Jump to content

Making a Murderer


SoulMonster

Recommended Posts

I haven't seen the documentary and hadn't heard of the case until this show came on, but are those who believe Dassey to be innocent of the murder also of the opinion that he had nothing to do with any aspect of the crime whatsoever? That is, that he had nothing to do with bleaching the floor, tidying up, disposing of the body, etc.

Edited by PappyTron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all the evidence presented was broadcast, and this is why it makes it such a great whodunnit. From what I saw, I believe that Brendan was coerced into a confession. And I'm going to presume that he can't bleach a bedroom free of blood spatters because he's a 15 year old lad. Which is a very dangerous presumption to make when it comes to a murder suspect, but I have had a cleaning job for a house for the past year, and while I try to be thorough, I still miss patches. I know I don't have the guilty conscience, but I am naturally concerned of being sacked if I don't do a good enough job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, username said:

He's not just a 15 year old. He would also score lower on an IQ test than most plants. If that kid ever did anything it could only be a spur-of-the-moment thing. 

Didn't Avery score even lower on a court issued IQ test than Dassey? I don't think that either of them are going to be winning prizes for brainpower any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he may not even care about wrestling anymore :lol:

I'm glad it got overturned....he was the one i felt sorry for watching the show. i can't confirm whether or not Avery is innocent (it didn't go down how they said it did though) i can buy that 18 years may have distorted his reality but i know if this kid was involved it was due to Avery's influence over him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

honestly if the detectives had half a mind they could have got him admit he took part in the Kennedy assassination :lol: their idea of tell us the truth = tell them what they want to hear and everything thats not that is a lie

Edited by -W.A.R-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad he's getting out. I obviously don't know what happened but you shouldn't be able to convict multiple people of the same crime with two totally different theories of how the crime went down. Any decent representation would have put them on trial together to prevent that imo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 months later...

https://www.amazon.com/Indefensible-Missing-Steven-Halbach-Murderer/dp/1496710134

"Michael Griesbach, a prosecutor and member of Wisconsin’s Innocence Project who had been instrumental in Avery’s 2003 exoneration, was targeted on social media, threatened—and plagued by doubt. Now, in this suspenseful, thorough narrative, he recounts his own re-examination of the evidence in light of the whirlwind of controversy stirred up by the blockbuster true-crime series."

Like I said several times earlier in this topic, Avery and his nephew were 100% guilty - without a doubt, open and shut case.

This book, written by a guy who wrote a book detailed how Avery was framed for the earlier crime , watched the documentary and - like most people - thought that maybe Avery had been framed again. But he also saw some things that he knew weren't portrayed correctly. So he got the court transcripts and all of Avery's police records, and he sat down to see if Avery was innocent or guilty.

Long story short - almost every "smoking gun" from the documentary simply isn't true. They've distorted, taken things out of context, or flat out lied about pretty much every major point.

They use the Michael Moore style of journalism. Just make up or create things to make the "truth" fit their narrative.

As an example. A couple times they show people in court answering questions. Seems legit - right? Well, except for the fact that they show a guy being asked a question and instead of showing his ACTUAL answer - they cut out what he said, and splice in an answer from later on in the trial. Think about that. That's how this entire documentary was made.  Taking things out of context, splicing different interviews and statements together, and a couple things they just flat out lie about.

I get it. The doc was extremely powerful and convinced a lot of people that Avery had been framed once again. But seriously - the majority of the documentary isn't an accurate portrayal of what really happened.

Avery and his nephew killed that poor lady. Without a doubt, 100% they did it. 

If you feel strongly that they are innocent and you are outraged by it, I implore you to read this book. It will change your mind. Guarantee it.

I won't bore you with all the details. But just to get you started........TH won't come to Avery's house anymore, because of his past inappropriate behavior. So he calls her company and disguises his voice to sound like a woman's. He gives them a fake name (his sister's name, different last name than his) and her address. And says he (she) is selling a van. (Sister later tells police she wasn't selling the van).  Sooooo, what's up with that? Why did he lure that lady out to the property, using a fake voice/name and job request????? To woo her over and have tea together?   And by some weird coincidence, the day he does this....the lady ends up going missing and is later found murdered.  What are the odds of that happening the same day he called her? And wow, he was also the last person to see her alive.  The odds of all that happening are just realistic. Throw in the fact that Avery had been accused by at least five different women (from ex-GFs to his own nieces) of sexually and physically abusing them. The same guy who pour gas on his pet cat and set it on fire. When the fire went out, he poured on more gas and set it on fire again until the cat died. The same guy who liked to go to the edge of the road in front of his house and masturbate when his neighbor would drive by in the mornings (so she would see him).

