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

When we first saw the investigator working for the Public Defender take Brandon into the room and film the interrogation, I thought they were attempting to show how easy it was to manipulate someone of his intelligence into admitting anything. It didn't even dawn on us to think that they were such lazy, skeevy people that they were trying to get additional confession material to hand over to detectives. And then invite the detectives over to interrogate him without representation! It's laughable.

quote:

---

Its a Wisconsin Law. The judge, nor anyone in the courtroom can control that. Its unfortunate because they were obviously not investigating anyone else, and there isn't any proof they ever were.

---

In regards to the 3rd party liability law, I understand that it's a law, but I felt the overstepped their bounds with applying it. To say they cannot admit evidence that messages were deleted because it hints that someone else is responsible is absurd. Now to say "you can't say the brother did it" is one thing, but they were at least attempting to say that you can't make reference to anything.

quote:

---

You gotta remember, this was 2005. Lots of people didn't use complex passwords and did choose easily guessable ones if you knew them well. I remember guessing my brother's password for a couple things back then. It was probably because I knew his password for something else, which may have been the case here.

---

I still don't see two different people on two separate occasions guessing passwords. One of them had to guess the username as well. And to have some evidence that data was tampered with in the inbox, plus having someone admit they got in with a "guessed" password is too much of a coincidence. Definitely more sturdy of a theory than everything the prosecution was putting together.

I just don't see how a guy killed someone, was stupid enough to leave the car on his property with blood in it, burned her body, but took small pieces and moved them to random places, but made sure to leave the majority of it 20' from his house in plain sight, plus brutally murder this woman without getting blood anywhere, carefully keep his fingerprints off of everything, etc. He also had no motive to kill this woman at all. The only real "motive" was sexual assault as told by a mentally handicapped kid who is constantly threatened that they are going to tell his mom. He obviously is scared to get in trouble and says what they want so that he doesn't get in trouble. Even thinks that he can go to class afterwards.

And how does one slit someone's through, strangle them, then take them to the garage to shoot them and not have any evidence! I don't see how it's possible to be that bad at killing someone. She was shot in my opinion and that's it. The rest is a false story they had to run with while manipulating Brandon. He's so unaware of what's going on that he just says all these random ways to murder someone and now they have to use it.

I can't stop thinking about everything in this case without getting angry. . I honestly think there's always a chance he did it, but this town is so screwed up that they destroyed any credible way of proving it.

How the Coulburn guy isn't fired is unbelievable. How many times just in this case do they have to mention how he didn't write a report, but then submitted one months, even years later. And his entire contribution to the murder report was half a page.

The breeding stock in Manitowoc county must be very impressive.

quote:

---

When we first saw the investigator working for the Public Defender take Brandon into the room and film the interrogation, I thought they were attempting to show how easy it was to manipulate someone of his intelligence into admitting anything.

---

That's what I thought, too.

I thought, 'they must be trying to show that this kid can be made to say anything!'

Nope.

quote:

---

Plus, there's no way that the smokeshow reporter and Anderson Cooper's brother are from that shithole area

---

the manner in which they asked the questions was really odd as well, seemed like something out of a cheesy whodunit story. the anderson cooper guy looked so out of place.

quote:

---

When we first saw the investigator working for the Public Defender take Brandon into the room and film the interrogation, I thought they were attempting to show how easy it was to manipulate someone of his intelligence into admitting anything.

---

I thought the same thing. I figured they would use this video to show how they could convince him to change his story and even ask him to draw something that never happened and he would attempt to do it. Unbelievable that this was actually used as evidence.

Even outside of all of the external information that we saw on the documentary that a jury obviously wouldn't have seen throughout the process, I find it hard to believe that 12 people took what was presented in court and weren't intelligent enough to question the prosecution at all.

quote:

---

When we first saw the investigator working for the Public Defender take Brandon into the room and film the interrogation, I thought they were attempting to show how easy it was to manipulate someone of his intelligence into admitting anything.

---

And had it videotaped - I was thinking that, too. I was stunned when the lawyer invited the cops to re-re-interview Brendan without being present. That fact alone convinced the judge that was ineffective assistance of counsel (down the line).

Now - I'm putting myself in the public defender's shoes - I can see giving this to them, but only for immunity on the murder and other serious charges, and get a very, very favorable parole recommendation. But, not to just hand them an additional confession after the first one that shite the bed in the first place.

Which brings me back to my main point. I think that the original story the kid told held some kernals of truth. I do not think he was creative enough to make up facts that so comported with the evidence at the time, even if coached by the cops. So, there's that. That also shoots down some of the "other Averys/Vesseys/Tadych" (and, seriously, not one of these guys is clean - they all have some record of violence with women, sketchy behavior, stalking, even Halbach's boyfriend) did this and went out of their way to frame/help the cops frame Avery.

That just smacks of desperation - folks want to believe Avery is innocent of this because he was innocent of the rape he did the 18 for. He just isn't. I can believe he is guilty AND believe that the cops planted the key, for example.

But, it does raise reasonable doubt and I would probably have voted to acquit - I've been relatively consistent with this opinion - I'm at the halfway mark, we'll see where I stand at the end.

quote:

---

The insurance policy only covers negligence. The insurance company would have declared their actions to constitute willful malfeasance and denied the claim. They city, PD, and officers named individually would have been on the hook for it all, whatever it ended up being.

---

ah, thanks for the clarification - i stand corrected


I still say, that the blight and stain of what a judgement against that department, wholly or individually is as damaging as any amount, and motive enough to act illicitly, especially in such a small community

quote:

---

But I don't believe a blip from his nephew's statements.

---

You are not alone in your skepticism and weighing of Brendan's statements. Everyone (from the cops, his own lawyers, Steven, Barb, Steven's lawyers, the whole smash) has done a great job of twisting and melting everything he said into an amorphous blob with little to no probative value. At the same time, I just don't think he is sharp enough to lie that well. Any idiot can be coached to say, "I didn't do nothing." He had specific details, about specific events leading up to the murder and dismemberment. I just don't think he was creative and smart enough (like he alleged on his homework) to hit all those points based on nothing.

Did he get the sequence right? Probably not. Did he get all the little details right? Certainly not. So, you can't convict Avery based on this. At the same time, I don't discount it completely out of hand, either.

And he initially said Steven did it and repeated this later.

What an unsympathetic bunch of inbred, rural people, while we're at it. Yankees have no right to derogate us while the Avery clan sits among them near the Canadian border, eh.

quote:

---

He had specific details, about specific events leading up to the murder and dismemberment.

---

He was clearly coerced into making those statements, and there is zero evidence to support any of the specifics which, by their very nature, would have spread evidence all over the place. His specific statements were "we cut her hair" and "slit her throat," yet there is zero DNA, blood or hair, belonging to her in his entire room.

quote:

---

Which ones?

---

THIS BITCH NEEDS A HAIRCUT!