- 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: Poll, Making a Murderer Spoilers obviously.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:14 am to ladyluckUGA
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:14 am to ladyluckUGA
quote:
I was watching this thinking how on earth that jury came back with a guilty verdict: there was no motive (that we heard), no murder weapon, no physical evidence (other than his blood in her car) that linked her murder to his place. It was a confession by a very scared, not too bright 16 year old and the fact that was the last place she was known to have been at.
I think it was episode 4 or 5 where the defense team was talking about the jury questionnaires and every potential juror except for one answered that they thought Avery was guilty. It was clear the jury had their minds made up before the trial even started, both from the Avery family's reputation in the area, and the way the state used the media to get their story out there.
I have a friend that is from Madison and was living there at the time. Even he said he thought Steve was guilty based on all the news reports he remembered at the time. His words were it was an open and shut case. It wasn't until the trial that the media started showing some skepticism to the case, and by then it was too late.
0
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:28 am to tccdc
quote:
Dassey - innocent
Avery - maybe guilty but not in the way described, but police planted evidence 100%
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:33 am to LanierSpots
I'm not totally convinced he did or did not do it. He could have done it, but there is definitely reasonable doubt, which means that he should not be locked up.
I think Brenden is innocent completely and is just a pushover and definitely a little slow.
I think that while Steven Avery may have done it, it is definitely odd that he was able to clear his entire landplot of DNA but leaves the car in the junk yard and the key in his house and leaves blood in the car. For someone so amazingly good at cleaning up a site of DNA he sure made a bonehead move with the rest of the evidence.
The times that Brenden and the bus driver report do not line up with the other Dassey Brother's timeline.
I think the other Dassey brother was involved and is being very quiet. It helped that the police already hate avery.
I think Brenden is innocent completely and is just a pushover and definitely a little slow.
I think that while Steven Avery may have done it, it is definitely odd that he was able to clear his entire landplot of DNA but leaves the car in the junk yard and the key in his house and leaves blood in the car. For someone so amazingly good at cleaning up a site of DNA he sure made a bonehead move with the rest of the evidence.
The times that Brenden and the bus driver report do not line up with the other Dassey Brother's timeline.
I think the other Dassey brother was involved and is being very quiet. It helped that the police already hate avery.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:47 am to Baloo
quote:
You mean an auto salvage yard has a bunch of chains? SHOCKING. That's not convincing at all, especially when we look at Brendan's confession and how it was elicited.
There is a difference between chains used in the course of daily auto salvage business and handcuffs and shackles specifically made for humans. Steve claimed "they for him to use on Jodi." If they were for every day use why wouldn't he say they were for every day use?
quote:
This was in the documentary. Know what also had no chance? That ONLY Avery's DNA was on the key. There is no earthly way that thing wasn't scrubbed down and then evidence planted, or else the key would have multiple person's DNA.
You just deflect from the original question and never answer it. How would the police have his sweat? The documentary explained (extremely well) how having the blood was possible
quote:
So we're going to use a proven FALSE conviction as a strike against Avery because he was accused? That's insane.
Did you even read the article I linked? He was accused of rape by multiple women OTHER than the woman who he originally went to prison for.
"The filings also include statements from a woman, now 41, who said she was raped by Avery, who told her 'if she yelled or screamed there was going to be trouble.' There also is an affidavit from a girl who said she was raped by Avery. 'The victim's mother indicated that the victim does not want to speak about the sexual assault between her and Steven Avery because Steven Avery told her if she 'told anyone about their activities together he would kill her family,'" the filing said. According to the newspaper article, "The affidavit said Avery admitted to his fiancee that he had sexually assaulted the girl."
quote:
I specifically requested my dentist to see me and called him multiple times to confirm.
Now you're just trying way too hard. Did you use a fake name when you called and block your number to hide your identity? Have you ever shown up to his office in just a towel? Has his dead body ever ended up burned on your property? Was a bullet from a gun you owned ever matched to a rifle you own that also had your dentist's dna on it?
Posted on 1/4/16 at 10:52 am to the_watcher
quote:
How would the police have his sweat?
They were handling him in shackles daily, on? Doesn't seem too hard.
quote:
Did you use a fake name
This is assuming way too much. He used his sister's name and he was selling his sister's car. Perhaps the conversation in question went like this:
Autotrade: and what is this meeting pertaining to?
Avery: Barb Avery
End of conversation.
