Author Topic: Making a Murderer  (Read 17224 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #60 on: August 14, 2016, 07:23:25 PM »

Offline IDreamCeltics

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1401
  • Tommy Points: 140
At the beginning of the documentary, Avery is exonerated thanks to DNA evidence. 

DNA evidence is great!  So reliable!  Incontrovertible!

Later, DNA evidence plays a huge role in the Halbach case. 

DNA evidence is unreliable!  The testing is prone to contamination!  Who knows where it might have come from?  The police could have falsified the evidence!


Anybody else find that amusing?

I found the fact that the police had a sample of Avery's blood from 2002, the sample had been illegally opened, and blood had been removed pretty disturbing. 

 

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #61 on: August 14, 2016, 07:31:59 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Not sure if it's been mentioned here or elsewhere, but Brandan Dassey's conviction was recently overturned. The errors leading up to his conviction were pretty jarring, imo, so I'm glad to hear it.

Any thoughts on his motive? I just don't understand why he would do it.  That's the part that I don't get.  He was about to be a very rich person and he threw his life away?
Heard of Aaron Hernandez? :P

Lol.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #62 on: August 14, 2016, 08:18:48 PM »

Offline The One

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2017
  • Tommy Points: 203
Not sure if it's been mentioned here or elsewhere, but Brandan Dassey's conviction was recently overturned. The errors leading up to his conviction were pretty jarring, imo, so I'm glad to hear it.

Oh great...you just ruined it.  ;D

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #63 on: August 14, 2016, 08:35:10 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Not sure if it's been mentioned here or elsewhere, but Brandan Dassey's conviction was recently overturned. The errors leading up to his conviction were pretty jarring, imo, so I'm glad to hear it.

Oh great...you just ruined it.  ;D

Hah, how so? Not following -- think I missed the joke.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #64 on: August 14, 2016, 09:14:06 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
Nobody actually believes the cops killed Theresa Halbach. Avery doesn't and his defense team didn't and I don't think you could reasonably conclude from all of the information out there. But that doesn't mean the cops didn't try to pin the murder on him.

I think the easiest explanation is that someone murdered Halbach near Avery's property shortly after she took pictures of the van and decided to hide her vehicle in the salvage yard. When her disappearance was reported and the cops knew that Avery was the last person to see her alive, they assumed that Avery did it and went about making sure he was convicted, regardless of whether or not he was actually guilty.


I believe the simplest explanation is generally going to be the right one in these cases.

You are suggesting that a third party and the police, acting independently of one another and at different points in the timeline, both conspired to frame Steven Avery, who was completely uninvolved in the murder of this woman even though he was the only one who we know interacted with her on the day in question, and the only person living anywhere near where her remains were found that actually had a personal connection to her.

That, to me, is a stretch.  To say the least.


What's more likely?

A vast conspiracy involving multiple parties acting independently?   

Or that this one guy, who has an extremely low IQ, has a history of odd, violent, deviant behavior -- which very likely got much worse in prison because that's how prison works -- murdered this woman and then did a terrible job of attempting to cover up the evidence?

You're aware before this trial that he was on the verge of being awarded a massive amount of money for being the victim of the kind of multi-person conspiracy and frame-job you're saying is so unlikely right?

Absolutely right. Manitowoc County had already framed him once before. I'm not sure if he did it or not, personally. But Manitowoc County cops shouldn't have gone within 1000 yards of that crime scene. Considering his pending lawsuit against them, on top of the previous false conviction that was attained with CLEAR prejudice against him, there is no reasonable explanation for why Manitowoc County cops were ever there to begin with, much less to be the ones who found the "evidence" (On the Eighth search of his bedroom, mind you)

At the very least, Avery should be immediately released and given a new trial, one which excludes ALL evidence collected by Manitowoc County officers. He should have a trial where no one on the jury has any personal connections to Manitowoc County employees. That way if he's convicted, we can at least pretend it was fair, unlike the trial that put him away. That trial was just a sham on multiple levels.

I will say I'm extremely happy to see that Dassey got his conviction overturned. The entire series is disturbing, but the Most disturbing part of it all was watching those cops completely take advantage of a young kid with a very low IQ, forcing him to tell them hours worth of obvious lies under the pretense that "telling the truth will keep him out of trouble", and then using those statements to put him in jail for a long, long time. It was disgusting, frankly. I had a hard time watching it, and I'm glad to see that injustice undone.

