Netflix - Making a murderer (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Watched the first 3 episodes, yet to be convinced its conclusively a frame up job on Avery for murder yet despite some shady behavior.
The part where they interview Dassey and he 'confesses' is pretty bad, I mean I don't know the law but seems wrong that they can interview a 16 year old who is slow with no legal representative or guardian present. He didn't seem to understand what was going on and was more worried about his school project and when he was told he would be arrested asking if it was just for a day. Remembering also that we only see a small snippet and the actual interview lasted for 4 hours can be very wearing especially on some one of his mentality, his mind was probably frazzled after 2 hours and he's just making stuff up in the hope they stop asking questions.
The part where they interview Dassey and he 'confesses' is pretty bad, I mean I don't know the law but seems wrong that they can interview a 16 year old who is slow with no legal representative or guardian present. He didn't seem to understand what was going on and was more worried about his school project and when he was told he would be arrested asking if it was just for a day. Remembering also that we only see a small snippet and the actual interview lasted for 4 hours can be very wearing especially on some one of his mentality, his mind was probably frazzled after 2 hours and he's just making stuff up in the hope they stop asking questions.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep, the treatment of the kid is most worrying. He clearly doesn't understand the questioning and struggles with the concepts and consequences.
He keeps being interviewed without representation too.
Nick
Administrator
That's the idea I got, he is just saying things that he thinks they want to hear for it to all be over. I think at one point they say "Do you want to go jail?" and he says no, they say "well do this then". Which I think is admitting it all.
Otis
Well-Known Member
He also thinks he can go back home if he says what they want him to say and go back to school the next day.
He is definitely coerced.
There was one simple way to prove to the cops of his making stuff up and that was to give him misinformation, rather than hint at what happened to the victim.
Had they just said 'well, we know you cut her fingers off. Who did that to her, Steven or you? Explain how you cut her fingers off.'
Stuff like that. They were giving him misinformation anyway, saying if he told the truth they would help him and stand by him.
Instead of trying to get him to say her throat had been slit, they should have given untruths and then seen if he had contradicted them.
They could have easily proved it was a nonsense.
Instead of saying something happened to head, what else happened to her head,? So it ended up where he was guessing, they could have led him in a direction where they would have known he was making it up.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Can't believe the judge ruled the confession as voluntary/un-coerced
Half the time he doesn't seem to know what he's saying but that confession he gave to his mum over the phone have to say seemed pretty genuine.
Nick
Administrator
But then he changed his mind again and said he was saying it to make them happy or something like that if that's the call I remember?
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Ah now he's changed his mind again, must have been a right ordeal for this lad choosing what to watch on TV.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Yea just reached that bit now
Nick
Administrator
Yeah, it is further on in the call he says something about saying it because they want him to. Or something like that?
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Shocking moment at the end where they pull out the vial of his blood with a broken seal and needle hole.
Nick
Administrator
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep and never explained. Someone wanted his blood and you would have to think that only police officials would have access.
So many doubts in this case. The number plate thing, the vial of blood, the car left on the yard despite Avery having a crusher on site which could have destroyed the evidence in an instant. The burning of a body right outside his trailer, when there's 40 acres of land to get rid of it, the police searches that didn't reveal anything and then suddenly key evidence was found and finally the interference of the local police when it was quite clearly stated that they wouldn't be involved.
So many doubts in this case. The number plate thing, the vial of blood, the car left on the yard despite Avery having a crusher on site which could have destroyed the evidence in an instant. The burning of a body right outside his trailer, when there's 40 acres of land to get rid of it, the police searches that didn't reveal anything and then suddenly key evidence was found and finally the interference of the local police when it was quite clearly stated that they wouldn't be involved.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Oh yes of course. How could that be? She had the car for 5 years and obviously had used the key for 5 years, but there wasn't even one single speck of her DNA on the key anywhere to be found.
That is surely impossible and points to the key being scrubbed clean by someone.
There's also the complete lack of blood evidence and DNA at the 'crime scene.' Not one shred of DNA of hers found until something like the 18th search and also the fact that part of the bone fragments were hundreds of yards away, meaning the bones had been moved and to the prosecution's case, moved from hundreds of yards away to right outside the accused's trailer. Why on earth would the perpetrator move the bones from hundreds of yards away to closer to his own residence, resulting in his becoming MORE of a suspect?
And it's just a coincidence isn't it, that this evidence that is suddenly found is only found by the local police officers in the searches, the same local police who are NOT supposed to be involved in the searches, whose police department is being sued for $36m and who were involved in the accused's previous conviction that he was later found not guilty for.
Like the defence team said, this is probably not the police trying to frame an innocent man in their eyes, it is them placing evidence to make the charge stick to a man they believe to be guilty.
