Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What does everyone make of the young female cousin? She was very convincing on the stand that she'd made up the story, but how would she know to give some of those details if Dassey hadn't told her?
I believe her statement to police was made after a lot of the information was made public via Kratz's press conference. Not 100% sure but I think that's what I remember from the doc.
Anonymous wrote:What does everyone make of the young female cousin? She was very convincing on the stand that she'd made up the story, but how would she know to give some of those details if Dassey hadn't told her?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wow I wish someone would do a new documentary and focus on all the new information we've heard since this series was released!Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-
http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1
A lot of information the film makers kept out was deliberate. There was non-blood evidence revealed at trial that they did not include.
Basically, they were trying to feature a man wrongly jailed for rape, but the guy's a sleaze and actually murdered someone in the process of making their film. I think he was quite capable of murdering someone well b/f he went to jail for the rape he didn't commit.
This just doesn't make sense. He was free, had public opinion on his side, and stood to receive a $36 million payout from the county. He had a girlfriend and was going to get married. What possible motivation did he have to MURDER someone on his own property and then LEAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE THERE knowing the police had it out for him already?
.
I'm not opining on his guilt or innocence, but I don't think most people who commit murder make a pros and cons list first.
Anonymous wrote:This documentary is so hideously one-sided it's a disgrace. Would have been much more effective and better filmmaking if they adequately presented the state's case. The only people I feel bad for are Brendan Dassey and Theresa Halbach -- the two victims in those case.
I know. This was the beginning of my education about the fact that a confession doesn't necessarily mean a person is guilty.Anonymous wrote:I'm most outraged by Brendan's situations. Here's what I want to know- aren't there any protections in place in the legal process for people who are mentally retarded and a juvenile, as Brendon was. He had an IQ of 70 which is borderline Mental Retardation. He was under age 18, yet he was given a life sentence? I'm incredulous that a juvenile who is borderline mentally retarded is put away for life based on a 'confession' he gave without an attorney or parent present. I don't know how those people who put him away sleep at night.
It reminds me of the case of the West Memphis 3 who were teenagers targeted by law enforcement for the murder of 3 little boys in their small Arkansas town. The only reason they were suspects essentially was because they were the misfits in the town, dressed in black, listened to heavy metal music, etc. There was no other evidence tying them to the murders other than people thought they would be the most likely to commit a crime like that. It was essentially a witch hunt. One of the three suspects also had an IQ around 70 and gave a confession that was heavily coerced and that he later rescinded. Two of the teenagers were sentenced to life and one to death. After serving nearly 20 years, they were released by utilizing the Alford Plea. Fascinating story and definite similarities to the Dassey/Avery case.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Wow I wish someone would do a new documentary and focus on all the new information we've heard since this series was released!Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-
http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1
A lot of information the film makers kept out was deliberate. There was non-blood evidence revealed at trial that they did not include.
Basically, they were trying to feature a man wrongly jailed for rape, but the guy's a sleaze and actually murdered someone in the process of making their film. I think he was quite capable of murdering someone well b/f he went to jail for the rape he didn't commit.
This just doesn't make sense. He was free, had public opinion on his side, and stood to receive a $36 million payout from the county. He had a girlfriend and was going to get married. What possible motivation did he have to MURDER someone on his own property and then LEAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE THERE knowing the police had it out for him already?
.
Anonymous wrote:Wow I wish someone would do a new documentary and focus on all the new information we've heard since this series was released!Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-
http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find this whole thing really confusing but have come to the conclusion that the state shot themselves in the foot by inventing and then publicly describing this horrid tied-to-the-bed and raped/beaten story when that didn't happen. He also didn't shoot her in his garage. I mean obviously, the DNA is clear. It's not there. He DID kill her but they haven't found the site of where that happened. Because all her blood was in the trunk of her car, it happened somewhere off-site. Probably the salvage yard where they found those extra bone pieces. Then Avery took her in her own car back to his house and burned her body. He hid the car where he did because he's an idiot. I mean, they all have low IQ. He also probably thought he might have some sort of immunity due to the years he already spent in jail? Illogical but fits, IMO.
I just can't grasp why the tied to the bed part is so hard to believe? He ordered shackles just a few weeks before. Is that just a coincidence?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I find this whole thing really confusing but have come to the conclusion that the state shot themselves in the foot by inventing and then publicly describing this horrid tied-to-the-bed and raped/beaten story when that didn't happen. He also didn't shoot her in his garage. I mean obviously, the DNA is clear. It's not there. He DID kill her but they haven't found the site of where that happened. Because all her blood was in the trunk of her car, it happened somewhere off-site. Probably the salvage yard where they found those extra bone pieces. Then Avery took her in her own car back to his house and burned her body. He hid the car where he did because he's an idiot. I mean, they all have low IQ. He also probably thought he might have some sort of immunity due to the years he already spent in jail? Illogical but fits, IMO.
I just can't grasp why the tied to the bed part is so hard to believe? He ordered shackles just a few weeks before. Is that just a coincidence?
Anonymous wrote:I find this whole thing really confusing but have come to the conclusion that the state shot themselves in the foot by inventing and then publicly describing this horrid tied-to-the-bed and raped/beaten story when that didn't happen. He also didn't shoot her in his garage. I mean obviously, the DNA is clear. It's not there. He DID kill her but they haven't found the site of where that happened. Because all her blood was in the trunk of her car, it happened somewhere off-site. Probably the salvage yard where they found those extra bone pieces. Then Avery took her in her own car back to his house and burned her body. He hid the car where he did because he's an idiot. I mean, they all have low IQ. He also probably thought he might have some sort of immunity due to the years he already spent in jail? Illogical but fits, IMO.