Making a Murderer

[Pete]

^

I'm sure the prosecution didn't need it and thus didn't use those statements to gain the conviction but...

The filmmakers specifically kept it out of the series while happily including every unsubstantiated claim and innuendo of a massive conspiracy, none of which was proven at all nor has any of that resulted in any ruling, admonishment or anything else by a judge or court.

If they could prove the planting of evidence (or any of the even wilder claims) they would have done it and at least pursued a mistrial if not an acquittal.

Those two defense attorneys are sharp, well-paid dudes. They were just shotgunning a whole lot of stuff without proving any of it in the only chance they had to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of the 12 jurors. And none of the jurors bought any of it.

[BBatesokc]

^

I'm sure the prosecution didn't need it and thus didn't use those statements to gain the conviction but...

The filmmakers specifically kept it out of the series while happily including every unsubstantiated claim and innuendo of a massive conspiracy, none of which was proven at all nor has any of that resulted in any ruling, admonishment or anything else by a judge or court.

If they could prove the planting of evidence (or any of the even wilder claims) they would have done it and at least pursued a mistrial if not an acquittal.

Those two defense attorneys are sharp, well-paid dudes. They were just shotgunning a whole lot of stuff without proving any of it in the only chance they had to create reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one of the 12 jurors. And none of the jurors bought any of it.

That's all well and good until reality hits and we're all reminded the defense couldn't prove the set-up in the first trial (at trial) - yet we know now it 100% happened.

You act like proving the planting of evidence is as it plays out in an episode Boston Legal or Perry Mason and someone always just cracks on the stand.

Unless you can get a confession or witness, exactly how are you going to prove they planted evidence?

The examples of police/investigators planting evidence is not something of myth. We've had our own scandals in Oklahoma for that very thing.

I'm just playing devil's advocate, but it seems both sides are too often guilty of painting too simple of a picture when it comes to this case.

[Pete]

I disagree we know that the first trial (where he was later exonerated) proved Avery was set up.

He was wrongfully convicted and law enforcement did a bad job in some ways, but you also had the victim herself testify she was 100% sure it was Avery.

Yes, the investigation probably contributed to her making this claim, but a victim being 100% sure of who committed a crime against them is enough to get a conviction, and that's what happened in that first case.

Wrongful conviction is not the same thing as being set up.


Regarding the proving of planted evidence, my point is that just because someone claimed something or implied it during a court case, it is in no way an indication of whether it actually happened or not.

Defense attorneys do things like that all the time in aid of an acquittal, just like defendants and others lie all the time under oath.

But most importantly, if even one of the jurors thought that the prosecution claims had any validity, Avery would not have been convicted, at least in that particular trial. So in the end, I'm not talking about someone cracking on the witness stand but that none of framing crap was proven to the satisfaction of the jury, or the judge for that matter.

I'm sure there were motions to dismiss by the defense (almost always are) and clearly they were all denied by the judge otherwise the case never would have gone to the jury.

[Pete]

BTW, that wrongful conviction of Avery was in 1985.

They didn't have DNA testing back then; heck, they didn't even have the Internet at that time, computerized records, etc.

Things have come a very long way since and to the extent that evidence was planted and there were other shenanigans by law enforcement in the past, I'm very sure it happens way, way less now and when Avery was first accused of this murder.

[mkjeeves]

.... my point is that just because someone claimed something or implied it during a court case, it is in no way an indication of whether it actually happened or not.

Obviously, that works both ways. Which is why we have a jury to attempt to sort it all out.

[Pete]

Obviously, that works both ways. Which is why we have a jury to attempt to sort it all out.

And judges, too.

They rule on what can be introduced as evidence, how witnesses can be questioned and ultimately what the jury should consider and what they shouldn't.

They also rule on dozens (if not hundreds) of motions filed by both sides before, during and after a trial.

[mkjeeves]

And judges, too.