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #65 on: August 14, 2016, 09:22:52 PM »

Offline The One

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2017
  • Tommy Points: 203
Not sure if it's been mentioned here or elsewhere, but Brandan Dassey's conviction was recently overturned. The errors leading up to his conviction were pretty jarring, imo, so I'm glad to hear it.

Oh great...you just ruined it.  ;D

Hah, how so? Not following -- think I missed the joke.

You just mentioned that the conviction was overturned.  But maybe not everyone knew he got convicted in the first place.

Just messing around... :D

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #66 on: August 14, 2016, 09:45:12 PM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Not sure if it's been mentioned here or elsewhere, but Brandan Dassey's conviction was recently overturned. The errors leading up to his conviction were pretty jarring, imo, so I'm glad to hear it.

Oh great...you just ruined it.  ;D

Hah, how so? Not following -- think I missed the joke.

You just mentioned that the conviction was overturned.  But maybe not everyone knew he got convicted in the first place.

Just messing around... :D

Oh crap, I hadn't even considered that -- most comments seemed related to guilty/not guilty opinions and whatnot. Sorry all for the spoiler.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #67 on: August 14, 2016, 10:15:58 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58548
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
My guess is that Avery killed Halbach and that Dassey went over to the bonfire and helped Avery clean up his garage. I'm doubtful that Dassey knew about the murder at the time.

Dassey never should have been convicted. He got screwed by his attorney, and by the judge who allowed the confession to stand.

Regarding Avery, I go back and forth regarding the fairness of his conviction. Even excluding the suspicious evidence, I still think there is a lot that points to his guilt. I equate it to the OJ Simpson case. In both cases, evidence pointed toward the suspect, but the detectives attempted to supplement their cases through shady tactics. Is that reasonable doubt? The OJ jury thought so, and they're widely ridiculed. The Avery jury disagreed, and they're similarly criticized.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #68 on: August 14, 2016, 11:02:23 PM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
My guess is that Avery killed Halbach and that Dassey went over to the bonfire and helped Avery clean up his garage. I'm doubtful that Dassey knew about the murder at the time.

Dassey never should have been convicted. He got screwed by his attorney, and by the judge who allowed the confession to stand.

Regarding Avery, I go back and forth regarding the fairness of his conviction. Even excluding the suspicious evidence, I still think there is a lot that points to his guilt. I equate it to the OJ Simpson case. In both cases, evidence pointed toward the suspect, but the detectives attempted to supplement their cases through shady tactics. Is that reasonable doubt? The OJ jury thought so, and they're widely ridiculed. The Avery jury disagreed, and they're similarly criticized.

Do you really think Avery was able to hide the evidence in the manner the prosecutors claimed? I have a hard time believing that Avery, with his low IQ, would be able to cover up the brutal crime the prosecution claimed happened. There's just no way Avery murdered that girl in the kind of sadistic fashion they said he did, and was able to cover up All the physical evidence that, by consequence, would have been left to find.

If Avery dos kill her, it certainly didn't happen the way the DA claimed it did, and for that, he deserves a new trial. I can't imagine any half-decent lawyer looking at this any other way.

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #69 on: August 14, 2016, 11:26:50 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58548
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
My guess is that Avery killed Halbach and that Dassey went over to the bonfire and helped Avery clean up his garage. I'm doubtful that Dassey knew about the murder at the time.

Dassey never should have been convicted. He got screwed by his attorney, and by the judge who allowed the confession to stand.

Regarding Avery, I go back and forth regarding the fairness of his conviction. Even excluding the suspicious evidence, I still think there is a lot that points to his guilt. I equate it to the OJ Simpson case. In both cases, evidence pointed toward the suspect, but the detectives attempted to supplement their cases through shady tactics. Is that reasonable doubt? The OJ jury thought so, and they're widely ridiculed. The Avery jury disagreed, and they're similarly criticized.

Do you really think Avery was able to hide the evidence in the manner the prosecutors claimed? I have a hard time believing that Avery, with his low IQ, would be able to cover up the brutal crime the prosecution claimed happened. There's just no way Avery murdered that girl in the kind of sadistic fashion they said he did, and was able to cover up All the physical evidence that, by consequence, would have been left to find.

If Avery dos kill her, it certainly didn't happen the way the DA claimed it did, and for that, he deserves a new trial. I can't imagine any half-decent lawyer looking at this any other way.

The prosecution doesn't have to prove the exact details, just that a murder occurred.