And if the police did try and frame him....you are talking about police who weren't on the force during the initial crime. These guys are going to risk their careers/jobs/pensions and jail time over something that happened before they started working there? Really?  Keep in mind, these are probably the finest police in the history of police.  They get a call saying TH is missing. Somehow, within a matter of maybe an hour or two, they are able to figure out that Avery called (disguising his voice, using a fake name, etc) and THEN they are able to solve the missing person call by SOLVING the murder!!! Within an hour or two of finding out she was missing, these guys find the murderer and solve the crime. Amazing police work.     Now that they've caught the murderer and figure out that Avery was the last person to see TH alive, a bunch of them get together and decide it's the perfect time to frame Avery. And what the hell, might as well frame his nephew as well.   Keep in mind - this is all in one day.

Luckily, they catch another huge break as the see Avery has a huge bonfire going in his yard (on the same day as the murder). So a couple of them sneak into Avery's house and steal his gun and shoot TH in the head, then sneak the gun back into the house. They then hide behind some bushes at Avery's house until Avery/nephew run inside to use the bathroom. The police then quickly jump out from the bush and throw the body onto the bonfire, and then they get the hell out of dodge. Maybe in their invisible police car. Luckily for the police, Avery doesn't notice the dead body on top of his bonfire.

And on and on it goes.

TL/DR -  read the book. Aftewards, you'll feel silly for being so outraged and for being 100% convinced that Avery was framed for a second time.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Apollo said:

https://www.amazon.com/Indefensible-Missing-Steven-Halbach-Murderer/dp/1496710134

"Michael Griesbach, a prosecutor and member of Wisconsin’s Innocence Project who had been instrumental in Avery’s 2003 exoneration, was targeted on social media, threatened—and plagued by doubt. Now, in this suspenseful, thorough narrative, he recounts his own re-examination of the evidence in light of the whirlwind of controversy stirred up by the blockbuster true-crime series."

Like I said several times earlier in this topic, Avery and his nephew were 100% guilty - without a doubt, open and shut case.

This book, written by a guy who wrote a book detailed how Avery was framed for the earlier crime , watched the documentary and - like most people - thought that maybe Avery had been framed again. But he also saw some things that he knew weren't portrayed correctly. So he got the court transcripts and all of Avery's police records, and he sat down to see if Avery was innocent or guilty.

Long story short - almost every "smoking gun" from the documentary simply isn't true. They've distorted, taken things out of context, or flat out lied about pretty much every major point.

They use the Michael Moore style of journalism. Just make up or create things to make the "truth" fit their narrative.

As an example. A couple times they show people in court answering questions. Seems legit - right? Well, except for the fact that they show a guy being asked a question and instead of showing his ACTUAL answer - they cut out what he said, and splice in an answer from later on in the trial. Think about that. That's how this entire documentary was made.  Taking things out of context, splicing different interviews and statements together, and a couple things they just flat out lie about.

I get it. The doc was extremely powerful and convinced a lot of people that Avery had been framed once again. But seriously - the majority of the documentary isn't an accurate portrayal of what really happened.

Avery and his nephew killed that poor lady. Without a doubt, 100% they did it. 

If you feel strongly that they are innocent and you are outraged by it, I implore you to read this book. It will change your mind. Guarantee it.

I won't bore you with all the details. But just to get you started........TH won't come to Avery's house anymore, because of his past inappropriate behavior. So he calls her company and disguises his voice to sound like a woman's. He gives them a fake name (his sister's name, different last name than his) and her address. And says he (she) is selling a van. (Sister later tells police she wasn't selling the van).  Sooooo, what's up with that? Why did he lure that lady out to the property, using a fake voice/name and job request????? To woo her over and have tea together?   And by some weird coincidence, the day he does this....the lady ends up going missing and is later found murdered.  What are the odds of that happening the same day he called her? And wow, he was also the last person to see her alive.  The odds of all that happening are just realistic. Throw in the fact that Avery had been accused by at least five different women (from ex-GFs to his own nieces) of sexually and physically abusing them. The same guy who pour gas on his pet cat and set it on fire. When the fire went out, he poured on more gas and set it on fire again until the cat died. The same guy who liked to go to the edge of the road in front of his house and masturbate when his neighbor would drive by in the mornings (so she would see him).

