KnightswoodBear Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Did anyone catch the documentary on ID over the weekend regarding this case? The amount of stuff left out on the Netflix season was remarkable. Not coincidentally, all the stuff left out looked bad for Avery. A nurse admitted in interview that it was her who made the hole in the top of the blood vial. Avery had called Halbach twice before she arrived whilst withholding his caller ID. He then called her at 4pm without withholding his caller ID. There was various other little things that obviously didn't suit the narrative the film makers were looking for and were left out. Her mobile being found burned in the barrel for example. Or Halbachs friends testimony that she had been creeped out by Avery and had told him so. After seeing that I'm fairly certain Avery killed her. I think you could give a one sided account of any murder case and convince the public of even the most guilty persons innocence, and that's what's happened here. I saw that. The boy Kratz still came across as an utter bunglecunt, so for that reason alone, I'd let Avery and Dassey out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleysaints Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 After seeing that I'm fairly certain Avery killed her. I think you could give a one sided account of any murder case and convince the public of even the most guilty persons innocence, and that's what's happened here. Watched is as well in a court of Law you being fairly certain would mean you wouldn't say he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt though All kratz seems to moan about is his sex pest case lol i still think it was the Scott and the other Bro 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Watched is as well in a court of Law you being fairly certain would mean you wouldn't say he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt though All kratz seems to moan about is his sex pest case lol i still think it was the Scott and the other Bro Well fairly certain as in beyond reasonable doubt. Don't think you can ever be 100% sure. The makers of this documentary were obviously going for the miscarriage of justice angle. They left out the things that didn't suit this premise and focussed hugely on the stuff that did. Their documentary was a huge hit so fair play to them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisleysaints Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Well fairly certain as in beyond reasonable doubt. Don't think you can ever be 100% sure. The makers of this documentary were obviously going for the miscarriage of justice angle. They left out the things that didn't suit this premise and focussed hugely on the stuff that did. Their documentary was a huge hit so fair play to them. Yeah i agree the story was all about Avery. It did open lots of questions about the justice and police system. The angle was always based of did he get a fair trail etc etc as you say a huge hit that has the world talking and the world knows about sleazy Kratz the rage with him about the texts was worth it lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Did anyone catch the documentary on ID over the weekend regarding this case? The amount of stuff left out on the Netflix season was remarkable. Not coincidentally, all the stuff left out looked bad for Avery. A nurse admitted in interview that it was her who made the hole in the top of the blood vial. Avery had called Halbach twice before she arrived whilst withholding his caller ID. He then called her at 4pm without withholding his caller ID. There was various other little things that obviously didn't suit the narrative the film makers were looking for and were left out. Her mobile being found burned in the barrel for example. Or Halbachs friends testimony that she had been creeped out by Avery and had told him so. After seeing that I'm fairly certain Avery killed her. I think you could give a one sided account of any murder case and convince the public of even the most guilty persons innocence, and that's what's happened here. This is all stuff that's been gone over time and again, none of it means anything. The caller ID stuff in particular is a red herring. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 This is all stuff that's been gone over time and again, none of it means anything. The caller ID stuff in particular is a red herring. How is it a red herring? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Believe The Hype Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 The makers of the documentary did ask to interview the prosecution during the making of this but they refused, then moan about how one sided it is. daft willy heids!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 How is it a red herring? I'm pretty sure Avery's lawyers have said, although I'm not sure it was in the documentary, that he had made an appointment with Halbach through her employer's office. She, and the people she worked with, knew where she was going and who she was going to see. It doesn't mean he didn't kill her but the caller ID stuff therefore makes no difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinclair Street Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Did anyone catch the documentary on ID over the weekend regarding this case? The amount of stuff left out on the Netflix season was remarkable. Not coincidentally, all the stuff left out looked bad for Avery. A nurse admitted in interview that it was her who made the hole in the top of the blood vial. Avery had called Halbach twice before she arrived whilst withholding his caller ID. He then called her at 4pm without withholding his caller ID. There was various other little things that obviously didn't suit the narrative the film makers were looking for and were left out. Her mobile being found burned in the barrel for example. Or Halbachs friends testimony that she had been creeped out by Avery and had told him so. After seeing that I'm fairly certain Avery killed her. I think you could give a one sided account of any murder case and convince the public of even the most guilty persons innocence, and that's what's happened here. There was far more stuff left out from the Defense side. For instance, her voicemail was accessed from a landline 36 hours before she was reported missing. It's all in the trial transcripts: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 The