Making a Murderer

[GingerSaint]

My prevailing theory is that someone else committed the crime (the uncle/cousin although I can't remember their names). I think the police planted evidence to try stick a conviction to the man they thought did it - Steven Avery.

[The OP]

5 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

No evidence of a frame job? What about the Police's inability to find the car keys after turning a room upside down (almost literally, looking at the photos) until they miraculously appeared after one cop (who was left red faced with the previous acquittal of Avery) went in. And somehow nicely on the floor. Amazing that 4 days worth of searching couldn't find that.

That's not really evidence that it was planted. The two competing theories are that it wasn't there or that they didn't find it. You'd need to adduce evidence about how the crime scene was controlled and the search was conducted before you could lean one way or the other. 

Now, evidence of Avery's sweat was found on the car key. That leads me over to the fact they didn't find it for some reason, as it would be very difficult for the two nefarious officers to have obtained it and to have planted it to make it look convincing?

[mjw]

Now, evidence of Avery's sweat was found on the car key. That leads me over to the fact they didn't find it for some reason, as it would be very difficult for the two nefarious officers to have obtained it and to have planted it to make it look convincing?

The two officers who had been told to take no part in the investigation?

If he did or didn't do it the whole car key thing absolutely stinks.

[The OP]

It's worth noting that those two officers interviewed him initially and reported he did not seem suspicious. The interviews weren't recorded and so it would've been their word against his. Seems a bit odd if they were intending to set him up. 

[George Parr]

On 1/25/2016 at 13:40, Consolidate said:

On the basis of the documentary footage the Dassey conviction doesn't look safe at all. When this garbage is heard in a Federal court, I suspect we may start to see things head in a different direction.

Unsurprising outcome.

[Homer Thompson]

On 13/08/2016 at 09:29, The OP said:

The documentary was extremely partial and manipulative. They presented no evidence whatsoever of a frame job. The evidence against -

• Avery was the last one to see her alive
• Avery harassed her and masked his number when contacting her
• Her vehicle was on his property
• Her vehicle was found by a volunteer who the documentary seems to lead you to believe was in on the conspiracy against Avery
• The cops who initially investigated had no prior relationship with Steven Avery, but would've seemingly required to move Teresa's vehicle and steal a vial of blood and drop the blood in a way that appeared to be from an active cut as soon as Teresa was reported missing
• The method of extracting the blood from the vial is a commonly used method
• Steven Avery's touch DNA was on the hood of the car
• The police would need the key to Teresa Hallbach's car in order to plant it - did they get this from the killer, or did they kill her?
• Teresa Halbach's DNA was on the bullet which was found - how did they have her DNA? - again, is the conclusion that the cops killed her?
• Teresa Halbach's bones were on his property - was it the cops or the real killer who took the major risk of sneaking onto his property and put the bones in his fire pit?
• Did the real killer/framer know he had been burning stuff that day and in order to mix the bones up with the burned tyres?
• How did the real killer/framer manage to avoid leaving their own DNA on Teresa's remains or Avery's property at any point?
• How did the real killer/framer know that Steven Avery was going to use bleach to clean his garage on the night Teresa Hallbach went missing?
• Why did the framer remove the RAV 4's plates and battery and cover the car if they wanted it to be found?
• Why did the framer burn the body almost completely if they wanted the parts to be identified?
• How did the framer/real killer manage to burn the body to the exact extent that left enough muscle tissue for the part to be identified?
• Is it not very risky to be planting bones in a fire pit on the property where your framee lives, where he rarely leaves and where he keeps dogs?
• Did the framer know Avery had fucking leg irons for some kinky fun time when they were planting ideas in Brendan's head?
• Did the framer know what calibre Avery's gun was and shoot Teresa with the same calibre of weapon?
• If it's the police who killed Teresa because they were concerned about Avery's compensation claim why not kill him or kill one of his family members and frame him for that - why wait until he phones a pizza or auto express? Did they constantly monitor his visitors?

The notion the police killed her, or someone else killed her in a seriously tight time frame and framed Avery, fully in the knowledge the police would help is very fantastic. It's not impossible but I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it and there is no evidence of a framejob at all. Evidence of motive is not evidence of the act. 

I also still think it highly probable Brendan Dassey had some involvement, although his conviction should've been overturned because of the way he was dealt with and because it's unclear what his involvement was. I thought it interesting that he seemed far less suggestible in his own trial. I also thought the testimony of the young female relative bore all the hallmarks of someone who has been persuaded/forced to recant their evidence. 

 

 

Im not convinced anyone deliberately killed Hallbach in order to frame Avery. However, Im not convinced that the police didnt use her murder to frame Avery.

