Netflix's Docuseries Making a Murderer

I think people have this idea that law enforcement can do no wrong as if they are not human or express emotion or make mistakes and what not, the truth is they do.

Police can be corrupt
for example:




Planting evidence in a homicide:



This man's case sounds similar to Brendan's:
www.law.umich.edu...


Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos who filmed Making a Murderer where on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert and stated that this was about the process and injustice and in my opinion these other examples support the fact that these to men who suffered misconduct and conflict of interest in their cases deserve a new trial.

Poor guys. That young soul that was framed and lost because of jurors.

This jurors will pay they price. If every person out there sees that this is set up from the state that just wanted to save money.

If I was living in this county I would move away asap. You don't want to live in a place where this things can happen to you.

It does not matter if he is innocent or guilty, if the documentary shows only 1 side of the story, or both. It doesn't matter If there is evidence that shows he is 100% anything. The FACT that there were Manitowac police officers involved with searching, finding and handling evidence in this case, even if they had "babysitters", should be enough to declare a mistrial, OR any evidence that those Manitowac officers came into contact with or even found but never touched, should be excluded from the trial. Period. For them to even be present at the scene, while they are actively being sued by Avery is a HUGE act of negligence on their part. Whether they planted evidence or not, it looks shady as ####, that they were there.

Why were they interrogating Brendan to begin with, they should have had absolutely nothing at all to do with this case. The fact that it was Manitowac officers that got the confession out of him should be enough to again throw out that confession, and without his confession, he wouldn't be involved at all.

I personally don't know if Steven Avery is innocent or not. The documentary (that yes I watched) paints him as a lovable innocent guy that has horrible luck with the law because of his name. BUT there are people who knew him and say otherwise. Just recently his ex-fiance has said that he was a monster.

Monster

There are plenty of arguments as to why he is innocent and plenty as to why he isn't.
All of that is irrelevant, because, Manitowac officers were involved in the investigation, when they should not have been, causing a MAJOR conflict of interest.

a reply to: Squirlli

Just a point Brendan was interviewed by the Manitowoc police department not the Sheriff's department but the rest of what you said was right. The sheriff's department "found" the key. The sheriff's department was first in scene and first to talk to Steven. They were in the site 4 months later around the time the bullet was found.

What's most telling is that they claimed SA scrubbed his house of DNA but left the car keys lying around and a bullet and the bloody car with blood of his and no fingerprintsand charred bones outside his bedroom window. Doesn't make sense, he would have to be a master criminal to get rid of every trace of DNA but stupid enough to leave all the obvious evidence. Doesn't add up.

a reply to: sosobad

Thank you for pointing that out, I hadn't had enough coffee yet.


I would like to know how he found the time to do all of this. Between the time she was killed and the time of arrest it was what a few days? To remove ALL traces of her DNA from his house and garage, burn the body, and hide her vehicle, I just can't come up with a way for him to do it.

Removing the DNA would take quite awhile in its self. I know it takes hours to burn a body to the point that her's was found, and a bonfire wouldn't be enough heat. He had an incinerator on the property, but did they ever check that for her DNA?
Maybe I missed it, but did they ever actually confirm that those were in fact her bones?

He also had a cut on his finger, just one. If I was attacked, I know that I personally, would bite, scratch, hit, kick, ect, how did he only have one cut on his finger? If he walked up behind her and konked her on the head, there would be evidence on whatever it was he used to do that, and they didn't find anything like that, at least as far as the documentary is concerned.

But all of that is irrelevant, because it should have never even gone past the initial proceedings, because Manitowac was involved, when they shouldn't have been.


Edit: I would also like to add, that if you have to go back into a residence 3 or 4 times and look at the same thing over and over before you find something laying out in the open, you should probably not be the one searching, and possibly change your line of work.

a reply to: Squirlli

I just finished watching and can't believe what I saw. Poor guy with 16 years is now 10 years or more in orison for a crime he didn't do.

Then I went to wikipedia to see if thus us real and it is. Steven Avery is on wikipedia. Also there is link for wrongly convicted people, visit it, you will see there are many people convicted wrong and are serving huge years.

a reply to: Squirlli

He would not have had the time to do it. The day after she went missing the Avery family went to their cabin 100 miles away. It would be impossible to have every trace of DNA scrubbed by then. Also why would a man in the process of successfully suing the county put all this at jeopardy. I would like to point out I am more outraged at the aspect that he didn't receive a fair trial in accordance to the law than assigning guilt. Someone is guilty of Teresa's murder but Steven was railroaded and I suspect there is 36 million reasons why.

a reply to: Squirlli

In regards to the bones i posted this on page seven

"No the bones were never 100% said to be Teresa's

Sherry Culhane testified she could not definitively conclude they were Teresa's

justiceforbradcooper.files.wordpress.com..."

i think she hit 7 out of 15 markers which makes it a partial hit, not conclusive, the bones are of a woman though.

