- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Netflix docu-series "Making a Murderer" (Spoilers)
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:24 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:24 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I'm weighing all of it. I'm still not 100% sure he was able to do the crime AND the cover-up without some help. And the most likely person to help was Brendan. The case is much weaker against Brendan, though.
Why didn't he crush the car though and dispose of it? He's got one of those on his property. Surely to god he's smart enough to do that.
1
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:25 pm to Brettesaurus Rex
quote:
All valid points. But he never confessed to his lawyers or anyone (that was recorded so who knows)
They are saving that for season 2
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:34 pm to 632627
So...we'll find out in another 10 years? 
Posted on 1/30/16 at 4:35 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Why didn't he crush the car though and dispose of it?
I've covered that in this thread and elsewhere.
I don't know for sure. Obviously, killing her on the property (which I believe) he must have thought through destroying the Rav4. Putting myself in his shoes - getting rid of the body and anything near my residence would have been the first priorities. Distancing the Rav4 as well.
Maybe someone else was using it. Maybe he felt like too many people were looking for the car. So, he (or an accomplice) lost it in the yard to be crushed later. And the opportunity just never came.
And I go back to this - the car not getting crushed is of no moment to me - there are thousands of things we can kibbitz with the hindsight of 10 years. Since if Steven Avery didn't do it - it is almost certain other members of the extended family did the killing. They all had access to the car crusher. I guess the counter argument to that was that they wanted to frame Steven for it.
So they knew the cops would have vials of his blood to plant in the Rav4?
Crazy talk. Occam's Razor says Steven Avery did it. The fact the evidence isn't there, beyond a reasonable doubt, does not convince me that these flaws we discover in the execution of what he must have thought was the perfect crime suddenly make him innocent.
This post was edited on 1/30/16 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 1/30/16 at 5:39 pm to abellsujr
quote:
to show he requested and wanted her
He asked for "the girl who came out last time" because he didn't even know her name. He'd probably at least know her name if he was "obsessed". This doesn't mean he didn't kill her, but I don't think he was obsessed with anyone.
quote:
she filed a complaint
When was this? The only thing I ever saw on that is from Kratz (not credible) that she may have mentioned to her boss that Avery creeped her out.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 5:45 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I guess the counter argument to that was that they wanted to frame Steven for it.
I'm not sure anyone in that family is capable of deliberately accomplishing this.
Side question, what was her cousin's husband's name? The one that was a deputy in '85.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 8:05 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I hate to piss on the Kumbaya campfire here, but the guilty almost never take the stand.
It is our right under the 5th Amendment to refuse to do so and we should draw no inference.
Hypocrisy much. This is America man.
No one should take the stand. Not guilt, unless proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 8:21 pm to Ace Midnight
Kratz is an on the record liar. Paraphrasing, only one person did this, is responsible.
He should be in the line of fire. And if they are really guilty.
High'em high
He should be in the line of fire. And if they are really guilty.
High'em high
Posted on 1/30/16 at 9:06 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
He asked for "the girl who came out last time" because he didn't even know her name.
You sure about this? He didn't know her name?
Posted on 1/30/16 at 9:46 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
You sure about this? He didn't know her name?
Kratz claimed that her boss claimed that he allegedly said this. Now, Kratz is both an idiot and a liar, but I think if he had information like that he wouldn't have hesitated sharing that at a press conference.
I bet Edward Wayne Edwards knew her name though.
Posted on 1/30/16 at 10:16 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
bet Edward Wayne Edwards knew her name though.
Posted on 1/31/16 at 5:58 am to Vols&Shaft83
He struggled to remember her name early in this 11/5/5 interview. Or pretended to. Either way... 
Posted on 1/31/16 at 6:49 am to OMLandshark
quote:
and probably the people who put him away going to jail in return.
I don't recall that ever being even a possibility - criminal charges? No, I think there was potential personal liability for some of the authorities as individual defendants in the civil case. If you've got a link to where they were facing criminal charges, I'll be glad to look at it.
From whom? Themselves? Wisconsin? Federal charges? Because those would have been separate from his lawsuit.
This post was edited on 1/31/16 at 7:55 am
Posted on 1/31/16 at 8:02 am to StickD
quote:
Hypocrisy much.
No. I was offering a dose of reality.
quote:
No one should take the stand.
That's a decision that each of us retains the right to make, after consultation with counsel.
quote:
Not guilty, unless proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
I've never wavered from reinforcing this standard on this topic. Just as I believe he did it, I didn't see evidence of it beyond a reasonable doubt in the documentary - of course that documentary had a bias. The jury thought otherwise and I have trouble second-guessing them in this case - particularly in Avery's case because he was represented well at the criminal case. And, it should be repeated that the appellate court (not filled with ultra-right wing judges in middle-left Wisconsin, one wouldn't think) and Wisconsin supreme court upheld the conviction.
But there is little question that Avery's defense team proved some shady activities on the part of the authorities - more than shady. The prosecutor has proven himself to be a man of little character.
Still doesn't mean Avery didn't kill Halbach.
This post was edited on 1/31/16 at 8:03 am
Posted on 2/1/16 at 7:54 am to Vols&Shaft83
There was a new special on Investigative Discovery.
Only thing that really stood out is that Avery asked for Halbach to photograph the vehicle because she was the only photographer the magazine used. Also he didn't use a fake name...he used his sister's name because she was the one selling the car.
I think the biggest takeaway is Kratz is a slime ball.
Only thing that really stood out is that Avery asked for Halbach to photograph the vehicle because she was the only photographer the magazine used. Also he didn't use a fake name...he used his sister's name because she was the one selling the car.
I think the biggest takeaway is Kratz is a slime ball.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 9:41 am to OMLandshark
Really don't understand why people are so hung up on their IQ test scores and equating the scores to whether or not they are capable of committing murder. Odds are both are barely literate with learning disabilities or other undiagnosed issues. How well would they do on a standardized test. The crime they committed was incredibly stupid. Left phone records directly tying themselves to victims whereabouts and hid vehicle on property. Dumped remains and evidence in backyard fire. It wasn't some masterful execution of a plan. The burned evidence and had ample time to clean. The fact that they have low IQs is irrelevant.
Posted on 2/1/16 at 10:45 am to EarthwormJim
quote:
There was a new special on Investigative Discovery.
Only thing that really stood out is that Avery asked for Halbach to photograph the vehicle because she was the only photographer the magazine used. Also he didn't use a fake name...he used his sister's name because she was the one selling the car.
I think the biggest takeaway is Kratz is a slime ball.
I watched it. It didn't add much to a fervid reader of these sorts of threads. Kratz definitely was still trying to pollute minds with half-truths and innuendo.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 1:07 pm to Big Scrub TX
After watching every episode and reading through the entirety of this thread, the thing that boggles my mind the most is how anyone can claim to be 100% certain of guilt or innocence. The only thing certain is the uncertainty surrounding almost every aspect of this case.
Posted on 2/2/16 at 2:00 pm to Salamander_Wilson
quote:
After watching every episode and reading through the entirety of this thread, the thing that boggles my mind the most is how anyone can claim to be 100% certain of guilt or innocence. The only thing certain is the uncertainty surrounding almost every aspect of this case.
Of course. I'd go so far as to say I'm agnostic as to that question. I think we can say with virtual certainty, though, that the key was planted. And if the key was planted, not only does that provide reasonable doubt, it swiss-cheeses the prosecution's entire case.
Posted on 2/3/16 at 1:30 pm to Big Scrub TX
From the moment I saw the picture of the key, before knowing anything about who's DNA was or was not on it, it looked unbelievable to me.
Page 79 of 84
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News