Most your points are either irrelevant, circumstantial or relate to the police deliberately killing Hallbach

[Ludo*1]

It's an old fashioned technique, but I'm of the opinion that the police were 99% sure Avery done it but didn't have the required proof. I certainly wouldn't put it past the police to have planted the evidence but equally, I don't think that automatically makes Avery innocent either.

[1320Lichtie]

It's an old fashioned technique, but I'm of the opinion that the police were 99% sure Avery done it but didn't have the required proof. I certainly wouldn't put it past the police to have planted the evidence but equally, I don't think that automatically makes Avery innocent either.

My thinking on it as well. Listen to loads of these cases and the amount of times the polis (wrongly) decide to target a suspect and do whatever it takes to get them is frightening, they're doing it because they believe it to be true but that still doesn't make it right.

[The OP]

1 hour ago, Mr X said:

Im not convinced anyone deliberately killed Hallbach in order to frame Avery. However, Im not convinced that the police didnt use her murder to frame Avery.

Most your points are either irrelevant, circumstantial or relate to the police deliberately killing Hallbach

Engage with the points then.

First of all, many of the points are based on the assumption that 'some Puerto Rican guy'* killed Teresa Hallbach. The problem is that most of the 'Avery didn't do it' theories (to me) seem near-impossible unless the police themselves killed Hallbach. For example, if 'some Puerto Rican guy' killed Hallbach, how in the hell did the police get her DNA onto a bullet?

'Circumstantial evidence' is one of those phrases people bandy about as though it is second rate evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be more convincing than direct evidence. Brendan Dassey saying words to the effect of 'My uncle and I killed her' is direct evidence, but is less convincing than circumstantial evidence like the charred bones in his fire pit.  

*South Park reference

[Homer Thompson]

7 minutes ago, The OP said:

Engage with the points then.

First of all, many of the points are based on the assumption that 'some Puerto Rican guy'* killed Teresa Hallbach. The problem is that most of the 'Avery didn't do it' theories (to me) seem near-impossible unless the police themselves killed Hallbach. For example, if 'some Puerto Rican guy' killed Hallbach, how in the hell did the police get her DNA onto a bullet?

'Circumstantial evidence' is one of those phrases people bandy about as though it is second rate evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be more convincing than direct evidence. Brendan Dassey saying words to the effect of 'My uncle and I killed her' is direct evidence, but is less convincing than circumstantial evidence like the charred bones in his fire pit.  

*South Park reference

I might go through each point later, if I can be bothered. You could probably list as many questions over the conviction, like how did Avery clean the garage so thoroughly, so quickly?

Avery being the last person to see her and texting her is circumstantial evidence, at best. It lends no weight whatsoever to whether or not he killed her.

No one needs, or should have, to prove Avery is innocent. The prosecution are supposed to prove hes guilty.

[The OP]

15 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I might go through each point later, if I can be bothered. You could probably list as many questions over the conviction, like how did Avery clean the garage so thoroughly, so quickly?

Avery being the last person to see her and texting her is circumstantial evidence, at best. It lends no weight whatsoever to whether or not he killed her.

No one needs, or should have, to prove Avery is innocent. The prosecution are supposed to prove hes guilty.

He has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. That makes the statement about having to prove Avery innocent pretty meaningless. There was plenty of evidence to lead the jury to convict. To my mind there was no real evidence of a conspiracy against him, although the investigation was pretty stupidly handled.  

Being the last person to see someone alive is circumstantial. It can also be pretty damning evidence when corroborated by other circumstantial evidence like someone's bones and blood and car and bullets covered in the missing person's DNA on your property.

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by The OP

[Forfinn]

11 minutes ago, Mr X said:

No one needs, or should have, to prove Avery is innocent. The prosecution are supposed to prove hes guilty.

Pretty much this, for me.  On balance, Avery probably did it, but the investigation was so riddled by inconsistencies and incompetence (at best) that you can't have any faith in the conviction.  The end doesn't justify the means - it should be done properly.

I'm glad Dassey's conviction has been overturned.  It was clearly unsafe, as the Federal judge has highlighted.  Again, that's not to say he wasn't involved (although I'm far from convinced he was).  If the state still thinks he's guilty they need to go for a retrial without the dodgy 'evidence'.

[Tommy Nooka]

16 minutes ago, The OP said:

He has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. That makes the statement about having to prove Avery innocent pretty meaningless. There was plenty of evidence to lead the jury to convict. To my mind there was no real evidence of a conspiracy against him, although the investigation was pretty stupidly handled.  

Being the last person to see someone alive is circumstantial. It can also be pretty damning evidence when corroborated by other circumstantial evidence like someone's bones and blood and car and bullets covered in the missing person's DNA on your property.