And if the police did try and frame him....you are talking about police who weren't on the force during the initial crime. These guys are going to risk their careers/jobs/pensions and jail time over something that happened before they started working there? Really?  Keep in mind, these are probably the finest police in the history of police.  They get a call saying TH is missing. Somehow, within a matter of maybe an hour or two, they are able to figure out that Avery called (disguising his voice, using a fake name, etc) and THEN they are able to solve the missing person call by SOLVING the murder!!! Within an hour or two of finding out she was missing, these guys find the murderer and solve the crime. Amazing police work.     Now that they've caught the murderer and figure out that Avery was the last person to see TH alive, a bunch of them get together and decide it's the perfect time to frame Avery. And what the hell, might as well frame his nephew as well.   Keep in mind - this is all in one day.

Luckily, they catch another huge break as the see Avery has a huge bonfire going in his yard (on the same day as the murder). So a couple of them sneak into Avery's house and steal his gun and shoot TH in the head, then sneak the gun back into the house. They then hide behind some bushes at Avery's house until Avery/nephew run inside to use the bathroom. The police then quickly jump out from the bush and throw the body onto the bonfire, and then they get the hell out of dodge. Maybe in their invisible police car. Luckily for the police, Avery doesn't notice the dead body on top of his bonfire.

And on and on it goes.

TL/DR -  read the book. Aftewards, you'll feel silly for being so outraged and for being 100% convinced that Avery was framed for a second time.

Does he address or explain how Avery's blood was found inside the car but no fingerprints were found?  

In any event, Netflix announced a second season where Avery's lawyers will present new evidence. Apparently Avery's lawyer has been working with a forensic scientist in Sweden who specializes in carbon dating that will somehow bolster Avery's claim of innocence.

Hopefully the documentary addresses some of the criticisms brought against it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's strange he didn't do the first one and he's so wreckless about the second one. It's hard to fathom the thought process. It's like he got done for something he didn't do but was about to. So they were close the first time even without solid evidence. Police should be able to sue the doc for making them look bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wasted said:

It's strange he didn't do the first one and he's so wreckless about the second one. It's hard to fathom the thought process. It's like he got done for something he didn't do but was about to. So they were close the first time even without solid evidence. Police should be able to sue the doc for making them look bad. 

That's not how libel laws work.  You can't sue someone for making you look bad; slander is the act of making false statements that damages a person's reputation.  The police would have to explain what in the documentary was false in order to bring legal action.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, downzy said:

That's not how libel laws work.  You can't sue someone for making you look bad; slander is the act of making false statements that damages a person's reputation.  The police would have to explain what in the documentary was false in order to bring legal action.  

But they are copy and pasting statements, it seems like the whole thing was misrepresentation? 

Or are the points true but the collage not really real. They used editing to punch home the points. Or was the whole thing misrepresentation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4-2-2017 at 7:08 AM, downzy said:

Does he address or explain how Avery's blood was found inside the car but no fingerprints were found?  

In any event, Netflix announced a second season where Avery's lawyers will present new evidence. Apparently Avery's lawyer has been working with a forensic scientist in Sweden who specializes in carbon dating that will somehow bolster Avery's claim of innocence.

Hopefully the documentary addresses some of the criticisms brought against it.  

I'm looking forward to that then.

I stopped watching midway the 8th episode or something. I was hooked, but I always get too upset with those things :lol: and I'd had enough of that awful prosecutor. I couldn't stand him locking up the nephew too. Leaving aside if he/they is/are actually guilty or not, there's obviously something wrong with the nephew. I mean, he was 16 or something, but he doesn't seem to be able to form a sentence or answer any question, nor grasp what the consequences are from what he's saying (or doing). I'd like to think that a kid with such low intelligence wouldn't even appear in court here. Instead the case would be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. At the very least, someone should've always been present (a parent, a psychologist, social worker) while he was interrogated by those cops who obviously took advantage of his low intelligence. Regardless if they're guilty or innocent, the cops came across as crooks and I would never trust them, after seeing how they handled the case in general and that kid in specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...