Netflix: Making a Murderer

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

Spoilers ahead...

From reddit because Im too lazy to post it myself:

Remember that in order for Steven to be guilty, he had to have killed Teresa in the garage (as the prosecution claims), despite their being none of Teresa's blood in the garage other than on the bullet fragment "found" months later. Her bloody body was then placed in the back of her own car (where her blood was actually found), and driven the 20 FEET or so to the fire pit where she was supposedly burned.
THEN, in order for Brendan to be guilty, she had to have been tortured, raped, stabbed and had her throat cut in the trailer, leave absolutely no biological evidence there, then either drag her or drive her in own car (still alive) the 20 feet to the garage and shoot and kill her, then drag or drive her to the fire pit for burning.
This is insane. If you believe the prosecution in these two cases, you not only have to believe that these two guys somehow managed to clean up all that blood and leave no trace (which is frankly practically impossible) in an extremely short window of time, but you also have to believe that for some reason they had to place Teresa in the trunk of her car to transport her a matter of feet to either the garage or fire pit or both... which also makes absolutely no sense.

I'd like to add: The key having SA's DNA, but not teresa's (odd), Colburn mentioning the license plate number in a call two days before the car was "found" on SA's property, and the blood vial that was tampered with that was discredited with an unreliable EDTA test.

All your post has done is provide motive. Outside of that, there are so many inconsistencies in this case that it's nearly impossible to actually say for certain whether SA did it or not. But I can tell you this- we will never find out if someone else committed this crime (exonerating SA). There are no less than 4 other suspects who were not even on the investigators' radar.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

From reddit because Im too lazy to post it myself:



I'd like to add: The key having SA's DNA, but not teresa's (odd), Colburn mentioning the license plate number in a call two days before the car was "found" on SA's property, and the blood vial that was tampered with that was discredited with an unreliable EDTA test.

All your post has done is provide motive. Outside of that, there are so many inconsistencies in this case that it's nearly impossible to actually say for certain whether SA did it or not. But I can tell you this- we will never find out if someone else committed this crime (exonerating SA). There are no less than 4 other suspects who were not even on the investigators' radar.

Did you research the physical evidence that was left off of the show or not?

I agree that they planted evidence. They coerced false confession from Dassey. I agree the murders could not have taken place in the way he was accused. It's impossible. I agree the system is corrupt and this aspect made me very angry when I watched it. I agree the media painted him as guilty before he was even charged. None of this means he is innocent of this murder though. It means we'll never know what actually happened. Even if he commited the murder, it didn't happen the way Dassey claimed. So now that we agree, we can move on to what I was actually talking about.

The fact that Dassey's original story included him helping SA move the car, Where Avery removed the cables, which directly led to the police checking for and finding Avery's DNA on the hood latch demonstrates he opened the hood recently. This wasn't a blood swab. Why do you think the documentary left that out? It's not the only evidence omitted from this series. He also purchased leg and arm shackles 3 weeks prior to her disappearance, though he did claim they were for Jodi.

You are taking a documentary at face value with no critical thought applied. I suggest checking it out. I'm not being condescending, it's just obvious your knowledge of the case comes exclusively from a very biased documentary. Check out the evidence that was omitted from the documentary and put your critical thinking cap on. You may not reach the same conclusion, but learn all of the facts and then come to a conclusion. Otherwise even if you're right, you're right for the wrong reasons. If you ask me, both sides are lying and we'll never know what happened to that poor girl.

[BigRock]

Where could I read more about how "Avery was obsessed with her" or how "she asked her bosses to never send her out to Avery's place again because she felt threatened by him"?

[KCUnited]

Not sure why the shackles purchase would matter since there's no physical evidence that she was ever bound.

[Jerm]

Originally Posted by BigRock

Where could I read more about how "Avery was obsessed with her" or how "she asked her bosses to never send her out to Avery's place again because she felt threatened by him"?

Reddit......lol. Great source.

The wife and I are 6 episodes in having come into this with little to no knowledge and holy shit is this the most batshit insane thing I've watched. We both see the writing on the wall for where this is going...which is ridiculous and sad because it's blatantly obvious to me what happened and what I've seen so far Avery's defense is DESTROYING the state and their case.

The fix is in though and it's easy to see it...I mean even the judge's rulings are so blatantly skewered so far it's not even funny.

I've also had this thought in my head and I can't shake it and it's clear as day to me...Avery is mere days if not weeks from receiving an insane amount of money but yet he kills a woman, leaves incriminating evidence all over his own property, and does all this while clearly knowing he's being targeted and has been for years? LOL ok....

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by BigRock

Where could I read more about how "Avery was obsessed with her" or how "she asked her bosses to never send her out to Avery's place again because she felt threatened by him"?

Originally Posted by Jerm

Reddit......lol. Great source.

That can't be it. Given the way he was going on about people taking the documentary at face value, he must have looked into all those things that weren't covered and found factual reports to back them up.

Surely he didn't just read something and take it at face value. Surely!

[Ceej]

Great documentary.

I've recently moved to GB and when this thing occured it got so much publicity. It's roughly 40 mins from GB.

Kratz (sp?) and Kachenski are real pieces of work.

This documentary definitely gets your mind wondering how corrupt our court/law systems may be.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by BigRock

That can't be it. Given the way he was going on about people taking the documentary at face value, he must have looked into all those things that weren't covered and found factual reports to back them up.

Surely he didn't just read something and take it at face value. Surely!

It was testified to at trial by her boss, no one really disputes that she said she was creeped out by him and didn't want to be with him again.

The documentary makers defended leaving out a lot of this other evidence by saying it would take too long to give every detail in the trial, and they felt by just giving the one or two most damning pieces of evidence against Avery, they did their job as documentarians. (I do not agree at all, sure they don't need to explain every small detail, but this is a rather huge part of the story, which they seemed to leave out because it hurts the narrative they were peddling.)

I agree with what others said, the cops in that area are corrupt, it probably didn't happen the way the prosecution theorized, but Avery probably did kill her.

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by alnorth

It was testified to at trial by her boss, no one really disputes that she said she was creeped out by him and didn't want to be with him again.

As best I can tell, it seems to be widely disputed. From what I've read, the only source for these claims are statements being made by the ex-prosecutor who had to resign in disgrace.

But I'm not following it nearly as closely as others. So if there's an actual factual report somewhere verifying that claim, I'd be interested in seeing it.