I understand, and that's plausible. But when the suspect has a freshly gashed finger, and his blood is in the victims car, that's not nearly the leap of saying the cops planted it.
Making a Murderer
- Thread starter etowncatfan
- Start date
I understand, and that's plausible. But when the suspect has a freshly gashed finger, and his blood is in the victims car, that's not nearly the leap of saying the cops planted it.
One thing I haven't seen a lot of in this thread is the fact that her phone had been accessed and at least one message deleted. The phone was password protected, so someone either had to hack it or it had to be someone who knew her and knew the password. Zero chance these two guys hacked her phone or even had the foresight to think about her messages anyway.
Did the car crusher work? Did he know how to use it? Was it even on the property at the time of the murders?
You think Avery crushing a 6 yard old car might have alerted his family. They made their living off of junk cars, parts off of junk cars. You think a late model Toyota might be worth a little money to them?
Maybe not but to me the tampered vile of blood also plants suspicion that something was going on.
I agree that it does, but what are the reasons it would have been opened.
Is it possible it was opened to get his DNA to compare against the pubic hair in prior conviction?
They didn't hack her phone, they hacked into her voicemail. Wasn't her phone burned? I thought that and her camera were found in the pit. Her ex-boyfriend testified he was the one who "guessed" her password for the voicemails.
But there were no fingerprints of Avery found in the car. So that leads one to believe he would've been using gloves. How did the blood from the cut on his finger get there if he used gloves?
I can see that, maybe the blood soaked through the glove. More than likely jersey gloves would be laying all over the place there. No fingerprints, but blood would soak through. Or he simply was holding a rag or shirt to mask his prints, and the blood dropped off and he didn't realize it.
That still doesn't explain the DNA on the hood that wasn't blood. The documentary never touched on this DNA, because there is no explanation for it in his defense. Not to mention it aligns with Brendan saying he disconnected the battery.
You may be right. I just remember that someone deleted voicemails. If it wasn't done by her phone, it would be even more likely Avery & Dassey didn't do it (delete the voicemails).
So you're saying that avery is smart enough to think that crushing a car might alert gis family but too dumb to realize that dragging a dead body around the yard of the family housing compound might alert his family? When do your explanations start making any sense?
All of those things are alleged except for the years of false imprisonment and killing an animal (which 99.7% of the us population does).
If Avery did it then why in the world would he need to pop the hood and yank the battery cables? I mean what purpose does that serve?
Now if you were setting Avery up and didn't want the vehicle to move from his junkyard it would make a lot of sense!
The biggest thing for me to believe either way is the level of retardation from one point to another as far what Avery is capable of. Then add to that the amount of common sense it takes to believe anything in the whole damn scenario.
You know what does make sense TBH......that more than Brendan helped cover the thing up. Whatever Avery did it was completely spontaneous and he got busted by the Dassey boys. None of them were willing to come out originally because he was going to pay them from his lawsuit. But once he cashed that ticket they turned on him and since he was in prison he was just hopeful they would see he did it for a defense. Brendan was too dumb to keep his mouth shut so he went down too. Then Scott was told by Bobby Dassey what happened and helped give him an alibi but at that time Brendan and Avery were done except some bogus framed defense.
I'm not claiming this as a conspiracy, but it would make everything tie together a lot better IMHO.
I think everyone can agree the bobby/Scott link is odd and they both know more than they are telling.
Now if you were setting Avery up and didn't want the vehicle to move from his junkyard it would make a lot of sense!
The biggest thing for me to believe either way is the level of retardation from one point to another as far what Avery is capable of. Then add to that the amount of common sense it takes to believe anything in the whole damn scenario.
You know what does make sense TBH......that more than Brendan helped cover the thing up. Whatever Avery did it was completely spontaneous and he got busted by the Dassey boys. None of them were willing to come out originally because he was going to pay them from his lawsuit. But once he cashed that ticket they turned on him and since he was in prison he was just hopeful they would see he did it for a defense. Brendan was too dumb to keep his mouth shut so he went down too. Then Scott was told by Bobby Dassey what happened and helped give him an alibi but at that time Brendan and Avery were done except some bogus framed defense.
I'm not claiming this as a conspiracy, but it would make everything tie together a lot better IMHO.
