re: New Netflix docu-series "Making a Murderer" (Spoilers)

quote:

---

They slit her throat, shot her in the head, moved her body through and out of the house and there's no blood evidence

---

I had a huge problem with this as well. The fact they found zero DNA evidence in the garage in telling.

The two biggest things I had with the trial were how they brought up ONCE how Lenk called in the cars and said the plate numbers BEFORE the car was reported as being discovered. How was this not harped on? I mean I thought this coupled with the tampered blood bottle was a done deal and the police dept. was screwed.

I just keep watching everybody in this thread spin out of control. All these questions and so few of them would really matter. The prosecution doesn't have to show exactly how the crime happened or where it took place. It just had to show that he was responsible. Under their theory, he destroyed the majority of the evidence. He wiped the scenes (no fingerprints), used bleach and then burned her body with all of her clothes and phone (pieces of both found with the bones). He doesn't get rewarded for trying to conceal his crime. The fact there is so little left or just pieces here and there, is consistent with what he tried to do. Given that he is not that bright, it would make sense that he would make blunders like getting rid of the key, missing some blood and stuff like that.

The cop explained the license thing on the stand. It was a lame excuse and is a bit shady, but what more could the defense do? It just wasn't that big of a turning point. Another cop called him with the info and he was confirming with the department (she just got reported missing). If they are looking for a vehicle, they have to know what to look for. I think this is where the documentary told just a portion of the story to generate some controversy..

Yeah, I mean, there was no motive for him to kill. Throw in the mysterious appearance of the key, lack of blood, the car left pretty much in the open when a perfectly good car crusher was there, etc.. Add all that to him in a relationship and a huge payout on the way, none of it makes sense.

quote:

---

Under their theory, he destroyed the majority of the evidence.

---

Their "theory" is that an uneducated man with an IQ if 70, and with the aid of a 16 year old mentally handicapped kid, managed to brutally murder someone in his home and then destroy the forensic evidence so successfully and so completely that not so much as a trace of cleaning product let alone blood or hair from the victim was found at the scene. AND YET, this same person was so careless as to hide her car (with his blood, no cleaning attempt made, in it) using tree branches on his property dispute having the means to completely destroy it a few hundred yards away, managed to leave her keychain by his fricking nightstand and left her burnt remains within view of his front porch.

It insults my intelligence that anyone would expect me to believe that. The prosecutions theory involves components of both a criminal mastermind and someone too stupid to dress themselves in the morning.

quote:

---

I just keep watching everybody in this thread spin out of control. All these questions and so few of them would really matter.

---

All of it matters when someone is presumed innocent. This is the premise of the criminal justice system.

quote:

---

The prosecution doesn't have to show exactly how the crime happened or where it took place. It just had to show that he was responsible.

---

True, but it surely helps the prosecution to have a motive and corroborating evidence.

quote:

---

The cop explained the license thing on the stand.

---

No he didn't. Not at all. He basically had no explanation.

quote:

---

If they are looking for a vehicle, they have to know what to look for.

---

Then why is he calling in the plates? The missing person report would include all valuable information. Including the make, model, year, license plate number of her vehicle. Not only does he recite the license number to the dispatcher, he himself confirms "1999 Rav4".

Let's look at reasonable doubt, the standard for criminal conviction in the United States of America.

1. Key and clasp found in Avery's property with Steven Avery's blood on it.
- 6 searches of trailer yields no key.
- 7th search without Calumet watching Manitowoc officers and Lenk finds magically appearing key with clasp.
- Key and clasp are tested for DNA. The person who uses the key and clasp - victim Teresa Halbach - has absolutely zero DNA found. Which is unimaginable. Traces of her skin cell DNA would be found almost de facto. Instead, no Teresa DNA, but Avery's blood is on the key.
- The prosecution loses this 100%. There is zero explanation as to why the key and clasp doesn't have Teresa's DNA yet Avery's blood is on it. The prosecution explanation that they had to shake and move the dresser to have the key fall into plain sight on 7th day is as eerily suspect.

