Making a Murderer

Am I the only one that didn't find it that compelling? I watched it all, but had no problem usually just watching one episode at a time... Certainly no marathon, missing work, not sleeping for days sort of binges that others seem to be doing.

 

That said, the uncle did it.

 

You're not alone. Is kind of interesting but I'm just watching it here and there but it doesn't have me glued to the screen. I guess I'm just pessimistic in thinking the story may be 1 sided. I'll watch it until the end but it's not so riveting I'm compelled to watch it.

More wtf??!!

 

http://wthitv.com/2016/01/30/ken-kratz-let...k-plan-in-2015/

 

Man, I can't stand that guy.

 

 

 

if you enlarge the last photo taken of the victim Halbach standing next to the Rav 4 (believe it was taken the morning of her disappearance) you can see that her keychain had multiple keys on it. Yet the key found in Avery trailer next to the nightstand only had one key (Rav 4) on it. Not sure about you but i dont change my keychains on a daily basis.

 

If Steven Avery is really guilty hes the dumbest criminal in the history of criminals. Sitting on a 36 million dollar lottery ticket, and kills a woman and burns her body 10 yards from his house and hides her car with some branches on his property.

 

If he get exonerated, hes got the worst luck of anyone. Spending most of his life in prison for crimes he was falsely accused of.

 

 

Explain the death certificate issues...

 

 

http://decider.com/2016/03/03/making-a-mur...ery-was-framed/

Explain the death certificate issues...

 

 

http://decider.com/2016/03/03/making-a-mur...ery-was-framed/

 

 

OK... How about this? The author doesnt know what he's talking about?

 

The report for ref: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/...Certificate.pdf

 

His smoking guns:

 

 

1. Body found-no/ autopsy performed- yes. The form actually reads "Body found (24 or more hours after death)" Given the state of her (burned) remains there was no way for the M.E. to determine that that so the answer is "NO". An autopsy was performed so the answer is "yes". Conclusion- Author is making a claim of inconsistency where none exists.

 

2. Cause of death undetermined. There is a ton of confusion on the difference between "cause of death" (i.e. the actual condition or mechanism that caused the person to die (Myocardium Infarction, Penetrating gunshot wound, pneumonia, or in this case "Undetermined" as the body was burned to the point that the actual physical act that produced her death could not be determined by the M.E. at the time of initial examination. The M.E. may later gain information that allows that precise mechanism to be determined); And "Manner of death" (Natural causes, homicide, accidental death, suicide). The author has confused the two into a single item. They aren't. It was obvious to the M.E. this was a homicide. She did not dismember and immolate herself. What caused her to actually die though would not be determined until later evidence (the confession of the co-conspirator).

 

3. The certificate was NOT issued on November 10th, the day after the remains were received. The date of the cert is the day it was certified by the registrar on December 6th. The M.E. filled it out on sent it to the registrar on December 5th. You can see the December 6th date at the very bottom of the certificate in great big stamped numbers.

 

The November 10th date that the author makes such a big deal about was when the autopsy was performed and an official pronouncement of death made. The M.E. writes "Unknown" in the box that says the exact date of death. November 10th again shows up, but its merely an acknowledgment by the funeral home director that he took possession of the remains that day. Its not the date of the certificate.

 

As for the January 16th date- Everybody knew they were her remains, and all the january 16th date is, was the day DNA testing came back from the FBI... M.E.s have been determining that remains belong to a particular individual for a hundred years before there was DNA testing. Guess what, even if the DNA came back inconclusive again (because the fire made it impossible to test) he would have still been charged with her murder.

 

4. And finally, the author states that "Avery was charged with Halbach’s murder on November 9, which would require proof of death". They had that "proof of her death". She went missing while visiting Avery. Foul play was suspected. Human remains were found at Avery's house. That's proof SOMEBODIES dead, and its PROBABLY (the burden for an indictment) the chick who's missing. The author seems to think that the police have to wait until the M.E. fills out his paperwork to ARREST somebody. Thats bullshit. In fact, you dont even need a body to TRY a murder... Let alone indict. Just proof that the person is dead and that the defendant did it. And you had that here.

OK... How about this? The author doesnt know what he's talking about?

 

The report for ref: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/...Certificate.pdf

 

His smoking guns:

 

 

1. Body found-no/ autopsy performed- yes. The form actually reads "Body found (24 or more hours after death)" Given the state of her (burned) remains there was no way for the M.E. to determine that that so the answer is "NO". An autopsy was performed so the answer is "yes". Conclusion- Author is making a claim of inconsistency where none exists.