They rule on what can be introduced as evidence, how witnesses can be questioned and ultimately what the jury should consider and what they shouldn't.

They also rule on dozens (if not hundreds) of motions filed by both sides before, during and after a trial.

Exactly. And in this case the judge ruled those claims could be heard. Just like the ones made by the prosecution. Neither had more standing than the other, except as decided by the jury.

[Pete]

Exactly. And in this case the judge ruled those claims could be heard. Just like the ones made by the prosecution. Neither had more standing than the other, except as decided by the jury.

He allowed questioning around the evidence but the defense never came out and made any overt claims.

We also don't know what he didn't allow, what he cut off and what the jury was told to disregard.

A huge amount of the allegations and insinuation actually took place in filming the defense lawyers and Avery sympathizers outside the courtroom and of course, the jury was never exposed to any of that.

[rezman]

Kind of an interesting exchange going on here. Along the lines of what I was thinking while watching the episodes yesterday.

https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurder...e_key_and_the/

[kevinpate]

...

I can't think of a single case I've been a part of where snitch testimony from an inmate made any difference in a case.
...

I can not say the same. Some snitches are damned convincing.
Particularly if the snitch happened to be the actual guilty party, such as in the Ron Williamson case I alluded to earlier in the thread.

When anyone gets into the mindset of well, X knew things about the crime or crime scene only the actual killer would know, my mind instantly goes to translation mode.

X knew things about the crime or crime scene that could be known if s/he were the killer, or if the information was given to him by the killer, or law enforcement, or someone else known by or introduced to X who had a reason to frame X.

The bottom line is this can, and does, happen. Not in every case, obviously. But it happens, and to presume otherwise is simply a bad idea in my opinion. Consider it, rule it out if possible and move on. If not possible to easily rule out, it deserves a much closer look before diving headfirst into the only the killer would know pond. That pond can be very shallow in places, with large rocks just below the surface.

[krisb]

One very important note about Brendan that the docuseries glossed over...

In his confession, he gave details of the rape and murder that completely matched forensics and things he couldn't have possibly known if had was not been at the crime scene.

He also came home with bleach on his jeans that day and told his mom he had been helping Steven clean his garage.

And keep in mind, the court ruled he was not coerced into making a confession AND he also confessed to his mom on a recorded phone call from prison.

He was totally guilty.

This statement is grossly unsubstantiated.

[C_M_25]

This statement is grossly unsubstantiated.

If they used bleach to clean the DNA from the house, don't you think there would be bleach stains all over everything?

[Pete]

If they used bleach to clean the DNA from the house, don't you think there would be bleach stains all over everything?

Supposedly, it was used to clean the garage floor.

[Pete]

This statement is grossly unsubstantiated.

If you care to dispute what I wrote with any detail, I'd be happy to provide the portions of the court testimony that directly pertain.

[OKCRT]

Obviously, that works both ways. Which is why we have a jury to attempt to sort it all out.

And the judge should be fair and impartial. How in the world could a judge let DNA evidence in when it was contaminated and the defense is claiming that it was tampered with? The lady doing the test contaminated the DNA sample with hers and yet the judge let the DNA evidence in. I don't get it. I mean we have Averys DNA blood in a pkg. with a broken seal a needle puncture in the vial and cross contamination from the person testing DNA samples from the crime scene.

Something just doesn't compute here.

And how in the world could this idiot Avery clean up all the blood if the murder happens like the DA claims? One looking at this with common sense would say that blood splatter would be everywhere. If you look in the garage where they say she was shot there is so much stuff in there it would have been impossible to clean in the time frame we are talking about. And then we have the bedroom where her throat was slashed but not one single droplet of blood was found anywhere.

So that means these idiots not only cleaned one murder area but two. Something just doesn't pass the common sense meter here.

He might be guilty but there was def. some shenanigans going on in this case. It seems to me that the Halbach girl was prob killed in her car by someone. They have her blood and hair in the rear part of the car. The murder could have been committed by Steven Avery or maybe some other family member. I just can not see how it could have been done like the DA claims.