 

With Kratz ridiculous press conference laying out the whole 'drama' as soon as Avery was arrested I think it's reasonable to suspect a lot of the jury would have had him guilty before the trial even started. 

It's a ridiculous work of fiction that he contradicts himself during the trail and must surely have prejudiced the case against Avery.

I can't say for certain Avery is innocent but I also can't say he is definitely guilty. It's the contradiction of so many things, we're supposed to believe Avery cleaned up his garage of all evidence despite the place being a shithole, and the police found a single bullet fragment with DNA and nothing else? Just seems very strange, the police had also confiscated Avery rifle before the bullet was found. He goes to the bother of cleaning up so well in some areas yet leaves some the most incriminating evidence such as the car and bones easily discoverable.

Obviously it makes for a good TV show but I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed having to come to a verdict on this one.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Tommy Nooka

[The OP]

53 minutes ago, Tommy Nooka said:

With Kratz ridiculous press conference laying out the whole 'drama' as soon as Avery was arrested I think it's reasonable to suspect a lot of the jury would have had him guilty before the trial even started. 

It's a ridiculous work of fiction that he contradicts himself during the trail and must surely have prejudiced the case against Avery.

I can't say for certain Avery is innocent but I also can't say he is definitely guilty. It's the contradiction of so many things, we're supposed to believe Avery cleaned up his garage of all evidence despite the place being a shithole, and the police found a single bullet fragment with DNA and nothing else? Just seems very strange, the police had also confiscated Avery rifle before the bullet was found. He goes to the bother of cleaning up so well in some areas yet leaves some the most incriminating evidence such as the car and bones easily discoverable.

Obviously it makes for a good TV show but I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed having to come to a verdict on this one.

I'm pretty sure that in every single case of suspected murder a person's weapons would be confiscated. In some cases they'll find the gun first, in other cases they'll find the bullet. It doesn't seem unusual to me in the slightest. I can't reconcile the theory he was framed with the fact they had a 1 in 1 billion match to her DNA on the bullet.  I do agree however, that the relationship between the prosecutor and press was very dodgy and could have justified trying him out of state.

 

There is certainly a lot that doesn't add up, I just don't think the doc was impartial at all. I felt like the guy who made The Jinx went in with far more of an open mind, whereas the makers of MAM were obfuscating the truth to suit their agenda. I don't think people have been properly equipped to see the case the way the jury did and so there's a huge outcry for this guy who probably* did it. I also get seriously irritated at people considering it an impossibility he could've killed her because of a lack of evidence, and then coming away with total shite along the lines of 'I think it was her brother because he seemed a bit weird'.

 

*When I say 'probably' I'm meaning in terms of beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than on the balance of probabilities. The police framing is not a reasonable doubt, to my mind, because of a lack of evidence

Edited August 15, 2016 by The OP

[Forfinn]

52 minutes ago, Tommy Nooka said:

With Kratz ridiculous press conference laying out the whole 'drama' as soon as Avery was arrested I think it's reasonable to suspect a lot of the jury would have had him guilty before the trial even started. 

I was continually astonished at how much the state, lawyers, family etc were allowed to say in the media throughout the series.  Particularly the graphic detail in which Kratz set out how the whole thing 'happened' after the Dassey confession.  You wouldn't have been allowed a fraction of that here.

15 minutes ago, The OP said:

I also get seriously irritated at people considering it an impossibility he could've killed her because of a lack of evidence, and then coming away with total shite along the lines of 'I think it was her brother because he seemed a bit weird'.

He was though, tbf.  Him and her housemate were a bit odd.  Doesn't mean they did it though, obviously, but there was some odd behaviour going on.

[sergie's no1 fan]

If Avery did it why did he 'hide' the key in his bedroom (that couldn't be found after several searches) and why didn't he crush the lass's car instead of keeping it on his property?

The specky cop read the plates of her motor before it had been found, then denied it in court after the recording of the phone call was played out for all to hear. 

Clear plant job. He still might have done it but the police made sure he was convicted regardless. He also had a substantial pay out coming his way (being paid out by the corrupt police department after setting him up previously), why would you kill someone if you were getting a few million $$$ in a week or so time? 

[Homer Thompson]

2 hours ago, The OP said:

 

'Circumstantial evidence' is one of those phrases people bandy about as though it is second rate evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be more convincing than direct evidence. Brendan Dassey saying words to the effect of 'My uncle and I killed her' is direct evidence, but is less convincing than circumstantial evidence like the charred bones in his fire pit.  

 

Missed this first time round. Dassey saying anything isnt direct evidence, its testimonial evidence. In this case uncorroborated and from a decidedly unreliable witness. 