There's just so many things wrong with this case and so much of it doesn't make sense.
Otis
Well-Known Member
http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news...en-avery-thought-brothers-framed-him-20160106
This is quite interesting. Apparently the accused's brother had sexually assaulted women who had visited the salvage yard before.
As has already been mentioned, this isn't the best family in the world by a long chalk and there are a string of offences amongst the clan over the years.
Why weren't his brothers ever suspects?
This is quite interesting. Apparently the accused's brother had sexually assaulted women who had visited the salvage yard before.
As has already been mentioned, this isn't the best family in the world by a long chalk and there are a string of offences amongst the clan over the years.
Why weren't his brothers ever suspects?
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep, rings a bell, but I'm not totally sure.
There's certainly enough there for the conviction to be unsafe.
Fair play to Avery though for studying law in prison and going through all the case files trying to prove his innocence.
When the weight of the law and closed ranks are against you though, it's very much an uphill struggle.
Nick
Administrator
It was the bit where they had the woman who did the DNA tests, the lawyer asked her what happens if it is contaminated (can't remember the exact word) and she said they do it again. This time they didn't do it again, and when asked she said in about 20 years of her doing it they had never given a result in that circumstance.
Her brief was to "put avery in the car" or something like that.
Her brief was to "put avery in the car" or something like that.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Didn't they use the whole sample and that was the problem? They should have done the test again but couldn't because it was contaminated?
Nick
Administrator
Yeah it was something like that, they couldn't do it again because they used it all but it was contaminated but they used it anyway (whereas usually it would be void)
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
What was going on with the Bobby Dassey testimony, he said steven jokingly asked him if he would like to help move the body. Yet apparently these were the words of someone else?
Why would he be allowed to say this and why would he throw his uncle and brother under the bus with the testimony if he didn't actually hear this?
Why would he be allowed to say this and why would he throw his uncle and brother under the bus with the testimony if he didn't actually hear this?
Nick
Administrator
He was a strange one too. Was it that he didn't hear it but somebody else did or something and told him?
Why wouldn't that get laughed at in court?
Otis
Well-Known Member
Should have done. He was quoting what someone else had said as if he had heard it himself first hand.
It was rejected by the judge that testimony though wasn't it?
Another thing that bothered me was the judge in the murder case who said Avery's crimes had been getting steadily more extreme. Err ... including the rape he was found innocent of eh?
It really came across that as Avery was guilty of murder the judge assumed he must have been guilty of the rape too, even though he had been acquitted.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Just seen that, what happened is alongside the test sample they also run a blank/control sample with a known result. Then if the control comes back with an unexpected result they know they have messed up the procedure somewhere, the analyst contaminated the control sample in this case. Assuming she didn't fabricate/plant DNA then its very likely but not certain the result was accurate but it shouldn't have been reported as a match because the test was improperly performed and thus they couldn't be certain.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Think I'm on 5 or 6 now
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
If it was the brutal, bloody murder they are claiming you would think DNA and blood residue would be everywhere.
Avery doesn't seem intelligent enough to carry out a forensic level clean up and there was no evidence of a clean up.
Think of it logically, there claiming allegedly Avery is stupid enough that he's left the bones just outside his property to be found and that he's left the car on his own property to be discovered despite having access to a crusher. Yet at the same time he's clever enough to do a complete scrub down of his property that no blood or DNA is found anywhere inside.
Either he's the criminal and forensic mastermind capable of scrubbing down his house so no traces of blood, DNA or traces of cleaning chemicals are found anywhere, or he's the bumbling buffoon who left the bones and car in easily discoverable locations on his own property.
Avery doesn't seem intelligent enough to carry out a forensic level clean up and there was no evidence of a clean up.
Think of it logically, there claiming allegedly Avery is stupid enough that he's left the bones just outside his property to be found and that he's left the car on his own property to be discovered despite having access to a crusher. Yet at the same time he's clever enough to do a complete scrub down of his property that no blood or DNA is found anywhere inside.
Either he's the criminal and forensic mastermind capable of scrubbing down his house so no traces of blood, DNA or traces of cleaning chemicals are found anywhere, or he's the bumbling buffoon who left the bones and car in easily discoverable locations on his own property.
Nick
Administrator
That's the thing isn't it.
I think they mentioned he has an incinerator or something as well? He could have just put the body there?
Didn't the woman also think the remains had been moved (they were in 2 places).
It certainly makes you think when you watch that doesn't it? I had to watch 4 or 5 at a time.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Me too. Watched it over 2 and a half days at 4 episodes a time.
Yep, the bones had definitely been moved and wasn't it something like over 100 yards away.
Why would you burn a body and then move it closer to your own house?