[rezman]

Watching this story quickly reminded me of a family I met back in the mid 80's, who lived on the next block over from me. I never met the mom, but I did meet the father, and there were two sons, an older daughter, and a cousin that I became aquainted with for a short time. These folks had the same heavy northern accent, same looks, intelligence, demeanor, and grunginess as the Avery's, as presented in the series. They were erily similar.

[OKCisOK4me]

I'm on the 4th episode and not finished yet cause this nephew, Brendan, is just a dumbass!

[BBatesokc]

Regardless, I think there is often a fine line between set up, incompetent or too bias for their own good when it comes to prosecutors and investigators.

[OKCRT]

I'm on the 4th episode and not finished yet cause this nephew, Brendan, is just a dumbass!

He has a very low IQ just above the mendoza line for being retarded. It pains me to see these police interrogate him with no adult or lawyer in there with him. Not once not twice but many times til they get the answers they want to hear.

[BBatesokc]

He has a very low IQ just above the mendoza line for being retarded. It pains me to see these police interrogate him with no adult or lawyer in there with him. Not once not twice but many times til they get the answers they want to hear.

If you read the transcript - that's actually not how it went down. He gave them very specific answers that matched the forensics without any prompting several times.

[OKCRT]

If you read the transcript - that's actually not how it went down. He gave them very specific answers that matched the forensics without any prompting several times.

They interrogated him several times with no lawyer or adult supervision. That is what's wrong IMO. I know they can legally do it but he was so overmatched they could get him to say anything they wanted. He was worried about getting back to school by 1:30 for a project he had. He had no clue they were getting ready to put him in jail.

[checkthat]

One very important note about Brendan that the docuseries glossed over...

In his confession, he gave details of the rape and murder that completely matched forensics and things he couldn't have possibly known if had was not been at the crime scene.

He also came home with bleach on his jeans that day and told his mom he had been helping Steven clean his garage.

And keep in mind, the court ruled he was not coerced into making a confession AND he also confessed to his mom on a recorded phone call from prison.

He was totally guilty.

The type of bleach that stains cloths does not clean blood evidence enough that it is not detectable though forensic testing. Oxygen bleach can clean the blood, but it does not create a stain.

From this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd..._about_bleach/

Chlorine bleaches can remove a bloodstain to the naked eye but fortunately, forensics experts can use the application of substances such as luminol or phenolphthalein to show that haemoglobin is present. In fact, even if the shady criminal washed a bloodstained item of clothing 10 times, these chemicals could still reveal blood.

With oxygen bleach, the bleach has an oxidising agent, which could be a substance such as hydrogen peroxide. In these instances, haemoglobin is completely removed and can't later be detected.

Detecting Evidence After Bleaching

Oxygen bleach is color-safe and won’t bleach white spots onto dyed fabrics as chlorine bleach will

https://household-tips.thefuntimesgu...gen_bleach.php

[Pete]

^

Testimony shows that Dassey told his mother and investigators he had bleach on his jeans because he was helping Steven clean his garage floor the day of the murder.

That's what is important.

[BBatesokc]

They interrogated him several times with no lawyer or adult supervision. That is what's wrong IMO. I know they can legally do it but he was so overmatched they could get him to say anything they wanted. He was worried about getting back to school by 1:30 for a project he had. He had no clue they were getting ready to put him in jail.

I get what you're saying. Regardless, he told them specific details that were not coached out of him and matched the forensics evidence. Parent or lawyer present or not, that doesn't change the fact he told them things that if innocent he shouldn't have known.

[Pete]

I believe Dassey was only interviewed the one time without his lawyer present and the judge specifically ruled (this was in the series) that he was not coerced in any way.

Remember, the series just shows some very carefully edited excerpts where the judge in this instance had access to the entire interview video and transcripts before making his ruling.