2. Where's the blood?
- Stabbed in midsection, throat slashed, shot at least twice in the head, hands tied on bed with rope, feet tied on bed with chains, brutally raped. Prosecution contends these happened in trailer and garage.
- The only blood found is Steven Avery's on a key and clasp found in the trailer on the 7th search of the trailer and in the Rav4 that is junked at the edge of a salvage yard.
- The key and clasp are already in question because Terera's DNA isn't on her own keys.
- The Rav4 has Steven's blood in two spots, but no fingerprints or other DNA. The back of the Rav4 has Terera's blood. The prosecution narrative has Teresa going into Steven's trailer, raped, moved to garage and murdered. Not once do they place her in the back of the Rav4. They content Steven moved the car after the crime while wearing gloves to not leave fingerprints but bled through the gloves to leave blood visible on the key ignition. Very sketchy proposition.
- The initial trailer assault and garage murder deliver zero blood. Not one remnant of blood splatter. The garage had junk everywhere and a crack in the cement that the blood would have trickled into after such a bloody scene. The investigators jack hammer the crack in the cement 8 feet by 3 feet. No blood. No blood anywhere.

3. Why can't Manitowoc officers and others remember where they were?
- A lot was placed in Brendan's trial on his 13-year old cousins recanting of her earlier statement to police. Let's look at a 13-year old vs. seasoned police officers and others.
- Colburn is played testimony of him calling in Terera's license plate to dispatch. He had no recollection on stand when first asked. It was played for him twice. He called in the Rav4 license plates 2 days prior to the Rav4 being discovered. The Rav4 was discovered without plates.
- Lenk was questioned about his arrival and departure from the Avery compound on the day the Rav4 was found. His initial statement is he arrived at 6-7pm - the perimeter police began taking a log around 2:30pm of those entering and leaving the scene. Lenk is shown signing out at 2:45pm or so. Which of course meant he was there earlier.
- Police are trained to observe and note their surroundings. Somehow Lenk thought he arrived at 6-7pm and no recollection of being there earlier.
- Teresa's ex-BF goes to Teresa's apartment which she shares with a male roommate. What time did you go? Morning? Afternoon? Night? Answer: I don't know. Everyone knows what part of the day something happened. Suspicious, but less so than the trained officers above.

4. The blood vile and federal suit against false imprisonment
- At least 3 Manitowoc officers and deputies gave depositions in a $36 million lawsuit 3 weeks prior to Terera's disappearance. All 3 of them happened to nonchalantly forget they just testified under oath weeks earlier.
- Jerry Buting is allowed access to the evidence records of Steven Avery's initial 18-year wrong imprisonment trial. What does he find? A tampered box. A tampered enclosure. A vile of Avery's blood. A vile of Avery's blood with a syringe mark through the cap. Last person to check out that evidence? Lenk.

I'm getting tired, so I'll finish it later, but there is compounded reasonable doubt IMO.


TLDR: I know this was very TL. You convict on evidence, not belief. Way too much suspect evidence and narrative to convict a man to life.

quote:

---

The prosecution doesn't have to show exactly how the crime happened or where it took place. It just had to show that he was responsible.

---

Please tell me that you're just trolling here, and do not actually believe that. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to be the most important tenet of our criminal justice system. "Showing responsibility" is not the standard, and even if it were, I really question what evidence the prosecution presented that clearly showed responsibility.

I kind of fall in with the attorney during the round table. I really hope Steve did commit the crimes so that he's not stuck in jail again for something he didn't do. But, if I were on that jury, I certainly would have had reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.

Hole in the vile seals the deal.

Wisconsin juries are a joke.

There's no reason for there to be a hole in that and unsealed.

quote:

---

Please tell me that you're just trolling here, and do not actually believe that. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is supposed to be the most important tenet of our criminal justice system. "Showing responsibility" is not the standard, and even if it were, I really question what evidence the prosecution presented that clearly showed responsibility.

---

Perhaps I used the wrong terminology, but the point still stands. Many people have been prosecuted for murder without a body (LINK In those cases, they cannot prove how the murder occurred or maybe even where the crime happened. To quote the article..

"The United States case of People v. Scott[9] held that "circumstantial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a homicide and the guilt of the accused"."

Perhaps they didn't meet that burden. But they don't have to say how the crime happened or exactly where. They just have to show that a murder happened and that Avery was responsible for it.

quote:

---

I kind of fall in with the attorney during the round table. I really hope Steve did commit the crimes so that he's not stuck in jail again for something he didn't do. But, if I were on that jury, I certainly would have had reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case.

---

Once again, none of us saw everything that the jury did or received their instructions. Personally, I believe he was involved. He hasn't been forthcoming and has withheld information. There are shady circumstances around his trial and the investigation. But that doesn't excuse him. It just means those police and investigators should be punished. I wouldn't let a murder go free..

quote:

---

drizztiger

---

quote:

---

There's no reason for there to be a hole in that and unsealed.

---

Yeah someone in the PD at the very least has to accept responsibility for that.