1 hour ago, The OP said:

He has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. That makes the statement about having to prove Avery innocent pretty meaningless. There was plenty of evidence to lead the jury to convict. To my mind there was no real evidence of a conspiracy against him, although the investigation was pretty stupidly handled.  

Being the last person to see someone alive is circumstantial. It can also be pretty damning evidence when corroborated by other circumstantial evidence like someone's bones and blood and car and bullets covered in the missing person's DNA on your property.

 

He was convicted but that doesnt mean anyone has to prove his innocence, only that their wasnt enough evidence to prove him guilty, or that the evidence there is is unreliable.

1 hour ago, Tommy Nooka said:

With Kratz ridiculous press conference laying out the whole 'drama' as soon as Avery was arrested I think it's reasonable to suspect a lot of the jury would have had him guilty before the trial even started. 

It's a ridiculous work of fiction that he contradicts himself during the trail and must surely have prejudiced the case against Avery.

I can't say for certain Avery is innocent but I also can't say he is definitely guilty. It's the contradiction of so many things, we're supposed to believe Avery cleaned up his garage of all evidence despite the place being a shithole, and the police found a single bullet fragment with DNA and nothing else? Just seems very strange, the police had also confiscated Avery rifle before the bullet was found. He goes to the bother of cleaning up so well in some areas yet leaves some the most incriminating evidence such as the car and bones easily discoverable.

Obviously it makes for a good TV show but I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed having to come to a verdict on this one.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Im not convinced hes innocent nor am I convinced the police went out of their way to frame him. I do think the police taking advantage of the situation and using him as a convenient patsy and fudging procedures and evidence is as likely as him being guilty though.

[Homer Thompson]

5 minutes ago, sergie's no1 fan said:

If Avery did it why did he 'hide' the key in his bedroom (that couldn't be found after several searches) and why didn't he crush the lass's car instead of keeping it on his property?

The specky cop read the plates of her motor before it had been found, then denied it in court after the recording of the phone call was played out for all to hear. 

Clear plant job. He still might have done it but the police made sure he was convicted regardless. He also had a substantial pay out coming his way (being paid out by the corrupt police department after setting him up previously), why would you kill someone if you were getting a few million $$$ in a week or so time? 

This is what I was getting at earlier. For every point you can make for the case against him there are similar questions that suggest hes innocent

ETA - the bit in bold though is an odd one and almost weakens the case for Avery. The defence lawyers seem to make very little of it which makes you wonder if there was more to it than was shown. Same with the scientist and the lab tests. Cant remember the details but I remember watching it thinking "this blows the whole case apart" but then the defence didnt push it

Edited August 15, 2016 by Mr X

[The OP]

46 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Missed this first time round. Dassey saying anything isnt direct evidence, its testimonial evidence. In this case uncorroborated and from a decidedly unreliable witness. 

He was convicted but that doesnt mean anyone has to prove his innocence, only that their wasnt enough evidence to prove him guilty, or that the evidence there is is unreliable.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Im not convinced hes innocent nor am I convinced the police went out of their way to frame him. I do think the police taking advantage of the situation and using him as a convenient patsy and fudging procedures and evidence is as likely as him being guilty though.

A confession is direct evidence. In this context 'testimonial evidence' is something you have come up with and not a term of art. Testimonial evidence would be evidence given on the stand by a witness (including the defendant), which is generally direct evidence.

In his testimony Brendan actually denied involvement. It was in his police interviews and his calls to his mother that he confessed. The recordings of both are direct evidence of his involvement.

Direct evidence could also be a witness saying they saw it happen.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires you to make an inference, ie a puppy is sitting next to a pile of poo. The inference drawn is that the puppy pooed.

The door was locked and no other animals were in the room. This is further circumstantial evidence corroborating the inference that the puppy pooed.

I'm using poo as an example because Avery is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

[Homer Thompson]

41 minutes ago, The OP said:

A confession is direct evidence. In this context 'testimonial evidence' is something you have come up with and not a term of art. Testimonial evidence would be evidence given on the stand by a witness (including the defendant), which is generally direct evidence.

In his testimony Brendan actually denied involvement. It was in his police interviews and his calls to his mother that he confessed. The recordings of both are direct evidence of his involvement.

Direct evidence could also be a witness saying they saw it happen.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires you to make an inference, ie a puppy is sitting next to a pile of poo. The inference drawn is that the puppy pooed.

The door was locked and no other animals were in the room. This is further circumstantial evidence corroborating the inference that the puppy pooed.

I'm using poo as an example because Avery is as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.

So it seems. Cant say I particularly agree with that definition but Im not a lawyer

Interestingly, though, the definition of direct evidence on one site says that it is "evidence of a fact in issue given by a witness who came to itthrough his own senses". You could make a very strong case that doesnt apply to Dassey