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

quote:

---

they offered up as a teen that he tossed a cat over a fire.

---

A. He was 20

B. He doused the cat in gasoline AND oil, and held it over the fire until it ignited


Serial killer shite, man.

quote:

---

Why, because movies tell you so?

---

A television show is telling you that Avery's innocent. I'm weighing all the evidence.

quote:

---

Serial killer shite, man.

---

This is very similar reasoning that has been used to illogically categorize Marijuana as a gateway drug. It's an issue of conditional probabilty.

Nearly all hard drug users (serial killers) smoked pot first (killed animals).

BUT the correct way to look a it is the opposite. So if the vast majority of marijuana users don't do harder drugs, or the vast majority of people who killed an animal don't become serial killers, THEN it shouldn't carry much weight as evidence of the more exteme behavior.

quote:

---

That much is obvious. Did he do this crime they say he did? Probably.

---

But the probably seems to be a result of the police NOT investigating other leads; thus we only have the evidence of their tunnel-vision investigation. AND the defense was NOT allowed to argue any alternative theories, besides police corruption and Brendan.

So let's assume there are a handful of possible suspects. The police could randomly pick any one of those suspects and only gather evidence of that single person and it would seem like that person is "probably" guilty.

quote:

---

AND the defense was NOT allowed to argue any alternative theories, besides police corruption and Brendan.

---

And that is on the cops. The fact they got the judge on board with that is a problem. He could have allowed any reasonable theory, as long as the defense could offer some prima facie evidence of it. They couldn't have argued "anybody" could have done this, with the bulk of the evidence being on the Avery property.

I mean, you guys don't believe this crime was committed off-site and all the evidence was brought in, do you?

quote:

---

The police could randomly pick any one of those suspects and only gather evidence of that single person and it would seem like that person is "probably" guilty.

---

I don't disagree with this - on its face. And I've been clear in this thread and in other places, the cops clearly, inarguably, locked in on Avery early and stuck with it. They let the non-Brendan Vassey's alibi each other. They never really looked at Halbach's significant other.

They never pursued a motive beyond sexual domination or a suspect beyond Steven Avery.

(Doesn't mean they were wrong, but this same tunnel vision and seeming bias against him years earlier led to a conviction of the wrong man.)

quote:

---

We're not talking about a hunter or a butcher. We're not talking about a 12 year old with an air rifle who kills a bird and then gets conflicted feelings about it.

---

I don't think he was making that point.

quote:

---

I'm talking about diagrams he made while in prison for a torture chamber to kill women.

---

Was there anything that substantiated this? Last I knew, this was third hand information allegedly provided by one scumbag criminal to another.

quote:

---

I mean, you guys don't believe this crime was committed off-site and all the evidence was brought in, do you?

---

Who knows? I've seen just as much evidence that it could have happened off-site (DNA only in the vehicle; off-site burning), that taken with the complete absence of evidence of WHERE the murder occurred, that either on or off is just as plausible.

quote:

---

Doesn't mean they were wrong, but this same tunnel vision and seeming bias against him years earlier led to a conviction of the wrong man.

---

Agreed. And at the end of the day, this is the story. The fact that this isn't the exception, shows that our system is far more flawed than it should be. We need to fix it.

quote:

---

I mean, have you seen the interview by Jodi who believes he did it because, "All bitches owe him"? Not dispositive, but it is certainly consistent with his history of violence and violent intentions towards women.

---

But that doesn't matter, because of that hole in the blood tube, clearly caused by a hypodermic needle, in order to plant blood on the RAV4. *Sarcasm*


Ever notice how that hole in the top of the blood tube is never brought up in court?


Wanna know why?


There is a reason that that hole is never again mentioned after Buting finds it, and it’s not because it’s evidence that someone other than the laboratory that drew the blood poked a hole in the cover of the vial.

It’s because that hole was a part of the vial. The vial is actually called a vacutainer and needs a hole in its top, which is known as a hemogard. When a needle is inserted into a vein, pressure differential sucks the blood from the needle into the vacutainer. As such, the vacutainer needs to have a small needle hole in it because it is where the blood transfers from the needle in the arm into the vacutainer.

In other words, the hole was not from someone sticking a needle into the cap to take blood out of the vial, it was from the needle that drew blood from Steven Avery’s arm and transferred it into the vial.