Sure, maybe something sinister happened. Or maybe it was completely and utterly anodyne and you are leaping to conclusions.
quote:
Have you ever shown up to his office in just a towel?
Again...his office? It's just as easy to believe that she surprised him one time being 7 minutes early or something and the dipshit was just out of the shower. You think the Averys went to finishing school before they opened their junkyard?
quote:
Was a bullet from a gun you owned ever matched to a rifle you own that also had your dentist's dna on it?
The cops had the gun for weeks.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 11:04 am to LanierSpots
Can you please put spoilers in your fricking title? gaddamit
Posted on 1/4/16 at 11:15 am to LanierSpots
quote:
Spoiler, there will be a Wrestlemania reference
Dude is in jail for murder changes and is worried about missing wrasslin
Posted on 1/4/16 at 11:15 am to the_watcher
quote:
There is a difference between chains used in the course of daily auto salvage business and handcuffs and shackles specifically made for humans. Steve claimed "they for him to use on Jodi." If they were for every day use why wouldn't he say they were for every day use?
Fine. He used them with Jodi. It's still a legitimate, non-criminal use. You've explained it away in two posts, and you think he's guilty. So why the hell does this need to be mentioned as a critical piece of evidence? Again... seven week trial. I have no doubt they did not include every single piece of evidence.
If he has the chains, why is there no DNA evidence on them? Blood? Remnants of skin? Those things would be teeming with physical evidence.
quote:
You just deflect from the original question and never answer it. How would the police have his sweat?
Well, I think I accurately pointed out how sketchy the DNA evidence was in the first place. Where would they get his sweat? Let's see, they had an 18-year case file which was overturned on DNA evidence, they had unfettered and exclusive access to his home in which I'm gonna guess he sweated at least once in his life, and oh yeah, they had Avery himself who likely had to give DNA samples for cross-matching purposes. That's three potential sources. Take your pick.
quote:
Did you even read the article I linked? He was accused of rape by multiple women OTHER than the woman who he originally went to prison for.
No. I really had no interest. Because even if there were prior accusations, that's not evidence that can be introduced in a court of law. A prior conviction can, but a prior accusation means two things: jack and shite. That gets the prosecution no closer to meeting its burden.
quote:
Now you're just trying way too hard. Did you use a fake name when you called and block your number to hide your identity? Have you ever shown up to his office in just a towel? Has his dead body ever ended up burned on your property? Was a bullet from a gun you owned ever matched to a rifle you own that also had your dentist's dna on it?
You're the one trying to make a case for stalking, and I don't see it. There's plenty of record Teresa went to the Avery place, and had been there before. It wasn't a secret. She had an appointment, and he never denied that she came to take photos. To answer the other questions...
Fake name? It was Barb. You know, the person selling the car. And are we assuming Teresa didn't know she was going to the same property once she saw the address?
I have answered my front door wearing just a towel when the dog was going nuts and I just finished a shower.
No. But don't you think its odd her dead body showed up on his property when he set an appointment for her to come there? I mean, if you are trying to hide a crime, you tend not to leave a paper trail. If I wanted to murder my dentist, I wouldn't set up an appointment with his receptionist for him to show up at my house.
The bullets fired from the rifle I own all have my DNA on it, as do the shell casings. For obvious reasons.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 11:23 am to the_watcher
quote:
The evidence overwhelmingly points towards him being guilty
I don't think you know what "overwhelmingly" means.
quote:
"He shouldn't be in prison" but it's another to state definitively "He is innocent! "He absolutely did not do it!", which is what nearly every post in this thread
Oh I see you like to use hyperbole. I've only read a couple of posts in this thread that say he is innocent. Most say the state failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
I think there is a chance he killed her. Very little evidence presented on the documentary convinced me did though.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 11:29 am to the_watcher
quote:
-The car key had DNA from Steve's sweat.
I do not remember that
Posted on 1/4/16 at 11:49 am to abellsujr
quote:
The kid helped out a little and is completely mind fricked over it.
Are you retarded or do you just simply recuse the fact that Brendan was retarded before any of this started? How do you have the gall to say he is completely mind fricked over it when he is who he is before and during the trial. The whole family is retarded but Brendan is legally retarded.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 12:11 pm to Dr_Tim_Whatley
quote:
How on earth can people on here say Brendan might be guilty? The bus driver killed his story of going over to Stevens at 3. He admitted to guessing bc he thought if he admitted guilt it was best for him bc basically he's a kid with a learning disability who has zero understanding of anything.