She couldn't it more narrow than 1 to 1 Billion in the caucasian population. Basically it could have been anyone on the entire american continent which just scratches the 1 Billion mark.

Also it could have been an animal btw. The seven genetic markers that she found are consistent with most animals. There was an assumption that it was human markers but there have been some interesting studies in recent time.

For example there is one that tried to recover human DNA from poached deer. They had to use a certain method to extract the human DNA from the deer. The biggest profile they could get together was like 9 markers or 85% conclusive but that was 1 out of 10 tests - and only 3 tests were successful. Now they had huge advantage: 1) They knew exactly where the deer was touched, and 2) they knew who it was. The whole study created a certain method to extract the human DNA from the deer DNA - a standard test will always fail because the difference between human and deer are about 6%.

So those bones could have been very well from the deer that was said that they hunted the day or two before the incident. The found DNA could have been anyone touching the deer.

It just shows that those DNA tests were 100% inconclusive and they should have called for a mistrial at that point.

a reply to: Sinfulknowledge

Well they also found her cell phone and palm pilot in the fire pit along with her tooth and camera...

I'm pretty much convinced Avery is guilty. I also think the investigation was highly questionable.

When you listen to the interview that his fiancee gave, things start to make more sense. She claims he said that all women owed him after being locked up for 18 years. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he developed that mindset. She also alleges that she didn't want to be a part of the series (notice how she vanishes from it) and that Steven threatened her to make him look good. It sounds to me like she had nowhere else to go, she's obviously not super bright, and if he had been beating her in the past (apparently her parole officer has a picture of her with a blackened eye) it makes sense that she would be scared of him getting out. Don't forget threatening letters he'd written to his ex wife.


Avery clearly had anger issues and a sadistic streak. You don't run someone off the road and hod them at gunpoint (loaded or not) for talking trash. You don't douse a cat in gasoline and throw it in a fire.

The woman was scared of Avery, as one time when she showed up he was wearing only a towel. Avery requested that she be the one to come out to the property that day, and used a different name. He also called her 3 times that day, twice after blocking his number. I think the third time he didn't block the number because he knew she wasn't going to pick up (because he killed her) and was just trying to establish an alibi.

Three weeks before the murder, Avery ordered handcuffs and leg shackles.

Avery's DNA was under the hood latch of the RAV4, and it wasn't blood, so it seem unlikely the cops would have planted it, or even have thought to plant it.

The absence of blood in the garage and house is interesting. Thing is, we have no idea where she was actually killed. I've seen some people say that he couldn't have cleaned up blood in the garage because his DNA was still all over it. Well yeah, it's not like he's going to spend a ton of time bleaching away areas where there isn't blood.

Brendan tells his mother that Avery molested him and his cousins and also another girl. The part of the testimony that Brendan was talking about when he said something about lying was him selling or possessing crack. He was clearly scared of Steven Avery, telling his mother he was going to have trouble facing him in court and worried Steven would be mad at him. Honestly that poor kid is so dumb I don't know what to believe when he talks. It seems like everyone was manipulating him, but I think there are some serious questions raised when you read the transcripts of his interviews, he seemed to know some stuff he wouldn't.

I think Steven Avery was a prick, dumb, prone to anger, justifiably mad at the world and less justifiably mad at all women. He clearly had poor impulse control. I've seen a lot of people claiming that it would be stupid to do this while waiting for a potentially huge settlement. I think that can go both ways, I think perhaps it emboldened him, made him feel superior. Let's not forget the guy is a moron anyway. Stupid people do stupid things.

Do I think it should have been a mistrial? Yeah, unless I was sitting on the jury and there were more tidbits that weren't released. 200 hour trial in 10 hours, and the women who created the series clearly omitted things in what I think was an attempt to foster outrage from the public and get more popularity. I'm pretty freaking sure the guy is guilty, so it's hard to say I think it should be a mistrial, but that's the way the system is supposed to work ideally.

a reply to: Domo1

The interesting thing about Brendan's testimony is that it is so inconsistent. If you have watched the 4 hour long interview/"confession" in it's entirety, then you know exactly what I mean. It goes from him coming home and seeing Teresa's car in the road and her talking to Avery on his porch...to him coming home from school and not seeing Teresa...and her rav4 being in the garage and her dead body in the back....to him coming home from school and bringing a letter to Avery, when Avery invites him in to rape and torture this poor young lady....his story changes SOOO much...which is why it's so insane to think that his testimony was allowed, let alone believed....