Between his DNA being in her car and her remains being found inside his burning barrels, there's plenty of evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. Dassey's story and outline of events made no sense, but those statements weren't used against Avery.  As for covering up evidence, the car was found on his property and the bone fragments were also. That's not the work of a criminal mastermind.

Avery did have a below average IQ. He also was a sadist with specialized tendencies. If you can throw a live cat into a bonfire, you have the capacity to throw a dead body on one.

Who do you think killed her?


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #70 on: August 14, 2016, 11:47:04 PM »

Offline incoherent

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1855
  • Tommy Points: 278
  • 7 + 11 = 18
Just so everyone knows the number one lawyer in the country at freeing innocent people has been working with Avery for months and she has tweeted that she has proof that halbach left his property.  Who knows if that's true or not but it's very interesting.

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #71 on: August 15, 2016, 01:03:18 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Just so everyone knows the number one lawyer in the country at freeing innocent people has been working with Avery for months and she has tweeted that she has proof that halbach left his property.  Who knows if that's true or not but it's very interesting.

Good. Without even judging Avery as a person, I would have found it difficult to determine, without reasonable doubt, that he committed that murder. And apparently the majority of jurors (including the one that was replaced) believe so too -- it was in an interview toward the end of the doc that one of the jurors said the majority felt the same but the decision was largely swayed by a few that were more obstinate and outspoken.

Sidenote: I also read that the documentary creators were keeping up with the family and had moved to be near them with the expectation that this story could continue to be followed. It would be interesting to see how it plays out from multiple perspectives.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #72 on: August 15, 2016, 01:34:29 AM »

Offline BDeCosta26

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1314
  • Tommy Points: 232
My guess is that Avery killed Halbach and that Dassey went over to the bonfire and helped Avery clean up his garage. I'm doubtful that Dassey knew about the murder at the time.

Dassey never should have been convicted. He got screwed by his attorney, and by the judge who allowed the confession to stand.

Regarding Avery, I go back and forth regarding the fairness of his conviction. Even excluding the suspicious evidence, I still think there is a lot that points to his guilt. I equate it to the OJ Simpson case. In both cases, evidence pointed toward the suspect, but the detectives attempted to supplement their cases through shady tactics. Is that reasonable doubt? The OJ jury thought so, and they're widely ridiculed. The Avery jury disagreed, and they're similarly criticized.

Do you really think Avery was able to hide the evidence in the manner the prosecutors claimed? I have a hard time believing that Avery, with his low IQ, would be able to cover up the brutal crime the prosecution claimed happened. There's just no way Avery murdered that girl in the kind of sadistic fashion they said he did, and was able to cover up All the physical evidence that, by consequence, would have been left to find.

If Avery dos kill her, it certainly didn't happen the way the DA claimed it did, and for that, he deserves a new trial. I can't imagine any half-decent lawyer looking at this any other way.

The prosecution doesn't have to prove the exact details, just that a murder occurred.

Between his DNA being in her car and her remains being found inside his burning barrels, there's plenty of evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. Dassey's story and outline of events made no sense, but those statements weren't used against Avery.  As for covering up evidence, the car was found on his property and the bone fragments were also. That's not the work of a criminal mastermind.

Avery did have a below average IQ. He also was a sadist with specialized tendencies. If you can throw a live cat into a bonfire, you have the capacity to throw a dead body on one.

Who do you think killed her?

Not quite sure. I think he certainly could have, but not in the way Kratz described. I understand the DA doesn't have to prove exact details to convict, but Kratz did anyways. He ran with the nonsensical story Dassey gave the cops, saying that Avery committed this murder by sadisticly cutting her up in his garage and burning the remains in the bonfire. That much we know didn't happen, because there is no possible way Avery cleaned up every single scrap of physical evidence out of that garage.

If he did kill her, which is certainly possible, it didn't happen in the manner Kratz said it did. More importantly, the key pieces of evidence were found by agents of the Manitouc County Sheriffs Department, whom when you consider their past frame job on him and the pending lawsuit he had against them, had absolutely NO business anywhere near that crime scene, and thus any "evidence" discovered by that department really shouldn't even be considered in this case.

That's why he deserves a new trial. Just the fact that Manitouac County got involved in this case, even though they knew from the start they should stay far, far away from it because of the obvious conflict of interest, is reasonable grounds for a new trial, wouldn't you agree?

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #73 on: August 15, 2016, 03:39:56 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
My guess is that Avery killed Halbach and that Dassey went over to the bonfire and helped Avery clean up his garage. I'm doubtful that Dassey knew about the murder at the time.