Discovery ID documentary is starting on ID + 1 in 5 minutes if you fancy watching it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepper Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I'm pretty sure Avery's lawyers have said, although I'm not sure it was in the documentary, that he had made an appointment with Halbach through her employer's office. She, and the people she worked with, knew where she was going and who she was going to see. It doesn't mean he didn't kill her but the caller ID stuff therefore makes no difference. That is correct as far as I know. However, the prosecution argued that the caller ID thing was relevant as the accusation was he did not withhold his number on the last call in order to give himself an alibi as he'd already killed her. His story was that she did't turn up and that is why he called her. Avery's lawyers argued that he was paranoid about his privacy given his situation and that is why he used caller ID, it wasn't entirely convincing tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Did anyone catch the documentary on ID over the weekend regarding this case? The amount of stuff left out on the Netflix season was remarkable. Not coincidentally, all the stuff left out looked bad for Avery. A nurse admitted in interview that it was her who made the hole in the top of the blood vial. Avery had called Halbach twice before she arrived whilst withholding his caller ID. He then called her at 4pm without withholding his caller ID. There was various other little things that obviously didn't suit the narrative the film makers were looking for and were left out. Her mobile being found burned in the barrel for example. Or Halbachs friends testimony that she had been creeped out by Avery and had told him so. After seeing that I'm fairly certain Avery killed her. I think you could give a one sided account of any murder case and convince the public of even the most guilty persons innocence, and that's what's happened here. How does Halbach's friend's testimony that Avery had creeped her out make any difference to verdict? That's not evidence that he killed her is it? Where is the blood in the trailer? Without that and with the planted car key, that's reasonable doubt right there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrestersKTID Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 No Blood anywhere, and no evidence of bleach being used to clean it away (from the documentary anyway.) From that alone shouldn't that be proof that she wasn't killed in trailer or garage? Plus there wouldn't have been enough blood in the car surely for that to be the location? Brendan being found guilty of things avery got off with is mental aswell. Also thought the Colburn thing phoning in the plates should've been a much bigger deal. If it wasn't avery I'm betting it was the brother or ex boyfriend. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 No Blood anywhere, and no evidence of bleach being used to clean it away (from the documentary anyway.) From that alone shouldn't that be proof that she wasn't killed in trailer or garage? Plus there wouldn't have been enough blood in the car surely for that to be the location? Brendan being found guilty of things avery got off with is mental aswell. Also thought the Colburn thing phoning in the plates should've been a much bigger deal. If it wasn't avery I'm betting it was the brother or ex boyfriend. I know he'd lost a sister but the brother was a dick. Totally made his mind up about Avery and Brendan before the trials even started 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrots and Peas Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 (edited) I know he'd lost a sister but the brother was a dick. Totally made his mind up about Avery and Brendan before the trials even started His brother knew they were both unsavoury characters and his sister had just been brutally killed? If the same (god forbid) happens to any of us would we go into a courtroom with an innocent until proven guilty view of the case? I wouldn't. My problem with Making a Murderer is it's far too one sided, Netflix want you to subscribe to watch it. Is a regular murder mystery/conspiracy show going to get you to do that? Edited February 2, 2016 by Carrots and Peas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'd want the right person found guilty, so yes. And God doesn't exist m8. This. He was just like the prosecutors. They werent interested in the truth, only in making sure Avery was convicted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 You can't expect someone who has had a close family member murdered to act rationally in the immediate days after the disappearance or have a unemotional, logical thought process throughout the trial. Of course the brother was determined to believe the people the police had told him were guilty truly were guilty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 That is correct as far as I know. However, the prosecution argued that the caller ID thing was relevant as the accusation was he did not withhold his number on the last call in order to give himself an alibi as he'd already killed her. His story was that she did't turn up and that is why he called her. Avery's lawyers argued that he was paranoid about his privacy given his situation and that is why he used caller ID, it wasn't entirely convincing tbh. I don't think his story was that she didn't show up, as even in the documentary he says multiple times that she was there and he saw her leave. So if he changed randomly to saying she was never there then it would look extremely suspicious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkoRaj Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I always like when people say 'it's a disgrace, there's no evidence against them, they shouldn't be in jail' then 'I think it was the brother because he looked a bit smug.' Bit hypocritical 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I always like when people say 'it's a disgrace, there's no evidence against them, they shouldn't be in jail' then 'I think it was the brother because he looked a bit smug.' Bit hypocritical Whilst I agree in general, I think in this case it's not that people are saying someone else (eg Scott Tadych) has definitely done it and should be in jail, but that they should at least be investigated in some way, which nobody but Steven was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.