Making a Murderer
- Thread starter etowncatfan
- Start date
I've not watched Making a Murderer yet but I've been to more than enough suicide and unattended death scenes. I've seen jobs where people hemorrhage in their bed and the blood doesn't make it's way to the mattress. Then again, I've seen jobs where you find blood in all kinds of spots.
Krazy, The kid knew he had done the wrong thing, and didn't want to tell the cops. Again, the cops are not going to seriously investigate someone else when they have the car, and body right next to the last person known to see her, especially after you tie in phone records. They just aren't, in any case.
You said you hated authority, and had your mind made up with what you were going to find going in, then it's not surprising to me that you found what you wanted..
Bill the stubbornness in those who choose to believe there isn't anything that is so solid to be 100% sure Avery did it is the same stubbornness that you have saying he did it.
Do you know why they should have at least investigated or questioned a few people? Because of their history with Avery.
Regardless of what your saying here to remain consistent with your opinion on the matter there is a lot that shoulda/woulda/coulda happened and allowed this to be an airtight situation without doubt.
It isn't our fault they created doubt with how they handled or mishandled the whole situation all the way through from day one until the verdict.
Do you know why they should have at least investigated or questioned a few people? Because of their history with Avery.
Regardless of what your saying here to remain consistent with your opinion on the matter there is a lot that shoulda/woulda/coulda happened and allowed this to be an airtight situation without doubt.
It isn't our fault they created doubt with how they handled or mishandled the whole situation all the way through from day one until the verdict.
Even after constant ridicule, do you STILL not understand your vs you're?
Hate to be that guy, but jesus dude. Your an idiot.
I don't blame Bill for his take. He honestly wants to believe the system worked and Avery did it. But he's also why the system is flawed. He's unwilling to look past his own biased opinion to look at the side of reasonable doubt. He wont even consider it.
But on the other hand, only a blind retard would think the kid was involved.
Yes I understand the difference. When typing I do not think about it what so ever.:100points:
Did you watch the kids entire confession? Honestly man, watch it, not the part the documentary showed. He goes into great detail, things only someone involved would know.
When you resort to name calling it shows you've got nothing so you fall back on attacking the messenger.
I've been posting in this thread from basically the start of it. I've written it several times that I felt the same as many of you did after watching it. I felt that with what the show revealed there was reasonable doubt, but I also have the ability to realize that there was far more to the case than what we were shown....and context.
Once you see that the show his or left out important info you have to ask why? If they want the truth known why not tell the whole story?
It's my opinion, my opinion that he did it. I laid out here why.
There comes a point when you have to look at everything and ask who else possibly could have?
You have to dismiss every piece of evidence, which you are to think otherwise.
The only thing that truly bothers me about Avery is that he can not give a real story that gives him an alibi in that 5-6 hours.
I can honestly say it is absolutely rare for a person to have no encounters, phone calls etc unless they are avoiding it. Other than the 2 calls with Jodi he was basically in seclusion.
I can honestly say it is absolutely rare for a person to have no encounters, phone calls etc unless they are avoiding it. Other than the 2 calls with Jodi he was basically in seclusion.
I don't think that's odd at all. To be at home hanging out with your family on a weeknight? How is that odd?
The people that went hunting (one was family and one wasn't) both testified to talking to Avery after they returned. His gf calls and they speak for 15 minutes. Later that evening Avery calls Brendan and asks him to join him at the bonfire. Brendan's mother calls and talks to Avery and then Avery talks to his gf after that. Later Brendan's brother gets home and sees Avery at the fire. So, while he doesn't have an alibi every second of the night, he speaks to numerous people that afternoon/night.
Bill's problem is something that Romines talked about in the Matt Jones podcast.