A2D

a reply to: Domo1

I believe your mistaken about where they found those items, as far as i know bones were found in Steven Avery's fire pit while the items your talking about where found in a burn barrel (the palm pilot, camera, and cell) the tooth (which both bones and tooth could not be conclusively linked to Teresa) im not to sure if that was in the barrel or pit but either way the barrel was by Bobby Dassey's house and bones were also found in a burn pit in a Quarry. Now that is one thing the State never addressed, who how and when where the bones moved?

May i ask what "convinced" you of his guilt?

The character build up of Avery as a angry crazy threatening killer would support evidence that establishes Avery as a murderer but him burning a cat and threatening people with a gun does not make him a murderer and should not be treated as evidence that proves Avery did it because honestly and legally speaking it does not prove that Avery killed her.

Avery also claims those leg irons and handcuffs where for his girlfriend, i have friends that own kinkier and more incriminating toys then these nonetheless Teresa's DNA was not found on either of these items. On top of that i didn't see any forensic evidence or even research into the possibility that they were actually used in the way that was described for example checking the bed post for marks and attempting to match them with the leg irons and hand cuffs. I mean i would assume a woman fighting for her life would at least leave a scratch on the bed post's from the handcuffs.

As far as the DNA or "sweat" on the hood latch, the defense attorney say's that an investigator admitted to not changing gloves while handling evidence that belonged to Avery and then Teresa's car................

You don't know where she was killed GOOD POINT! Proves my point that the state doesn't know where and how she was killed other than a bullet in the garage and the "confession" that Brendan gave. So who found the bullet? Investigators that literally had a conflict of interest and should not have been on the case. If you found the bullet under a compressor in a random corner of the garage wouldn't it be reasonable to think that she was at least shot in the garage? Or was the bullet placed there by Avery.......or someone else? Okay so maybe she was shot in the garage, well then you must explain the missing evidence. They tore up the concrete for crying out loud trying to find blood evidence. When someone is shot in a room you would expect to get high velocity blood splatter all over the place, and look at the garage, it is full of crap with small spaces in different areas where blood splatter could have gotten even the dusty car didn't have blood splatter so he obviously didn't clean that because it was all dusty but blood didn't get on it anyways because they didn't find any. Your telling me i am supposed to believe that Avery was able to methodically search through all the crap to make sure not a SINGLE splatter of blood was left after he bleached the whole room except everything that was dusty and all the items tested that had his DNA on it because if you think about it if he cleaned stuff to get rid of evidence their would obviously be items that should be spotless yet all items tested had Avery's DNA but i guess he could have recontaminated everything with his DNA to make the scene look normal (sarcasm). Same thing with the trailer, I'm supposed to believe that not a single skin cell, drop of sweat, hair (which they allegedly cut off), blood drop, finger print, nothing that could prove Brendan's story could be found because he cleaned? So he cleaned his house his garage burned all the evidence tossed the bullet under a compressor forgot to get ride of the bones and left the key in his room behind a bookcase until it magically fell into site and covered the car with a couple of branches thinking that was good enough?....

And when it comes to Brendan anything he say's is questionable, listen and watch his confession he contradicts and back tracks and changes so much that i literally think he was making stuff up. And if he was, anything that cant be proven by EVIDENCE should be thrown out.

As far as Guilt and what not, i have no idea if he did it or not, nothing concrete really ties him to it. If you think so please provide evidence so i can base my opinions on the same thing. But that being said the fact that i have reasonable doubts means i can not convict, literally goes against the whole point of the system, you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you where on the jury wait no, there shouldn't have even been a deliberation by the jury in the first place, so much misconduct on both the investigators and the forensics teams part that the case should have been thrown out. Not saying he shouldn't have been investigated further, he definitely should of been investigated further and the evidence should have been examined again. Brendan's confession should have been thrown out for sure! Not only did they get the confession in a very unprofessional manner which i think was coercive as well but he also back tracked about his confession and testified he was lying and even told his mother before investigators walked back in the room that they got into his head.