I think everyone can agree the bobby/Scott link is odd and they both know more than they are telling.
There is a big difference between killing an animal, and dousing the family cat in combustible fluid and throwing it in a bonfire. 99.7% of the us population does not do that.
So where do we draw the line about what animals deserve to die with dignity? Is it just mammals? 90%+ of americans have eaten a crustacean before. Boiled alive for consumption. Some cows are strung up by their hind legs and their throat slit to kill them.
So is it just when animals are brutally killed for recreation that we take great offense to it? Is it just gamily pets that deserve not to die? Just playing devil's advocate here.
Killing animals for food is one thing.
Burning a cat alive for ***** and giggles is cruel, IMO. And we have laws against that.
Gamily pets. FTW
OT, not pointed crazyqx83 and only a little sarcasm. But, "we" only care about fuzzy puppies.
Hence there are no - Save the Lab Rat - commercials.
Exactly. You never see sarah mclaclan singing over vidoes of turtles. Might as well change the name of the organization to american society for the prevention of cruelty to domesticated felines and canines. Cuz they know full well that 99% of the us couldnt give 2 ***** about any other animal.
People try to save turtles.
http://www.seeturtles.org/baby-turt...kTqZpN9uKGmyaGOs49L8C6jsIt7LpXcTlgaArLF8P8HAQ
http://www.seeturtles.org/baby-turt...kTqZpN9uKGmyaGOs49L8C6jsIt7LpXcTlgaArLF8P8HAQ
So you think Avery, who lives on the compound, the garage and fire pit are literally steps apart wouldn't be able to move a body without his family noticing, right? But someone could sneak in, hide the vehicle, scatter bones and clothing and the Avery clan would never know the difference?
His family dealt in junk cars, so yeah I think Avery crushing a new model car would raise suspicion.
Yea. We call those people looney tunes. Id rather they be locked up than mr. Avery.
I don't know if she was or not, I do believe her or her body was in there in the RAV4.
Whether you believe Brendan's story or not, he and Avery were in there cleaning with bleach, gas and kerosene the night she disappeared. His own mother stated the same.
I don't have any earthly idea why Avery would lift the battery cables, but he did. His DNA that wasn't blood was right there where Brendan said he opened the hood and lifted cables.
Do you really think someone snagged her just as soon as she left Avery's, before she could make any calls. Murdered her, snuck into the Avery compound and hid the vehicle, planted Averys blood, scattered her bones? Do you understand how many things would have to fall in line perfectly for that to happen?
And if you believe the police planted the key then you must believe they killed her too. How else would they be in possession of the key?
How did Averys sweat DNA get on the hood?
Whether you believe Brendan's story or not, he and Avery were in there cleaning with bleach, gas and kerosene the night she disappeared. His own mother stated the same.
I don't have any earthly idea why Avery would lift the battery cables, but he did. His DNA that wasn't blood was right there where Brendan said he opened the hood and lifted cables.
Do you really think someone snagged her just as soon as she left Avery's, before she could make any calls. Murdered her, snuck into the Avery compound and hid the vehicle, planted Averys blood, scattered her bones? Do you understand how many things would have to fall in line perfectly for that to happen?
And if you believe the police planted the key then you must believe they killed her too. How else would they be in possession of the key?
How did Averys sweat DNA get on the hood?
I am confident that the police planted something. Therefore, both deserve a new trial. Also, I think Dassey should just be pardoned. Avery likely did it, but at least deserves a new trial.
It wasn't sweat DNA, it was non-blood DNA. Sweat in itself doesn't contain DNA. So assuming it was skin cells that were found there, they could have easily been planted also (just as Avery's DNA was found on the obviously-planted key) by rubbing a worn piece of clothing on the latch or by some other method. This is made more suspicious by the fact that none of Avery's fingerprints were found on or in the car. If he was wearing gloves, then how did his DNA get on the hood latch? Skin cells (or sweat for that matter) don't move through gloves.
And did you watch the section of interrogation where Brendan claims Steve opened the hood and disconnected the battery? I don't remember that being in the documentary... but judging by the way the rest of interrogation was conducted, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say he could have been coerced into admitting that also.