We all know that it's the government's burden. But in a case where it's obvious that someone has been brutally murdered, jurors naturally want some kind of alternate explanation about how it actually happened. After all, someone has been killed, so the natural inclination is:
We must hold someone accountable. The longer we go on without doing so, the more harm is done to the victim's family. This crime is so heinous that it can't go unpunished, and here we are at a trial where the state says they know who did it. Seems plausible, so we'll just go with their version unless the defense gives us another theory that makes sense.
Remember, though, Wisconsin restricts the rights of defendants to suggest that a third party actually committed the crime. So the legislature basically has prohibited the defense from offering precisely the kind of explanation that the jury really wants to hear.
Now we all know that jurors who base their decision on the defense's evidence of the accused's innocence would be committing an obvious violation of their oath, but it's not difficult to understand why people think this way.
We all know that it's the government's burden. But in a case where it's obvious that someone has been brutally murdered, jurors naturally want some kind of alternate explanation about how it actually happened. After all, someone has been killed, so the natural inclination is:
We must hold someone accountable. The longer we go on without doing so, the more harm is done to the victim's family. This crime is so heinous that it can't go unpunished, and here we are at a trial where the state says they know who did it. Seems plausible, so we'll just go with their version unless the defense gives us another theory that makes sense.
Remember, though, Wisconsin restricts the rights of defendants to suggest that a third party actually committed the crime. So the legislature basically has prohibited the defense from offering precisely the kind of explanation that the jury really wants to hear.
Now we all know that jurors who base their decision on the defense's evidence of the accused's innocence would be committing an obvious violation of their oath, but it's not difficult to understand why people think this way.
Gtown, that's not my thinking at all. I'm looking at everythibg, and it all points to Avery.
Basing a defense on blaming other people isn't a defense Gtown, it's slinging mud and hoping something sticks because that's your only option.
Do you really think Avery didn't kill Halbach?
Basing a defense on blaming other people isn't a defense Gtown, it's slinging mud and hoping something sticks because that's your only option.
Do you really think Avery didn't kill Halbach?
Should Avery's defense in the original rape trial tried to blame someone else? Would that have been "slinging mud"? Something like 22 people testified in his original trial with an alibi. Wouldn't it have been nice if his defense could have given the jury some sort of evidence that the guy that actually did it?
Gtown was spot on and Bill just can't see it. You begging for another scenario bill but then saying it's not what you want to think otherwise.
I respect your stance but police plant evidence often, and they also tamper with evidence, and sometimes the wrong guy goes down.
You seem to respect the reasonable doubt but think there is no chance evidence was tampered nor planted. Taking everything at face value. Even when given the chance to logically realize there is no way Dassey's confession happened like he said you disregard that.
You are as stubborn as those looking for something else to be convinced. At least you got the law and prosecution on your side, that usually helps.
I respect your stance but police plant evidence often, and they also tamper with evidence, and sometimes the wrong guy goes down.
You seem to respect the reasonable doubt but think there is no chance evidence was tampered nor planted. Taking everything at face value. Even when given the chance to logically realize there is no way Dassey's confession happened like he said you disregard that.
You are as stubborn as those looking for something else to be convinced. At least you got the law and prosecution on your side, that usually helps.
I said the show provided reasonable doubt.
Krazy, Im not begging for another scenario, I want you to tell me why you think Avery didn't do it. What evidence leads you to believe it wasn't him, what pointed to anyone else?
We know she her phone activity stopped upon arriving, the car is found there, she is found there, They cleaned the garage with kerosene, bleach and paint thinner, this is proven, his gun matched the bullet found in his garage with her DNA on it, her bones had burnt tire material on them, Dassey said they burned tires on her, his blood is in her car and DNA on the hood, where Dassey said he took off battery cable. Averys behavior toward Halbach, the numerous phone calls, asking specifically for her, her not wanting to go to his house, the blocked calls.
It's my opinion he did it, no need to analyze me.
You're the one who said they hate authority, so of course you're going to think the way you do. You want them to be in the wrong, I'm just using common sense that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it's a duck.
