Awesome Crazy

Making a murderer

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ana BeaumontTopic starter

  • 66
  • +4/-0
  • HEY! I love everything about anything all the time
Making a murderer
on: 10:55 pm Tuesday, January 26, 2016
I just finished watching that Netflix show and lemme tell you... wow.
I'll try not to spoil anything, but I felt sick about how everything was handled and about all the things that happened to the man, regardless of him being guilty or innocent (although I believe he is innocent for now).
I haven't had a show make me feel something so strongly in years, and it wasn't a good feeling at all. I'm still a bit angry thinking about it. Justice isn't justice anymore.
Have you seen it? Have you heard about the case?
Edit: Adding the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_a_Murderer
« Last Edit: 11:07 pm Tuesday, January 26, 2016 by Ana Beaumont »

Offline Alundra

  • The Local Alan key
  • 22,577
  • +17/-0
  • Just keep truckin'
Re: Making a murderer
Reply #1 on: 10:24 pm Thursday, January 28, 2016
OMG YES I DID WATCH IT!! You realise the entire series is about him and his family yeah? Not just one episode? When you're done with all the episodes (unless you want to skip the last one like me) you should read a couple of things...

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

And this comment....from the above article....
Quote
Fatima Hassan  Darwin 10 days ago
I don't understand how a person who is able to clean a garage of all blood evidence is then going to hide a key piece of evidence in his room. He could have just as easily burnt that key with the rest of her stuff. He could have thrown it in the woods. Jeez, anything would be better than just putting it in your room, behind a piece of furniture or not!

One of the things that bothers me about this case is that I'm supposed to view Avery as this mismatched person. He had the wherewithal to dispose of her body but did so in front of his own home? He thoroughly sterilized the crime scene with bleach but then didn't so much as give the car a cursory scrub?

And the author of this article believes that Avery is guilty, in part, because of the DNA evidence in the hood. Okay, so the author believes that Avery hid the car on his own property. Two things: Why would a guy who's willing to completely bleach down the garage (and ostensibly clean the room where the rape took place) not be willing to do a better job of disposing the vehicle? It was found in literally 20 minutes. He could have burnt it. He could have crushed it. He could have left it further from his home. Any number of better solutions than leaving it completely uncleaned and exposed near his home.

Furthermore, if they raped her in the trailer, dragged her to the garage, killed her in the garage, and then dragged her a few feet outside to the fire, then why was her blood in the vehicle at all? The blood expert said that the blood patterns in the back of the vehicle clearly suggested that her hair had been matted with blood and she was slumped to the side of the trunk. Why would she have ever been in there? And if, in fact, Avery had FOR SOME REASON put her in the back of the trunk only to shortly take her out again and burn her, why wouldn't he clean her visible bloodstains from the back of the car? We already know he's not adverse to cleaning since he did such a spectacular job in the crime scene.

In other words, this guy was able to meticulously clean the site of a grizzly and assuredly bloody murder (despite this being very difficult to do), WITHOUT A TRACE, but then made virtually no effort to conceal the crime having occurred on his property? Why clean her blood from the garage if you're going to leave her bones in your front yard fire pit?

And why were bones found in the quarry? The majority were found in his fire pit but some trace amounts were found some distance away in that quarry. Doesn't this strongly suggest that the bones were moved at some point? It's not likely that she was burnt in both places, right? The expert witness stated that the place where the majority of bones are found is the likely place of original burning. But how does that make sense? Why would someone remove a small portion of the remains to another location? If they were going to do this, they would surely make an attempt to transport ALL the remains to that location. Thus, it would follow that the majority of the bones would be found in the secondary location. The original location would be the place where you find less bones since the original location has been "cleaned" and only vestiges remain.

Then I have to believe that he has this tiny little piece of evidence, the key, which he takes with him and puts in his own room. Huh? Why would he do that? Even following the theory that he's a totally nonsensical idiot, one would think he'd put the keys in with her other effects that he burnt (the camera and palm pilot) or leave them with the car that he carelessly left on his family plot. And I'm supposed to believe this mind-boggling narrative in spite of the absurdly sketchy circumstances under which this crucial piece of evidence was found?

Like the bullet found in the garage which he meticulously cleaned (hint: you can't eliminate all traces of blood evidence by simply mopping the floor with bleach; if you believe he eliminated all trace of blood evidence, you must believe he did a very thorough job of cleaning) but left a spent round AND shell casings all over the [FORUM CENSOR] place.

And these are the main pieces of evidence, and they're very circumstantial. Saying that he specifically requested Teresa Halbach come over and that proves murderous intent is pure speculation. Implying that he must have liked her, which provides grounds or motive for the murder, is speculation upon speculation. There are hundreds of innocent reasons why he might have requested her specifically.

The main problem with this case, however, is not the lack of convincing evidence regarding Avery. That's big but, to me, it's not the main issue. The main problem, if you ask me, is that the police did not follow ANY OTHER LEADS WHATSOEVER. Here we had a plot of land upon which several of the residents had criminal records. We had a woman with several men in her life. We never even scratched the surface of Teresa Halbach's life. We never even scratched the surface of her relationships. We never made an attempt to discover if anything was going on in her life because we were sure that Avery was guilty and the only motive for that guilt could be pure homicidal rage, sadism, or random hatred.

