Making a Murderer
- Thread starter etowncatfan
- Start date
So you couldn't have convicted the guy whose confession had absolutely zero physical evidence to support it? Good call, pauss.
I agree with this. I think Avery's guilty. That said, what happened to the kid was simply catastrophic.
It's difficult to really get at the question of what a person would've done on that jury based on a documentary. The filmmakers essentially made a filmic essay. An argument. They omitted so much that the prosecution undoubtedly used in court.
And that's fair. It was definitely incredible entertainment. But it's not complete as a legal argument. I think Avery did it but I couldn't have convicted him based on what we saw in the series; there's reasonable doubt all over that. But we only saw half the story.
I bought a book today on the case called The Innocent Killer. (Warning on this: it was published by the American Bar Association and is sort of rough as true crime books go.) But there's some interesting info early on about Avery's weird sexual issues. I think there was something there that led him to commit the crime.
This.
It's 100% clear that evidence was planted. Was it to frame him, or strengthen a case, I don't know. But if I'm on the jury, I tend to think that if I know evidence was planted, that alone means I'm finding him not guilty.
2 types of bleach:
Chlorine Bleach will remove bloodstains from the naked eye but not DNA evidence and will put white blotches on clothing.
Oxygen Bleach will remove stains and DNA evidence but will not put white blotches on clothing. It also the much more expensive of the two.
DNA was found in the garage just not Teresas, also no blood spatter was found anywhere in the garage. Im sure Avery spent all that time and money on cleaning the entire garage with Oxygen Bleach only to put a few branches on the Rav 4.
Chlorine Bleach will remove bloodstains from the naked eye but not DNA evidence and will put white blotches on clothing.
Oxygen Bleach will remove stains and DNA evidence but will not put white blotches on clothing. It also the much more expensive of the two.
DNA was found in the garage just not Teresas, also no blood spatter was found anywhere in the garage. Im sure Avery spent all that time and money on cleaning the entire garage with Oxygen Bleach only to put a few branches on the Rav 4.
They als used Gasoline and kerosene, but that's beside the point. Brendan and Steven were cleaning the garage with bleach.
You have to accept that is complete coincidence even though the boy said they were cleaning up the mess.
You have to accept that is complete coincidence even though the boy said they were cleaning up the mess.
I believe he and Avery were cleaning with bleach in the garage. His mothers statement about his clothes smelling and with bleached out spots. Its not just his statement, other things corroborate that part, they were cleaning the garage with bleach.
I believe the police and especially the one lawyer really mistreated Brendan. I feel bad for the kid because he obviously listens to whatever people tell him. I do believe he had a part in the murder for the same reason, Avery told him too and he listened.
I believe the police and especially the one lawyer really mistreated Brendan. I feel bad for the kid because he obviously listens to whatever people tell him. I do believe he had a part in the murder for the same reason, Avery told him too and he listened.
Big difference in thinking someone is guilty and convicting them of murder. Which is the entire point of the show.
The whole point of the show was to paint Avery in the best light possible, cast doubt on everything. If they wanted to make a show using the prosecutions angle everyone would've thought he was guilty as hell....but then there wouldn't be the buzz there is now.
I posted right from the start that with what we saw there was reasonable doubt that he did it.
My personal opinion is that he did it.
I posted right from the start that with what we saw there was reasonable doubt that he did it.
My personal opinion is that he did it.
Not really important because she's a dumb 12 year old not understanding the consequences of her actions. Then during her testimony shes had years to be influenced by the family to change her story and save Dassey. I can picture him bragging about it to his cousins. I can also see him lying about it to "sound cool." Then I could see her completely making it all up not understanding the situation because they're all literally idiots.
His confessions are the key to that case and I know my gut reaction when watching them.
The molestation was something I was kind of wondering about. You just figured that stuff was going on with those people. Maybe Avery did it and purposely involved Dassey as a way to cover it up. That would make a lot of sense.
Last edited:
We all watched the show and saw the same evidence you did.
Also, there's nothing normal about that kid.
Also, there's nothing normal about that kid.
The more I read the more I am conflicted. Brendan does/says whatever someone wants him to say/do. It's just hard to put the puzzle together without reasonable doubt.
The defense tactic in the Avery trial was sort of like the tactic in the OJ trial - put the police department on trial and make the argument that police misconduct = reasonable doubt. I am a former public defender but even I believe that to be a fallacy. You should be able to separate out questionable (or more than questionable) behavior by the police from the question of whether the defendant "did it". When the defense only has "the police framed him" defense to offer, they are in trouble.
Dassey was anything but a normal teenager. The crying
The timing of this was what was so unusual, plus the fact that the sheriff's department found virtually all the evidence.
Much different than OJ, who didn't serve years for a crime he didn't commit and who wasn't embroiled in a massive lawsuit against the sheriff's dept. Avery's situation is probably closer to the Damien Echols/Jason Baldwin case, where the police and prosecution clearly had their guys from the start and might have been trying to build a case around their certainty.
The timing of this was what was so unusual, plus the fact that the sheriff's department found virtually all the evidence.
Much different than OJ, who didn't serve years for a crime he didn't commit and who wasn't embroiled in a massive lawsuit against the sheriff's dept. Avery's situation is probably closer to the Damien Echols/Jason Baldwin case, where the police and prosecution clearly had their guys from the start and might have been trying to build a case around their certainty.
That's just false. They had a body 15 feet from where he lived, a bullet in the garage and her car with his DNA on his property. There was nothing close to that in the Memphis 3 case.
I agree. They had veritably nothing in the West Memphis 3 case. The major similarity was the (forced) confession.
But another similarity was how you can read some real...certainty in the way the sheriff's dept. and the detectives handled both Steve Avery and the West Memphis 3. One of the more striking things in Making a Murderer was one of the early phonecalls when they knew the victim had been on Avery's property: "Do we have a body yet?"
There was a lot of that in the Paradise Lost films. They began their case with at worst a bias and at best a desire to see that the evidence was there to convict.
I can agree with that, although I still think the WM3 are guilty. Perhaps I need to rewatch that.
Maybe that was a stretch, but in the WM3 you had three bodies with mulated wounds, a murder weapon (no matter how BS it was) more of a motive than they had in the Avery case, etc. Of course the body in the Avery case was conveniently burned hiding most of the physical evidence. Where the hell was the blood bath that kid described in his "confession"? Where is all the physical evidence?
It's not there. . .
Dassey's allegation that Avery molested him----given a number of his ridiculous statements---I put little faith in. Maybe it could explain some level of control Avery may have had, but it could also be a misguided effort to point the finger at Avery----which is essentially what his attorney wanted him to do all along. When was the phone call made? That might shed some light.
I'll have to go back and watch the Paradise Lost films, but was the knife they found in the lake the "murder weapon"? IIRC, it was simply a serrated knife that may have matched the wounds on the kids' bodies.
It was argued those marks were made post mortum by trutles, not that knife. The State said it was the murder weapon, but that was junk science. The marks more closely resemble scratching and tearing than were caused from that knife. The only DNA found on the scene belonged to TH.
I've read this a few times about the lack of "motive"- umm, how about RAPE? The motive is the same for nearly every rape and homicide- sexual deviance. The dude isn't a choir boy. He molested his nephews. He appeared to be obsessed with the girl as well.
The only evidence (to my knowledge) that he molested his nephews was from a phone conversation Brendan had with his mom while in jail, the same kid that would say anything to anyone. This wasn't included in the trial and had never even been mentioned before. Appeared to be obsessed with the girl? That's just weird, isn't evidence that he wanted to rape her. The only sexual deviance in his life that I'm aware of was a wrongful conviction.