Are you serious? Why would his defense use that defense if he has 22 alibis, and if he had 22 alibis in the murder trial they wouldn't have wanted to pin on someone else either.
Because he would've actually had a defense to use.
Look, the first trial in the 80's was screwed up, but it was far more than the police.
The victim picked him out of the line up, I can understand she was traumatized, but she still picked him out. The cops screwed up, but the jury also screwed up, there is no way in hell a person with 22 alibis should be convicted. That's also my opinion.
22 alibis clearly weren't enough. Perhaps if his defense were allowed to present another theory, he wouldn't have been convicted and spent 18 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit.
Also, the Cingular Wireless person testified that the last activity on the phone was at 4:21. Meaning they still had a signal up until that point (when it was likely destroyed).
We'll obviously have to agree to disagree on this one, Bill. I've read your posts, and I stand by my characterization of your position.
And, of course, I completely disagree with your insinuation that it isn't a valid defense to suggest that someone else who had access and opportunity to commit the crime might be the guilty party. In fact, I'd argue that your suggestion is exactly the opposite of the way the system is supposed to operate.
Permitting the defense to point out inconsistencies and alternative explanations in response to the government's theory is precisely why we have jury trials. That's the reason we have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, to protect every citizen's right to due process and right to a fair trial. That's also why we have a reasonable doubt standard.
Essentially telling the accused to shut up about other possible suspects or theories is a blatant violation of those principles. It prevents the jury from considering otherwise relevant information in order to increase the likelihood of conviction. That's flipping the system on its head to benefit the government, which is highly ironic when you consider that the entire purpose of the jury trial system is to protect citizens against the overwhelming power of the state.
Like I said your begging for it, and again you ask for exactly what Gtown spoke of. It is what you want but it's impossible because no one was investigated past 1-2questions.
It's impossible to present you a scenario that might make sense without saying that something you believe to be true is actually false therefore I won't waste my time.
My issue with authority has nothing to do with guilty/not guilty. Hell Im pretty sure OJ is guilty but the authorities in that were jackasses which is how I feel about manitowac county too. They just are in a smal po'dunk town that they can actually control.
I truly believe Avery did it so it's not what I'm arguing about. But I think the police corrupted the investigation by planting evidence. I'm not sold on the key being planted and if it is I think it was simply tampered with and moved to solidify it. Too much evidence is suspect for nothing to actually be planted/tampered/corrupted.
That is why I'm not sold 100% that Avery did it.
Even his families alibi's are suspect. 2 people that like to hunt going hunting at the same time at two different places and cross paths on the way right down the street at the same she was killed? That is deserving of investigation.
Also remember a lot of the evidence y have now they did not have when they decided he was the only suspect necessary. Within 20 seconds of a conversation after ringing her vehicle on the yard where at least 8 people live, the sherriff's asked if they had Avery in custody.
You can bring up the finalized evidence all you want but the key pieces weren't found until Dassey's coerced confession. Yes it's coerced because it fit their theory on what happened and wasn't truly a pour your heart out truthful statement. I know what he said tied their evidence and theory together, but that is why it's bogus. They didn't have a clue but came up with something and convinced this retard to tie it all together for them.
2 days into the investigation he saw nothing and did nothing that would have tied him to a murder. He even gave a statement that involved him seeing her and Avery and doing stuff with Avery but nothing of a rape/murder/cover up. You choose to ignore that because you'd rather give his confession more weight.
Moving on from that, Bobby Dassey made a statement that should have ended this in a mistrial, but I suspect they wanted to move on because of the jurors in place(yes I think that was more important than anyone realizes) to get there conviction. Then when the one juror who was as stubborn about Avery being not guilty somehow has a family emergency that cause him to have to leave? Maybe your not aware how far people in power are willing to go to cover things up. Other jurors admitted they didn't feel safe?!? Jesus what else do you need to think corruption is all through this thing?