The kid fricking asked if he was going to make his 6th period class in school after he'd told them he took part in a murder. That's clearly a very mentally challenged person.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 1:05 pm to 13SaintTiger
quote:I gave my opinion. Go frick yourself with a ten foot pole.
Are you retarded
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 1:06 pm to 13SaintTiger
quote:And if he was "retarded", it would have been used in his defense with his second set of attorneys.
The whole family is retarded but Brendan is legally retarded.
ETA: Nor would he have been fit for the stand. He is and always was slow, not retarded. He had some normal classes in high school. He had a girlfriend. Now I think he's obviously fricked in the head over everything that happened.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 1:17 pm to abellsujr
quote:
And if he was "retarded", it would have been used in his defense with his second set of attorneys.
I don't know what the legal definition is, but his attorneys in the 2nd proceeding certainly argued that he was mentally incapable. Of course that was obvious to any reasonably perceptive adult who was shown his "confessions" and "testimony" in the case.
Here's one definition I found for an IQ of 60-69 as "mildly retarded":
quote:
Educable, can learn to care for oneself, employable in routinized jobs but require supervision. Might live alone but do best in supervised settings. Immature but with adequate social adjustment, usually no obvious physical anomalies.
Moderate and mild retardation, contrary to the more severe forms, are typically not caused by brain damage but part of the normal variance of intelligence, and therefore largely genetic and inherited. This is important with regard to the question whether or not retarded persons should have children; for especially the moderate and mild forms of retardation, with which it is physically possible to have children, are the most likely to be inherited.
LINK
Posted on 1/4/16 at 1:19 pm to Big Scrub TX
If you are "retarded", you can't take the stand. If you are "retarded", you can't have normal classes in high school. He's slow. He's below average intelligence.
ETA: He's probably way below average intelligence, not retarded and able to know right from wrong, IMO.
ETA: He's probably way below average intelligence, not retarded and able to know right from wrong, IMO.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 1:24 pm to abellsujr
quote:
If you are "retarded", you can't take the stand. If you are "retarded", you can't have normal classes in high school. He's slow. He's below average intelligence.
I believe they said his IQ was 69.
Per Wiki, looks to me like no matter which test you use says that he was possibly mildly retarded.
LINK
quote:
If you are "retarded", you can't take the stand.
This seems like begging the question given the irregularities in the Wiscy system.
quote:
If you are "retarded", you can't have normal classes in high school
I'm sorry, do we have evidence from the series that Brendan was completely mainstreamed? As far as I can tell, the Mishicot school that he went to offers special ed services:
LINK
Posted on 1/4/16 at 1:29 pm to LanierSpots
quote:
I do not remember that
The documentary only said it was his DNA, not that it was a full DNA profile based on his sweat which you can read about here I do agree it's almost inconceivable for her DNA not to also be on it and as one poster pointed out earlier, who uses just one key for their car?
And to
quote:I asked if you read the article I linked and you replied
Baloo
quote:
No. I really had no interest
This is just a special type of ignorance. It's a ton of information about a case/documentary you're passionate enough to post on an anonymous message board about yet you have no desire to read more factual info about it and further educate yourself on the matter.
Posted on 1/4/16 at 1:31 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:He took some special classes and he had a learning disability. It was in the documentary. He also took some regular education classes.
I'm sorry, do we have evidence from the series that Brendan was completely mainstreamed? As far as I can tell, the Mishicot school that he went to offers special ed services:
If you guys want to call him "retarded", fine. That definition is not really the meaning of this debate. The debate is whether or not I believe he knew that what he was doing was wrong (which I do) and whether or not this process has fricked him up in the head. It's not just the act of the crime. It's the sexual abuse he endured. it's the interrogations, the legal process. All of these things I think made him more shut down than he was before. I mean the kid was babysitting for a living and he had friends before all of this. There's no doubt that he is worse off mentally now than he was. That's my position.
I've said earlier that I never thought the kid deserved life in prison. I honestly think he should have taken the plea and testified against his uncle. I think he would be better off. I think his family has ruined that for him in an attempt to protect their golden child, Steven. I feel awful for the kid.
This post was edited on 1/4/16 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 1/4/16 at 1:37 pm to abellsujr
quote:
The debate is whether or not I believe he knew that what he was doing was wrong (which I do)
What did he do?
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News