are downright ridiculous. Yeah, of course the judge doesn't allow the defense to present a list of potential murderers written by the defendant at trial, nor are anonymous letters normally allowed to be presented as evidence (imagine the possibilities if they were!).

Also not sure about all this talk about "blood blow back." We are talking about a .22 aren't we? .22 calibers don't typically cause huge bloody messes. That is one of the reasons the mafia used them for up close assassinations.

 

[CloneIce]

Why is the bloody hair pattern left in the SUV if her hair was cut off?

Why are you asking me that?

 

[CY88CE11]

That reddit page is pretty slanted too of course. Some of those are downright ridiculous. Yeah, of course the judge doesn't allow the defense to present a list of potential murderers written by the defendant at trial, nor are anonymous letters normally allowed to be presented as evidence (imagine the possibilities if they were!).

Also not sure about all this talk about "blood blow back." We are talking about a .22 aren't we? .22 calibers don't typically cause huge bloody messes. That is one of the reasons the mafia used them for up close assassinations.

Not a single drop of blood spattered onto the gun? Or any part of the garage? Come on.

 

[CloneIce]

Not a single drop of blood spattered onto the gun? Or any part of the garage? Come on.

C'mon, I never stated anything close to that. Have you ever shot an animal with a .22 in the head? .22 are low weight bullets that often ricochet in the skull. There should be some blood but you wouldn't expect blood to splatter everywhere like you shot someone with a larger caliber bullet or hollow point or something.

And yes, though Avery is not a smart man, he is smart enough to wipe up some blood spots.

 

[NATEizKING]

C'mon, I never stated anything close to that. Have you ever shot an animal with a .22 in the head? .22 are low weight bullets that often ricochet in the skull. There should be some blood but you wouldn't expect blood to splatter everywhere like you shot someone with a larger caliber bullet or hollow point or something.

And yes, though Avery is not a smart man, he is smart enough to wipe up some blood spots.

But not smart enough to crush the car or not smart enough to voluntarily let them in his trailer where he has her car key.

 

[mkcrawford]

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.

This is just one of the questions I was left with. If he/they killed her in SA's trailer, cut her hair off, moved her outside, and burned her body - how did her blood stain from her hair get in the back of the RAV4, as presented at the trial?

 

[CloneIce]

But not smart enough to crush the car or not smart enough to voluntarily let them in his trailer where he has her car key.

I thought the same thing about crushing the car, but the truth is this line of questioning assumes human being are always rational and analytical, which they are not, especially really stupid ones like the defendants in this case.

To answer your question - yes, there are plenty of people who are smart enough to wipe up a blood stain that is directly in front of their face, but not smart enough to think of the best way to dispose of a vehicle, or smart enough to know of their rights in regards to police searches. Even a person with an IQ in the 70's can clean up some blood. Do you disagree with that? Or does every murderer who is capable of wiping up a bloodstain always correctly plan out the rest of their evidence disposal actions and their interactions with police?

 

[HitItHard58]

I thought the same thing about crushing the car, but the truth is this line of questioning assumes human being are always rational and analytical, which they are not, especially really stupid ones like the defendants in this case.

To answer your question - yes, there are plenty of people who are smart enough to wipe up a blood stain that is directly in front of their face, but not smart enough to think of the best way to dispose of a vehicle, or smart enough to know of their rights in regards to police searches. Do you disagree with that?

It's possible but I have hard time believing he wouldn't have thought of using the crusher. Don't remember for sure so maybe somebody can help me out here but didn't he use it somewhat regularly?

 

[CloneIce]

It's possible but I have hard time believing he wouldn't have thought of using the crusher. Don't remember for sure so maybe somebody can help me out here but didn't he use it somewhat regularly?

They did say that on the documentary. I just don't buy the "but he would have thought of this way to dispose of evidence" as a legitimate defense argument. The guy is very, very, stupid, and likely not in a rational state of mind if he just murdered someone. It makes for interesting speculation, but I would have to laugh that one off if I was a juror and the defense used that as a legal argument. Its based on the assumption that the defendant thought all his future actions through, which usually doesn't happen in a crime like this.

 

[BBHMagic]

They did say that on the documentary. I just don't buy the "but he would have thought of this way to dispose of evidence" as a legitimate defense argument. The guy is very, very, stupid, and likely not in a rational state of mind if he just murdered someone. It makes for interesting speculation, but I would have to laugh that one off if I was a juror and the defense used that as a legal argument. Its based on the assumption that the defendant thought all his future actions through, which usually doesn't happen in a crime like this.

But he supposedly did try to hide the car so he would have known that was important. I do believe it is a stretch, even with his IQ, to think if he was smart enough to hide the car he wouldn't use the crusher. Possible? Yes, but another piece that screams more than reasonable doubt.

Also they found his and other DNA on the garage floor suggesting the floor was never cleaned as ALL DNA would be eliminated. They also found drops of blood that turned out to be from deer. That would also be strange for a person covering up a murder to be selective in the blood they choose to wipe up.

 

[VTXCyRyD]

Eh? Really? That was the only piece of evidence? This has to be first time I have seen people claim that finding the victim's body and possessions in a burn barrel of the last person she was confirmed to see is not a piece of evidence.

She contaminated the only piece of DNA evidence on the bullet during her test that was found to be contaminated.

Is that better?

 

[VTXCyRyD]

C'mon, I never stated anything close to that. Have you ever shot an animal with a .22 in the head? .22 are low weight bullets that often ricochet in the skull. There should be some blood but you wouldn't expect blood to splatter everywhere like you shot someone with a larger caliber bullet or hollow point or something.

And yes, though Avery is not a smart man, he is smart enough to wipe up some blood spots.

What would he use to clean up the blood? Chlorine Bleach? Luminol would still show the presence of the blood in the area. Do you think Avery is smart enough to know that?

 

[SC Cy]

Very good, intriguing series for Netflix. That being said, six or seven episodes would have been sufficient.