• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Making a Murderer (Netflix)

I'm still trying to determine the two witnesses who claimed they saw Steven Avery throwing the victims things into a burn barrel, because if it was Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych that would be too much.
I believe that is exactly who "witnessed" the barrel events. Those 2 changed their stories quite a bit from depo to stand, and IMO Bobby outright lied on the stand about joking with Steven about the event.
 
Upvote 0
Watched the whole series over the weekend. There is something seriously off about that whole Avery family. Some serious skeletons in those trailers' closets, I'm guessing. Not sure if it's a long history of excessive violence/incest/molestation/in-breeding or what, but that is one fucked up family. The kid's defense attorney even had an email mentioning something about the whole Avery family being serious sexual deviants. Nothing more was ever offered to clarify those statements. Branden seemed like a kid who has endured some serious abuse, whether it be emotional, physical or sexual in nature is anyone's guess. All three, I'm assuming.

Agree with those of you who think Scott & Bobby were the ones who framed Steve. I believe they killed the girl and shabbily covered it up to frame Steve and then called the police to work out a deal to get Steve convicted. It wouldn't surprise me if Scott put dimwitted step-son Branden up to "confess" so he wouldn't have to support him through his adulthood.

The whole issue of the key was a joke, IMO. It wasn't there the first 5 times they searched the trailer, but somehow 4 months later, it magically appears? And only had DNA of the prime suspect on it? No one else's, not even the victim's? Come on.....

Steve may not have been solely responsible for this crime, but the dude isn't exactly the hard-luck good-guy the show would like you to believe. He was convicted of burglary, exposing himself (jerkin it) to his cousin - and then running her off the road and holding her at gunpoint threatening to kill her if she told anyone. He also did time for dousing a cat with gasoline and intentionally throwing it on a fire, just to watch it burn. (Maybe he was curious how bones would hold up in a fire..... you know for science....) Because of his history in these crimes, he was then guilty of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, which is another serious crime. I'm also guessing he hasn't been convicted of every major crime he's ever committed either......
 
Upvote 0
I find official rebuttals like this one exceedingly unconvincing.

http://m.jsonline.com/news/crime/ma...-steven-avery-case-b99647809z1-364794271.html

One thing they never address:

Regardless of whether blood was planted in the vehicle or not, and the FBI testimony was far from convincing much less definitive, why was the blood vile tampered with?

Can we just explore that as a completely seperate issue- is there any alternative reasonable explanation why the vile was in the condition it was in?

Let me fix this one, I have only seen bits and pieces as my wife is watching it but I caught this bit.

This whole bit is bad science. That blood vial was fine and exactly as it should be. A purple top on a blood vial indicates it contains EDTA which is there solely to prevent clotting so that liquid blood can be tested at a later date.

As for the puncture on top. either the labcorp person he talked to doesnt exist or didnt understand what he was asking about that. 99.99% of all tubes will have that pucture. when you draw a patients blood you either pull it into a syringe which is then attached to an adapter that has a covered needle that goes through that top or you use a straight line draw where your needle is actually double sided and the tube is connected directly to the needle while in the patients arm. Either way, that puncture mark SHOULD be there.
 
Upvote 0
@AJHawkfan, No doubt Steven isn't the most honorable of men, and I too find the whole Avery clan to be, as you put it, "one fucked up family." The one I feel for, though, is Brendan. That poor son-of-a-bitch has no business being in prison. He was completely taken advantage of by Weigert and Fassbender so that they could obtain warrants to "find" more evidence. I believe the original plan for him was to have him be the star witness against Steven and in exchange for his testimony he was to receive a significantly reduced sentence or no time at all. But, it turned out he wouldn't "play ball" as it were and so they sent him up the creek too. He was a pawn.
------------------------------
So, as I've had more and more time to let the series sink in and have been able to process some things....

Part of the problem we have, I think, is that we know the whole tale. Which is to say, we know that Dassey's confession was pure bullshit. But... the Avery jury never, never heard that confession, nor was it's legitimacy examined by his attorneys at trial. What the jury did hear, as @OH10 said was unethical behavior of the special prosecutor, was Kratz going on a "If you're under 15, please step away from the TV" diatribe about what Dassey said he and Steve did. They didn't hear that at trial, they heard it on TV and it was quite likely in the back of the juror's minds on some level.

Speaking of which, the fact that Dassey's confession never made its way into Steven's trial is quite problematic for Steven on post conviction matters. The prosecution repeatedly used Dassey's ever changing confessions as an instrument to gain warrants for other searches. Which is to say, Weigert and Fassbender would manipulate Dassey into saying something they needed so that they could get another warrant to go find (read: plant) the evidence they needed to ensure Steven's conviction. On the face, the "new information" was sufficient to support probable cause, but, in reality it we know the information was fed to Dassey by the cops and was, consequently, not probable cause. It was the cop's own narrative being expressed thru Brendan.