 

2. Cause of death undetermined. There is a ton of confusion on the difference between "cause of death" (i.e. the actual condition or mechanism that caused the person to die (Myocardium Infarction, Penetrating gunshot wound, pneumonia, or in this case "Undetermined" as the body was burned to the point that the actual physical act that produced her death could not be determined by the M.E. at the time of initial examination. The M.E. may later gain information that allows that precise mechanism to be determined); And "Manner of death" (Natural causes, homicide, accidental death, suicide). The author has confused the two into a single item. They aren't. It was obvious to the M.E. this was a homicide. She did not dismember and immolate herself. What caused her to actually die though would not be determined until later evidence (the confession of the co-conspirator).

 

3. The certificate was NOT issued on November 10th, the day after the remains were received. The date of the cert is the day it was certified by the registrar on December 6th. The M.E. filled it out on sent it to the registrar on December 5th. You can see the December 6th date at the very bottom of the certificate in great big stamped numbers.

 

The November 10th date that the author makes such a big deal about was when the autopsy was performed and an official pronouncement of death made. The M.E. writes "Unknown" in the box that says the exact date of death. November 10th again shows up, but its merely an acknowledgment by the funeral home director that he took possession of the remains that day. Its not the date of the certificate.

 

As for the January 16th date- Everybody knew they were her remains, and all the january 16th date is, was the day DNA testing came back from the FBI... M.E.s have been determining that remains belong to a particular individual for a hundred years before there was DNA testing. Guess what, even if the DNA came back inconclusive again (because the fire made it impossible to test) he would have still been charged with her murder.

 

4. And finally, the author states that "Avery was charged with Halbach’s murder on November 9, which would require proof of death". They had that "proof of her death". She went missing while visiting Avery. Foul play was suspected. Human remains were found at Avery's house. That's proof SOMEBODIES dead, and its PROBABLY (the burden for an indictment) the chick who's missing. The author seems to think that the police have to wait until the M.E. fills out his paperwork to ARREST somebody. Thats bullshit. In fact, you dont even need a body to TRY a murder... Let alone indict. Just proof that the person is dead and that the defendant did it. And you had that here.

 

 

And I do apologize that #2 is the worst run -on sentence written since ernest hemingway ventilated his skull, but you get the idea.

https://twitter.com/AP/status/764196083157336064

Damn. I wonder if this means anything will be coming for Steven.

Wow, Dassey's conviction overturned.

 

 

Could Avery have really been set up a second time in his miserable life?

Wow, Dassey's conviction overturned.

 

 

Could Avery have really been set up a second time in his miserable life?

There is no doubt there was a shitload of evidence fabricated against him, Dassey being one of them.

 

That alone is enough to say yes, he was set up.

Innocent or not their lives are ruined forever, even with the conviction overturned there will still be people out there thinking they are guilty.

 

The question still remains, who killed the poor girl if they didn't do it? Terrible situation regardless.

The question still remains, who killed the poor girl if they didn't do it? Terrible situation regardless.

I think most likely Avery's uncle and his son living the trailer next door.

I think most likely Avery's uncle and his son living the trailer next door.

 

I binge watched the entire series so my memory of it is quite clouded. The only thing which would put them in the clear would be a confession but I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

 

 

If the kids confession and testimony is all thrown out, would that open up the case for Steven, since that was used to convict him?

 

 

 

 

 

I binge watched the entire series so my memory of it is quite clouded. The only thing which would put them in the clear would be a confession but I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

If the kids confession and testimony is all thrown out, would that open up the case for Steven, since that was used to convict him?

IIRC Dassey was not involved in the Avery trial at all, but had his own separate trial because he "confessed" to taking part in the murder. But it does question the whole investigation.

 

Either way, they were convicted of two different murders of the same person, but that is apparently ok with the justice system

IIRC Dassey was not involved in the Avery trial at all, but had his own separate trial because he "confessed" to taking part in the murder. But it does question the whole investigation.

 

Either way, they were convicted of two different murders of the same person, but that is apparently ok with the justice system

 

 

Literally two completely different murders, two different locations where she was killed etc iirc.

Literally two completely different murders, two different locations where she was killed etc iirc.

 

Same thought as me. Interested to see what happens to SA going forward. Big win for the kid, not too sure about SA.

 

Letting the kid go doesn't have any risk. Letting SA go, then who did it ? Either the police department or someone else. Or, just stick to SA as being guilty.

Regardless if they were separate trials, if the reasoning was all the lawyer and investigative incompetence, I don't see how the same can't be said for SA, regardless of guilt. I mean you had police finding key evidence when those police were supposed to be restricted from the crime scene. How those items could remain in evidence is hard to see.