If Teresa Halbach had complained to her boss that Avery was weird or creepy or annoying, then it follows that she might have spoken to others about Avery. She could have told friends or family members, and that information could have gotten to anyone. In other words, there was a hundred ways for a third party to have known about and capitalized on her interaction with Avery.

It would not have required Sherlock Holmes' intellect to realize that Avery would be a perfect fall guy for a crime. He was an adversary to the local police, someone with a bad reputation, and someone who had interacted with Teresa several times. It would not require a genius for anyone who wanted to kill Teresa to know that Avery would make an apt fall guy, especially if that person knew Teresa.

But we never investigated anything that didn't involve Avery. We'll never know what was on those voicemails that were deleted, and who deleted them. Not important, I suppose. Any avenue that might have led in another direction seemed unimportant, so no one will ever be able to say. Just a random homicidal rage on Avery's part that led to Teresa's death for no apparent reason, and people in WI seem satisfied with that.

So no, we don't know if Avery did it or not. We don't know how it even happened. Frankly, we don't know [FORUM CENSOR]. Why not? Because of a police department and its cohorts that, quite obviously, wanted to put a man in prison no matter what that meant... FOR A SECOND TIME.


-----


No. As far as I know, that would have been impossible with how utterly the body had been destroyed.

That's another thing that I thought was strange. Burning a body is a considerable effort, especially to the point of completely destroying the skeleton. I would think it would require an intense fire that lasted some time, and I imagine that the smell and smoke would have been intense within a certain proximity.

Remember how the shady neighbor initially reported a 3 feet high fire and then reported a 10 feet high fire in court? Pretty noticeable difference, but even if it were a 10 foot fire, you still couldn't destroy a body like that in the span of an hour or even three.

Bodies burn in about 3 hours at a crematorium, which is a controlled chamber designed specifically for burning bodies. To burn a body in a fire pit, I think we can safely assume it would take at least 5 hours, and that's assuming you could maintain total engulfment of the body the whole time. Of course they could have dismembered the body before burning it to make the task easier, but now our modus operandi for the killing becomes even more complicated and professional , making all other aspects of the narrative even more bizarre.

Doesn't it make more sense that the body was burned in the nearby quarry than the front of Avery's house? Wouldn't Avery himself have done it this way? Wouldn't that account for the body having been transported in the back of the RAV, where the victim's blood was found?

Very strange indeed.

Then, if you're really into it like I was read this: http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2016/01/21/netflixs-making-a-murder-guilty-or-innocent-does-it-matter/

I don't think he did it either to be honest. Even the cops lawyer said they planted evidence because they decided he was guilty.

Offline Ana BeaumontTopic starter

  • 66
  • +4/-0
  • HEY! I love everything about anything all the time
Re: Making a murderer
Reply #2 on: 1:44 am Friday, January 29, 2016
You realise the entire series is about him and his family yeah?
I know, I've seen it all. I felt so bad for his poor mother that I almost cried. Even after everything she still remained hopeful. What a lady! And his dad too, they kept fighting for the first time he was locked up and keep on fighting today.
I don't think he did it either to be honest. Even the cops lawyer said they planted evidence because they decided he was guilty.
That's what I don't get!! Cops said that evidence was planted and he gets to go to jail anyway? What is wrong with you people!! Thankfully new evidence has been found so I think they will be able to have a new trial, because this last one was a joke! Looking forward for the second season of this series!

Re: Making a murderer
Reply #3 on: 11:36 am Saturday, January 30, 2016
I watched all ten episodes in two sittings.  The docudrama was heavily edited and it clearly could not include all the details and nuances that occurred.  This crime seemed to have no motive.  For what reason would Steven Avery want to kill Theresa Halbach? 

And what about his nephew, Brendan Dassey?   This poor kid will spend the rest of his life in jail, only because he was easily influenced by authorities that scared him into making a 'confession'. 

Offline Ana BeaumontTopic starter

  • 66
  • +4/-0
  • HEY! I love everything about anything all the time
Re: Making a murderer
Reply #4 on: 8:38 am Sunday, January 31, 2016
And what about his nephew, Brendan Dassey?   This poor kid will spend the rest of his life in jail, only because he was easily influenced by authorities that scared him into making a 'confession'. 
Grrrrr, that made my blood boil! He was clearly not a normal kid and had a severe cognitive stepback, yet they treated him like an adult. The cops literally asked yes or no questions with all those crazy details. Like how would they even know she was raped if the only thing they've found out were bones. Yet they were like: and then you raped her didn't you? If you say you did you can go. Of course the kid jus answered yes, he wanted to go home and watch the cartoons. For christ's sake.

Offline Alundra

  • The Local Alan key
  • 22,577
  • +17/-0
  • Just keep truckin'
Re: Making a murderer
Reply #5 on: 6:44 pm Sunday, February 7, 2016
They were both below average intelligence, in fact technically both of them are considered retarded (an IQ of 70). I don't know why neither of them had help, an interpreter or a lawyer, anything....

and where's that FBI guy who tells people if they got a coerced confession? I watched a documentary with him in it. Why aren't they pulling experts on coerced confessions in?

Amen on the rape part! I was wondering that myself, you can't perform a rape kit on ashes!

 

anything