re: Making a Murderer - Part 2

quote:

---

horrific and violent crimes that occurred in a bedroom that shows absolutely zero evidence.

---

This is what always has always troubled me about the case, even after reading and listening to the "rebuttal" arguments from other sides who say Avery is guilty.

The narrative is really that a dude who was "dumb" enough to call and specifically request the lady he was about the brutally rape and murder (leaving the easiest trail to a crime ever), dumb enough to just leave evidence (the car) out in plain site (and even worse, with access to a car crusher that could've easily destroyed it) while also being dumb enough to leave easily visible blood inside of the car.

But this same guy is also smart enough to completely wipe clean every single drop of blood, sweat, fingerprint, hair, or any other DNA from a bedroom, mattress, and concrete garage floor where he stabbed, raped and shot someone in the head? It's an impossible narrative.

So then the next obvious question is why would a sheriffs office/police department try so hard to convict someone? How does that make sense and why would that be worth it? But they just so happen to have a $36 million lawsuit against them on this same guy? Quite a coincidence.

This is why this thread is so frustrating. People keep coming to it with little to no knowledge of the case or the circumstances and making these bold definative statements that have little to nothing to do with the case.

Dassey was convicted because they have 4 confessions from him admitting various levels of involvement. Then he took the stand and was destroyed. He was deceptive, lied, mixed up answers and evaded questions. He also showed he was not autistic or disabled. He is just a dumb kid. The jury saw all that and found him guilty, which they should have.

The lawsuit stuff is just irrelevant. The city/county has insurance. They could have arrested him for various other crimes. If they wanted to set him up, they could have gotten him anytime (rape of a minor, domestic abuse, gun charges, plant drugs). If they are willing to pin a murder on him, then why wouldn't they just kill him instead? It would have been much simpler than cutting up a body, stealing his blood/dna, burning the remains, stashing the car, etc. Would you kill a person or set up a guy for murder to save your job/career?

The car crusher part doesn't make any sense either. If you have ever been around scrap. It is a loud, metered machine. You have to remove parts before you crush (tires, fuel tank, etc). Plus once its crushed, all of the evidence is still there. It would have been better to burn it. No evidence then..

Sure, I do not know where she was killed or how he did it. It really doesn't matter or needs to be proven. All that matters is she is dead and he is the most likely to have killed her. He has lied and mislead to police since the beginning. He was talking about a conspiracy to frame him before she was declared dead. He did have three days to hide, destroy and corrupt evidence. Plus those rural Wisconsin forensic teams aren't the cream of the crop and it was almost 15 years ago. So who knows what all they missed..

I didn't say who, I said how. There is not one shred of proof or evidence that anything was planted. If there was, Avery would be free. You are making giant, fantastical leaps with nothing backing them up.

Once again, the how does not matter. In a case with corrupted, missing, destroyed evidence, the case is going to be mainly circumstantial. That is totally permissible.

Avery is a criminal and broke the law. To say he shouldn't have been arrested in being totally obtuse. This is his 2nd weapons charges. He illegally had firearms. He was going to jail regardless..

The key was planted. The Rav 4 was moved onto his property by the ex BF who obtained the day planner from the Rav 4, not her apartment as he claimed.

There is simply no way at all to argue the day planner was not removed from the Rav 4 before it was found and after she was killed. No way whatsoever. If you disagree just say so, so I can ignore anything else you post.

quote:

---

But this has been debunked and explained very easily.

---

No, it hasn't. Go back to Reddit if you're looking for confirmation.

Yes it has. Once again, you are talking out of your arse. The "day planner" has been covered and has no bearing on anything. Just another conspiracy point..

quote:

---

Yes it has.

---

No, it hasn't. Coming in and making bullshite claims that you don't bother substantiating is useless, and I'm not the only one who sees that from you.

We both know why you do this. You can't really defend your points because they're bullshite, so instead you come in and spout some shite about things being debunked when they haven't. When you're called on that trash, you default to "conspiracy." It's probably for the best, because we both know I'll bury your arse again if you try arguing your idiotic talking points.

You have never buried shite. You always, always ask for links and sources. I have always provided. But don't jump off other peoples points that they don't bother researching or investigating and then try to call me out for it. Its basic info and you know it.

The "day planner" was a sheet of paper found on her desk after she vanished. It has been proven that she never brought it with her and she never left her home until 1 pm that day. They got her pings from cell towers to prove it. She was never seen in Sheboygan that day and nobody can confirm her being there.

The defense is arguing someone called her on the phone and she said she was there. Yet her cell phone was never in that area. So they say the sheet had to be in the car. But that call was before 1 pm, while she was at home.

If she was in Sheboygan, who did she see? The answer is she wasn't there. So the "day planner" doesn't show anything. Is that good enough?