And you keep mentioning "the one sided view of the documentary and why would they need to present things how they did". Maybe Bill because they weren't trying to prove his innocence, instead shining light on the corruption. They were after the corruption for Christ sake!
Krazy, they didn't convince him to say anything. They knew he was lying, his intelligence only comes into play because when confronted with that fact he'd tell a conflicting lie.
At no point in the confession did they tell him what to say, but if they know he's lying it's their job to point it out. That's how confessions come out, only this time it didn't take much to outsmart him.
Watch the confession of the Canadian Air Force General, it's the same thing.
I don't choose to ignore his statements 2 days after, but good lord what if every investigation stopped questioning someone if they denied being a part of it. I can't believe you truly believe the cops should take everyone at face value, criminals don't generally just volunteer to go to jail.
At no point in the confession did they tell him what to say, but if they know he's lying it's their job to point it out. That's how confessions come out, only this time it didn't take much to outsmart him.
Watch the confession of the Canadian Air Force General, it's the same thing.
I don't choose to ignore his statements 2 days after, but good lord what if every investigation stopped questioning someone if they denied being a part of it. I can't believe you truly believe the cops should take everyone at face value, criminals don't generally just volunteer to go to jail.
That's your opinion Gtown, but I doubt Wisconsin instituted that solely for this case.
Think about what you're writing. If you didn't commit a crime, would your defense be to blame everyone else, or to prove your innocence?
The body of the victim was found RIGHT behind his house! The vehicle onsite, his blood inside the vehicle, DNA on the hood, he was trying to sanitize the garage the night she disappeared, he has no alibi during the time frame.
Do you really think someone snuck the car into the site, placed her bones in the fire and they had just happened to burn tires on her, placed his DNA and blood in the car? And they just so happened to intercept before she had made or received a call on her phone.
If you truly believe that, I'm done even talking about this with you because your opinions are way out there. I hope you never do jury duty.
What did they convince him to say? You mean stopping him when they know he's lying and making conflicting statements? My opinion isn't out there, I watched the entire confession from start to finish, I know what I saw and heard.
I'm probably one of the most reasonable people on here. You think I'm being unreasonable yet you're the one accepting something when NOTHING points to that outcome, nothing.
You simply saw a 10 hour documentary and let your emotions take hold. Think about the things that would've had to happen in order for what you believe to have taken place.
Not sure why you think you're the reasonable one and everyone else is ignorant. I've read as much about this case as anyone. If you don't see the police, his own attorney and the investigator all trying to convince him to admit to everything, I don't know what to tell you.
What exactly do you think I think took place? I spelled it out before and it's the most plausible explanation. I also spelled out what you must believe to have happened and it's nearly impossible.
What exactly do you think I think took place? I spelled it out before and it's the most plausible explanation. I also spelled out what you must believe to have happened and it's nearly impossible.
I don't think everyone else is ignorant, But you're thought process is ignorant on this. When you start accepting the outliers as fact and ignoring the reality, well that's where we're gonna disagree.
They weren't trying to convince him, they knew he was lying can you not understand that? I'll agree his public defender was a pos, in fact I did just that earlier in the thread. That doesn't mean what he originally told police is incorrect, it just doesn't. If you think he deserves a retrial because of the public defender I'd lean to agree with you, but I still think he was involved.
What I think happened is impossible? Good lord ok
It's funny that you're willing to believe what points to avery being guilty, even stuff that's totally illogical but ignore all the **** that points to him being set up.
Like if they shot her in the garage they then spent hours to meticulously clean it where there was zero dna left (which is impossible btw, even with sealed concrete, if you know the properties of concrete) but then didnt even bother to try to hide or clean the car and scrubbed a key clean of dna only to redistribute their dna on it and then toss it in the ground.
It's almost impossible to believe that any of the dna evidence, the key or the bullett weren't planted. But here bill derrington sits. Just ignoring the hell out of those critical facts.