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

quote:

---

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.

---

Not only that, but when he said "we cut her hair" the detectives were like "with what?" and he said "uh, a knife" and I don't remember the exchange exactly from there, but the cops were then frustrated by the whole hair cutting and knife thing because the way he described it was impossible or didn't fit the evidence narrative so they kept after him on it until he changed it somehow or said he didn't do it. To me, that showed that every step of the way his confession was coached. They had 4, 4 or more hour sessions to do it in. He's not smart at all and you can implant every part of it with really weak suggestion: "Did you go to Steve's? You went to Steve's, didn't you? Did you hear any screams? You had to hear screams. Don't lie to me" becomes a confession that begins: "I went to Steve's and heard screaming" and so forth from there.

quote:

---

Uh...and he was on the JURY? Well no duh he would claim "no tampering"

---

And his son was employed by the sheriff's department.

Nobody with direct ties to that department should have been seated on that jury.

quote:

---

Nobody with direct ties to that department should have been seated on that jury.

---

That should tell you something about the entire juror pool to begin with. The defense attorneys say that people they excluded were even worse than this.

quote:

---

Absolutely not. If they kill him, they are all immediately suspects. If you can make him a suspect, though, win-win.

---

I'm repeating what their sheriff himself said about Avery and the idea that they might frame him. He said it'd be easier to kill him than to frame him. Kind of appalling that a law enforcement officer would say something like that on the record.

quote:

---

I'm repeating what their sheriff himself said about Avery and the idea that they might frame him. He said it'd be easier to kill him than to frame him. Kind of appalling that a law enforcement officer would say something like that on the record.

---

Ahh, I didn't pick up on that. Yeah, my wife and I were both sitting there with our jaws on the floor when he said that. It was the flippant nature with which he said it that was the most alarming to me.

My wife an I too. It's INSANE that a county official would go on television and straight up say "We didn't frame him; it'a been easier to kill him". Whaaat?

Good god. Brandon's attorney's are not the sharpest tools in the shed. They had so many opportunities to show how his confession was obviously coerced and fed to him, especially with the videotape of his confession. They had ample opportunity to show that the same officers coerced and fed his cousin her story. Yet they spend no time on this at all. None. Zilch. All they focused on is that he "made it up". They absolutely slam dunked their own client's fate, the fate of this child with a 72 IQ, right there. Good god, they piss me off. They were pretty damn worthless. I've seen quite a few trials live and on TV. These are maybe the worst I've seen with someone's life behind bars on the line. Sickening, as attorneys. They should feel ashamed on themselves. But I doubt they do, simply because they are too damn dumb to realize their obvious blunders.

I've finished the entire thing, now. I'm still fairly confident that Avery did the killing. But, the evidence presented didn't establish - for me - that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I would have voted to acquit.

The problem with all of this began when Brendan's first attorney and investigator became agents for the state. I think, at the beginning, the attorney's heart was in the right place. He was convinced of his client's guilt and knew that a favorable plea environment could only be obtained by a statement and subsequent testimony that would be iron-clad against Avery - that was the only bargaining chip he could see, being convinced of his client's guilt.

But, that wasn't his place. As an attorney, one has to be in a position to believe everything the client says - at least at face value. Obviously, you don't shut off your brain. Ultimately, you have to quit if you don't believe your client.

The physical evidence was completely compromised, both by the perpetrator(s) (which, again, I remain convinced was Avery) AND the cops in their overzealous pursuit of Avery to the exclusion of other reasonable leads.

quote:

---

am not so angry that an innocent man is behind bars because I don't know whether or not he did it... I am way angrier because our justice system was raped, and that justice system applies to me, too.

---

I guess part of the outrage is that - despite all his warts (Steven Avery is a generally despicable, pathological criminal), he was completely railroaded for the Beerntsen rape. I'm torn. I believe he returned home and, in relatively short order, decided he was immune to the rules, because no one would believe police if they prosecuted him again. Despite a poor education, he demonstrates significant abilities to manipulate and coerce others.

But, that doesn't discharge the authorities from following the rules. They sincerely believe he killed Halbach. I do, too. But they went to apparently extreme lengths to build the case, including manipulating the purported crime scenes and other physical evidence.

Why didn't he crush the car? Maybe he got wind they were looking for the car and stashing in the yard was the fastest/easiest way to get it away from his trailer without raising suspicion. Maybe he planned to crush it later, and didn't get the chance?

Removing the ludicrous theory that the cops may have killed her for the express purpose of framing him for it, your only alternative suspects with any reasonable degree of possibility even are named Avery or Dassey. If an Avery or Dassey killed her, they why didn't they crush the car? Same property, same family, same access to the car crusher.

Unless it extends to the family members working with cops from the beginning to frame Steven for the deed. Maybe, but I'd need to see some actual "evidence" on that.

So, we're back to Brendan. Initially, I thought the information he gave comported with the evidence close enough (raped, killed, burned) - but, heck, as far as I can tell, they've got no physical evidence she was raped and don't really know the specifics of how and where she was killed, beyond and ambiguous analysis of "trauma" that was made post-mortem. ETA: And by the time his clearly manipulated/coerced (with the assistance of his own defense team) "confessions" he may have had enough details to make up a pretty good story to satisfy his questioners. The cousin is a little bit of a monkey wrench, because the state raised a good point, "You both made up very consistent stories."

Multiple burning sites, so I accept the defense's basic assertion that some of the remains were moved - that is almost a truism. They want us to draw the inference that someone moved a portion TO the burn pit in order to frame Steven, but I'm not there with the evidence presented, even in the clearly biased in favor of Steven documentary series.

So, her remains AND vehicle on the property means the Averys/Dasseys did this. Whether or not Steven did it or others did it AND framed him for it is unclear.

So many unanswered questions results in some reasonable doubt, though.

And the violation of Brendan's rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments is particularly striking (and I'm not generally known as a bleeding heart liberal.)

I wonder how some of the things the police were doing were legal. scary what they got away with.