re: Making A Murder O-T Lounge Thread

I started watching the show but I'm wondering... what is the motive? Was it a rape thing?

quote:

---

Except his theory goes against what the prosecution presented as fact.

Avery was convicted on a timeline that involved her being killed in the garage and Dassey was convicted on a timeline that her being killed in the trailer. Two convictions involving the same crime but both trails are based on two different timelines.

---

I know this.

Prosecution and police went with this absurd mastermind crime theory to sell the jurors more and they planted evidence to support it. I think it was bullshite, but I also think Avery still did it, just not how they argued.

I don't know if he is innocent or guilty. Aside what has already been mentioned, a couple of unanswered questions for me are:

1. If she was restrained in his cheap bed, why no markings on the bed post of a where the rope or whatever was used was tied? Surely she put up a struggle.

2. The only DNA evidence on the key was Avery's. Why wasn't there DNA from the murder victim on her own set of keys?

3. The seal to the box holding SA's blood was obviously broken and the vile tampered with. Who did that and why?

quote:

---

1. If she was restrained in his cheap bed, why no markings on the bed post of a where the rope or whatever was used was tied? Surely she put up a struggle.

---

I think its clear she was never killed or restrained indoors and the cops ran with the Brendan fabrication and couldn't back track on that once Kratz told the entire country that story in his press conference.

quote:

---

2. The only DNA evidence on the key was Avery's. Where did her DNA go.

---

He didn't have any fingerprints in the car either. Maybe he crudely wiped everything down and didn't get the key good enough. His sweat was found under her hood though.

quote:

---

3. The seal to the box holding SA's blood was obviously broken and the vile tampered with. Who did that and why?

---

They didn't use that in trial so I'm thinking they found out later that could be explained by the lab or something. His was PUMPED when he found that hole and said the lab told him they'd never do that, then the documentary didn't show him using that argument in court.



OR his blood and the key were planted because he wore gloves and the cops wanted more evidence against him. That might be the easier explanation.

quote:

---

He was a pretty big sexual deviant apparently and had harassed Theresa before.

---

I just don't know why the list of suspects didn't include everyone on that property. Why did it immediately center on Steven and no one else?

I have no problem with saying he may be guilty but you can't force a conviction like that. They could have convicted him based on planted evidence even if he didn't do it and that is the problem.

quote:

---

1. That was not the State's case against him, nor was this what he was convicted on.

---

NO shite. Why do people keep saying this?

Obviously the states case was garbage and he shouldn't have been convicted. This was my alternate theory of what happened.

quote:

---

My point is, Making a Murderer is crap.
Period.

---

Agree 100%. First episode, first 10 minutes they document that Avery threw a live cat in a fricking fire. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for this dude? Killing and torturing a house pet is the initial step to killing a human. First 65 minutes was tedious...I get it, the justice system dropped the ball...BIG TIME...quit trying to make me feel bad for some tPOS.

It's clear the motive of the series...let's get the emotions running high so everyone can run to social media and talk about it. the wife and I watch Investigation Discovery regularly and half the regular shows are better than this gimmick. Homicide Hunter, Worst Nightmare, etc.

quote:

---

Agree 100%. First episode, first 10 minutes they document that Avery threw a live cat in a fricking fire. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for this dude? Killing and torturing a house pet is the initial step to killing a human. First 65 minutes was tedious...I get it, the justice system dropped the ball...BIG TIME...quit trying to make me feel bad for some tPOS.

---

Okay, whether you think he actually murdered that woman and burned her body or not, you really should feel sorry for him being convicted on a case being spun by a corrupt police force and justice system. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I do think he did it and he deserves justice, but I don't feel good about how he was convicted...if that makes any sense.

I'd say it's possible that SA killed her...the problem I have is that with so many screw ups with investigation how every single juror never had a reasonable doubt....I'm not saying the guy is a saint by any means and I think the show is fine because it DOES point out the things he has done in the past rather than ignoring them. I will say that killing a pet in the manner he did is not a good thing but that does not mean he killed Teresa Halbach....is it a precursor? Sure, but does not mean he is guilty of murder.