I've seen you make similar posts to various people. You keep proposing that he must have done it because no one else could have "without the family noticing," or because an outsider wouldn't be able to "sneak in" without the "Avery clan" seeing him.
But wouldn't you agree that the other members of the Avery family themselves are the most likely alternative suspects?
It just seems like you're ignoring them entirely even though you already acknowledge that the guilty party would need an intimate knowledge of the Avery property and access to all of the different areas where evidence was discovered.
Who better than someone who lives there other than Steven and Brendan?
Why didn't Avery crush the car? Why was the key found only after multiple visits? Why wasn't Teresa's DNA on the key?
So much reasonable doubt that no jury could have or should have found him guilty on a unanimous vote.
So much reasonable doubt that no jury could have or should have found him guilty on a unanimous vote.
Here's the problem, you didn't see it in the documentary.
The idea that 300000 people have signed a petition on this guys behalf after watching a clearly skewed documentary is just absolutely absurd to me.
A trial is far more than a 10 hour show, what will happen is the guy will eventually get out of jail, no one else will be convicted because we just let the guy out who did it, Teresa Halbach won't have justice.
These far fetched theories are ridiculous, now the cops are planting Averys other DNA too. The truth is right there in front of your face, there's just too much pointing toward Avery.
I wish people weren't so hung up on Dassey's confession. That obviously didn't happen, but people can't get past that scenario for whatever reason.
It's funny people say no one could sneak onto the property but think the same people no one could sneak past could just have someone who lives there shoot someone however many times, and burn them without any one noticing. Wouldn't someone have noticed the gun shot sounds? I mean 11 of them? Christ!
Then just a few hours later a damn bonfire? Yea that's not the least bit suspicious.
Again I do lean to Avery being guilty but whatever happened hasn't even been close to whats been explained.
It's funny people say no one could sneak onto the property but think the same people no one could sneak past could just have someone who lives there shoot someone however many times, and burn them without any one noticing. Wouldn't someone have noticed the gun shot sounds? I mean 11 of them? Christ!
Then just a few hours later a damn bonfire? Yea that's not the least bit suspicious.
Again I do lean to Avery being guilty but whatever happened hasn't even been close to whats been explained.
Last edited:
I love the constant bringing up of evidence that supports conclusions which the same people admit were unlikely to have happened. Mostly, the "leg irons" and Dassey's confession as it relates to what happened in the bedroom.
You can't point to Dassey's confession about unhooking the battery cables or the "leg irons", but then ignore the lack of any DNA in the bedroom. If you accept those two pieces of evidence, you HAVE to believe she was raped/abused in the bedroom, or that "evidence" means nothing. The lack of her DNA is literally all the reasonable doubt necessary to acquit.
You can't point to Dassey's confession about unhooking the battery cables or the "leg irons", but then ignore the lack of any DNA in the bedroom. If you accept those two pieces of evidence, you HAVE to believe she was raped/abused in the bedroom, or that "evidence" means nothing. The lack of her DNA is literally all the reasonable doubt necessary to acquit.
Last edited:
I know right. I mean those pink feathered hand cuffs, that clearly had never been used nor had one shred of DNA from Daubach, is so damning to the defense.
Other than planting, please explain a situation where non-blood DNA (i.e. skin) is found on the hood latch yet no fingerprints are found anywhere on/in the car. It makes zero sense. I'd love to hear YOUR iron-clad theory about this piece of evidence.
"The truth is right there in front of your face." [eyeroll]
Guilty or not, in the court of law you're innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution's job is to present a case that proves without a shadow of a doubt that Avery killed her. They did not even get close. The fact that Avery is going to spend life behind bars based on the prosecutions testimony is baffling. To the people saying he probably did it and should be behind bars, you're missing the ENTIRE point. The mere fact that some of this evidence had been planted should be enough for acquittal.
So you're saying there is no possible way he could've wiped the handle and steering wheel, or held a rag in his hand and simply not realized he had dropped blood from a cut while starting vehicle? In your mind it's more likely the cops killed her and staged it all?
Because it was DNA that was recovered from his perspiration.
So you're saying it's completely plausible that someone else could commit the crime and leave no finger prints, but Avery couldn't?