And... it's a good thing that Kratz didn't bring up Dassey's confession(s) in Avery's trial. He knew the jurors already had that narrative floating around in their minds. But what he also knew they didn't know was that Dassey's story changed in significant ways. They didn't find any of Halbach's hair anywhere in the trailer.... But, Dassey was clear he cut it off... until the cops talked him out of that fact being true in one of he three other "confessions." That's just one example, if you look at this guy's site you'll find many more: Link (Scroll down towards the bottom of the page)
-----------------------------
I'm to believe Avery and Dassey cleaned the garage so well there was no evidence of Hallbach's blood there, and yet they didn't bother to toss away the .22 shells laying around or find the bullet/bullet fragments? They cleaned the scene of Halbach's blood, but weren't able to clean up the deer blood also staining the floor?

I'm to believe Avery - who had access to a smelter on the property - decided to use a burn pit?

I'm to believe that Avery - who had access to a car crusher - decided to "hide" the automobile in plain site by.... actually trying to hide it under a few sticks and another's vehicle's hood leaning against it in a "pit" of some 4,000 junk cars? Hidden so poorly - and so obviously attempted to be hidden - that it stood out like a fucking beacon?

And.. divine intervention Pam... come the fuck on...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Let me fix this one, I have only seen bits and pieces as my wife is watching it but I caught this bit.

This whole bit is bad science. That blood vial was fine and exactly as it should be. A purple top on a blood vial indicates it contains EDTA which is there solely to prevent clotting so that liquid blood can be tested at a later date.

As for the puncture on top. either the labcorp person he talked to doesnt exist or didnt understand what he was asking about that. 99.99% of all tubes will have that pucture. when you draw a patients blood you either pull it into a syringe which is then attached to an adapter that has a covered needle that goes through that top or you use a straight line draw where your needle is actually double sided and the tube is connected directly to the needle while in the patients arm. Either way, that puncture mark SHOULD be there.
Assuming that's the case regarding the hole, it doesn't explain why the seal to the evidence was clearly broken. Someone got in that sealed evidence, this much cannot be disputed.[/quote]
 
Upvote 0
Assuming that's the case regarding the hole, it doesn't explain why the seal to the evidence was clearly broken. Someone got in that sealed evidence, this much cannot be disputed.
[/QUOTE]
I cannot explain that. But if someone wanted blood out of a vial without causing more evidence... that rubber stopper pulls right off and goes right back in just as easy. I am not saying it COULDNT have been tampered with, but if I catch you using lies/bad science to support your case, it makes me question other aspects of your case that arent in my wheelhouse.
 
Upvote 0
also he mentioned wanting to know if the blood in the car could be tested in some way to see if its from that vial. Yes, you take it to a Gas Chromatograph and test to see if it has traces of EDTA in it since thats the additive to that tube.
 
Upvote 0
also he mentioned wanting to know if the blood in the car could be tested in some way to see if its from that vial. Yes, you take it to a Gas Chromatograph and test to see if it has traces of EDTA in it since thats the additive to that tube.
No, no, no... you give it to the FBI and have the develop a test.... and then have them conveniently give the results at a time when the other side has no opportunity to conduct its own independent review.
 
Upvote 0
I cannot explain that. But if someone wanted blood out of a vial without causing more evidence... that rubber stopper pulls right off and goes right back in just as easy. I am not saying it COULDNT have been tampered with, but if I catch you using lies/bad science to support your case, it makes me question other aspects of your case that arent in my wheelhouse.
That's fair enough. However, there was an awful lot of bad science on the prosecution's side too... specifically the DNA chick who used up all the sample and had to get clearance to have the result accepted as valid anyway... incidentally, that particular person was caught drunk at work. I forget if it was before or after the relevant time, as I found it on some other website the other day.
 
Upvote 0
That's fair enough. However, there was an awful lot of bad science on the prosecution's side too... specifically the DNA chick who used up all the sample and had to get clearance to have the result accepted as valid anyway... incidentally, that particular person was caught drunk at work. I forget if it was before or after the relevant time, as I found it on some other website the other day.
And if I remember correctly, that was the only test the lab had ever declared a match when the tech's own DNA contaminated the sample, all the other comtminated samples were declared inconclusive.
 
Upvote 0
The judge who presided over the initial trial being the one who determines whether or not a second trial is warranted seems like a terrible system--- I'm sure admitting mistakes is something judges are really enthusiastic about doing--- is that a Wisconsin thing or is that standard operating procedure nationwide?

@OH10 @Buckeyeskickbuttocks
Yes, it's pretty standard for the original court/judge to hear motions for post conviction relief. That's why they almost never work. Deck is completely stacked against criminal defendants. And the average public defender will plea his grandma to 1st degree murder.

I had my first post conviction case on an issue that should have been clearly in my client's favor. Judge just flat out denied it. Just argued it in the appeals court. Prosecutor shook my hand after and admitted I kicked his ass and his argument was complete b.s. he made up that morning (not in his brief). I'll believe I won when I see the opinion though.
 
Upvote 0
My sister just recommended it to me. I usually avoid what "everyone else is watching" but this may be the exception.

Messed up?
Ok, finally dove in. Watched Ep. 1. Whole time I'm thinking, how the heck does this drag out to 10 episodes? This seems like everything wrapped up in a 1-hour Dateline special or something. Then...the ending.

"Holy sh*t"

Hooked.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top