If Steven molested that poor kid and others then that is very sad and should be investigated as well but non of the other alleged victims have come out with allegations against Avery have they (just saying) but again this is not evidence of Teresa's murder this is an allegation from Brendan about another crime that may or may not have happen.

I want full transcripts of the case too!!!! -_-
But even what Kratz put out as evidence they left out was not significant it was the calls the hand cuffs the hood latch, which have been defended by Stevens teams plenty of times with enough reason to cause doubt. The DNA on the latch for example was given by Kratz yet he doesn't state the fact that the investigators admitted to not changing gloves.

There is to much wrong with this case that he definitely needs a new trial!

For the folks harping out there about the "sweat DNA" that Kraptz claims was under the hood of Holbach's RAV 4, it's complete BS.

Even the tech who "found it" wasn't sure if he had inadvertently contaminated that area of her car with dirty gloves.

More and more information keeps coming out that STRONGLY points to SA and BD's innocence.

YouTube is your friend!

Here's the thing that scares me about all of this Avery business, both the previous and current conviction . . .

It appears to me that the US system of justice is less about actual justice than it is about 'winning' at all costs. Seems to me the whole issue of electing prosecutors simply taints the whole thing. To preserve their jobs, they must win at all costs regardless the means to that end.

It extends further to enforcement of laws as well. When policing is left to elections, it opens the whole process up rife for corruption and political shenanigans.

I've watched Making of a Murder . . . twice. It spurred me to do a bit of Sunday morning 'over coffee' research to see what I could find. I truly believe I'm an average person of average intellect, and I'm pretty much a common sense kinda person.

With that, I can say that the prosecution did not come even close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Avery committed the second murder. I just don't see it . . . its as though the jury based their verdict on the notion that Steven Avery's defence didn't prove to them he didn't do it. The prosecution sure didn't prove, at least to me, he did.

To be blunt, what the prosecution put forward was that AVery planned this, planned the coverup of it, was masterful in eliminating any evidence whatsoever from the murder site, yet was dumb enough to leave the victim's car on his property and decided he'd keep the key in plain sight in a room that, if the prosecution is to be believed, was scrubbed of all blood evidence.

Now, with the 'backstory' and issues arising from the second trial more available, it points even further to me that there's malfeasance at work here solely and specifically for the purpose of getting a conviction.

Jesus Christ . . . OJ Simpson was covered in blood and he got off with 'reasonable doubt' . . . WTF!!!!!!!

That, my friends, should be more than worrisome to anyone who ever finds themselves embroiled in the US judicial system.

I just come out with the most obvious point. If you had spent 18 years in jail for something you didn't do. Even if you wound up doing the murder. Would you really park the car on your own property, and have her bones within 50 feet of your residence? Honestly the most obvious explanation doesn't compute even for a village idiot.

a reply to: mzinga
I've thought about this. I've also wondered if after the previous debacle and the pending lawsuit, Avery may have thought himself untouchable.

a reply to: Squirlli

The interview with SA's ex Jodi was CLEARLY scripted. It was the most awkward and strange interview I have ever seen.

She was lying thru her teeth, probably for a payday, which she missed when SA had to use his measly settlement for his defense in a murder case. When she realized he was no longer going to be A multi millionaire she split.

She was questioned by the Manitowoc PD and detectives after Holbach went missing and as they were creating the case against SA. When the cops realized that Jodi actually KNEW her rights and wasn't the easy target they thought she was going to be, they THEN set their sites on Dassey.

She's trash and looking for her two minutes of fame, and a payday due to the attention that MaM has gotten.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: mzinga
I've thought about this. I've also wondered if after the previous debacle and the pending lawsuit, Avery may have thought himself untouchable.

Ask yourself, who had the motive...not necessarily to kill Holbach, but to get SA out of their hair.

Then follow the evidence from there. It always leads back to Colburn and Lenk.

a reply to: lovebeck

the motive...not necessarily to kill Holbach

I think that's a big part of the equation though.

Disclaimer: I'm not pretending to know what actually happened.

a reply to: mzinga

A big question burning in my mind as well...If he actually did it, its obvious he tried to cover his tracks, by lack of other evidence. Idiot or not, were talking about a guy who could likely strip a car down to scrap metal in under an hour. The car is definitely another piece that makes no sense whatsoever. His blood but no prints... His sweat under the hood latch, makes no sense at all... Are we talking the latch to pop the hood in the car or under the hood?... Neither makes any sense, what the hell was he doing under the hood, change alternator? How sweat get under latch in car and not everwhere else?