Dassey never should have been convicted. He got screwed by his attorney, and by the judge who allowed the confession to stand.

Regarding Avery, I go back and forth regarding the fairness of his conviction. Even excluding the suspicious evidence, I still think there is a lot that points to his guilt. I equate it to the OJ Simpson case. In both cases, evidence pointed toward the suspect, but the detectives attempted to supplement their cases through shady tactics. Is that reasonable doubt? The OJ jury thought so, and they're widely ridiculed. The Avery jury disagreed, and they're similarly criticized.

Do you really think Avery was able to hide the evidence in the manner the prosecutors claimed? I have a hard time believing that Avery, with his low IQ, would be able to cover up the brutal crime the prosecution claimed happened. There's just no way Avery murdered that girl in the kind of sadistic fashion they said he did, and was able to cover up All the physical evidence that, by consequence, would have been left to find.

If Avery dos kill her, it certainly didn't happen the way the DA claimed it did, and for that, he deserves a new trial. I can't imagine any half-decent lawyer looking at this any other way.

The prosecution doesn't have to prove the exact details, just that a murder occurred.

Between his DNA being in her car and her remains being found inside his burning barrels, there's plenty of evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. Dassey's story and outline of events made no sense, but those statements weren't used against Avery.  As for covering up evidence, the car was found on his property and the bone fragments were also. That's not the work of a criminal mastermind.

Avery did have a below average IQ. He also was a sadist with specialized tendencies. If you can throw a live cat into a bonfire, you have the capacity to throw a dead body on one.

Who do you think killed her?
I gotta point out that this is wrong. The prosecution can't just prove that a murder occured, they have to prove that the person they're accusing of the murder actually did it. If the prosecution's story of what happened is contradicted by physical evidence, I think a reasonable person could have doubts about the case and if that's so, the verdict should be not guilty.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #74 on: August 15, 2016, 08:49:48 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58548
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
My guess is that Avery killed Halbach and that Dassey went over to the bonfire and helped Avery clean up his garage. I'm doubtful that Dassey knew about the murder at the time.

Dassey never should have been convicted. He got screwed by his attorney, and by the judge who allowed the confession to stand.

Regarding Avery, I go back and forth regarding the fairness of his conviction. Even excluding the suspicious evidence, I still think there is a lot that points to his guilt. I equate it to the OJ Simpson case. In both cases, evidence pointed toward the suspect, but the detectives attempted to supplement their cases through shady tactics. Is that reasonable doubt? The OJ jury thought so, and they're widely ridiculed. The Avery jury disagreed, and they're similarly criticized.

Do you really think Avery was able to hide the evidence in the manner the prosecutors claimed? I have a hard time believing that Avery, with his low IQ, would be able to cover up the brutal crime the prosecution claimed happened. There's just no way Avery murdered that girl in the kind of sadistic fashion they said he did, and was able to cover up All the physical evidence that, by consequence, would have been left to find.

If Avery dos kill her, it certainly didn't happen the way the DA claimed it did, and for that, he deserves a new trial. I can't imagine any half-decent lawyer looking at this any other way.

The prosecution doesn't have to prove the exact details, just that a murder occurred.

Between his DNA being in her car and her remains being found inside his burning barrels, there's plenty of evidence for a reasonable jury to convict. Dassey's story and outline of events made no sense, but those statements weren't used against Avery.  As for covering up evidence, the car was found on his property and the bone fragments were also. That's not the work of a criminal mastermind.

Avery did have a below average IQ. He also was a sadist with specialized tendencies. If you can throw a live cat into a bonfire, you have the capacity to throw a dead body on one.

Who do you think killed her?
I gotta point out that this is wrong. The prosecution can't just prove that a murder occured, they have to prove that the person they're accusing of the murder actually did it. If the prosecution's story of what happened is contradicted by physical evidence, I think a reasonable person could have doubts about the case and if that's so, the verdict should be not guilty.

It's pretty easy as a defense attorney to raise questions and to argue there should be doubt. If the standard truly was "could a reasonable man have doubt", and if that standard was routinely applied, there would be a lot more trials and a lot more not guilty verdicts.

Instead, juries realistically apply a "do I feel strongly he did it" standard. With that standard in mind, I'm not surprised he was convicted. I feel pretty strongly that he did it, too. I also feel strongly that the police planted the key. Feeling like Avery did it and that local police supplemented their evidence illegally aren't mutually exclusive.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes