• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Making A Murderer. No spoilers until 1/30/2016

I hear you on all that Brian. I wouldn't bet my life on him being innocent, but no way there wasn't enough reasonable doubt there to avoid a conviction imho.

I'll definitely check out Narcos, thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Netflix just released the Amanda Knox documentary, a case which has some basic similarities with the one in this thread.

Which case are you referring to - not familiar with this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Which case are you referring to - not familiar with this?

She was the American exchange student, studying in Italy, accused of a gruesome murder of a roommate, supposedly some kind of lover's triangle. Italy convicted and sentenced her, but that was far from the end of the story.....and I don't want to play spoiler in case you want to watch it, so that's all I'll say.
However I posted that quite a while ago, so I'm not sure if the Knox story is still available on Netflix.

Oh, just in case there was any confusion - my post from today about "Part II just released" was in reference to the original movie discussed - not the Amanda Knox story.
 
I do not believe the boy was involved, I think he was coerced by the authorities.

I am convinced Steve Avery killed this woman, he was going to get away with it, so the police made sure to set him up to get him convicted.
 
Agree on the boy - but I'm not so sure on Avery. Some of the stuff his new attorney uncovered makes me seriously question it. For starters, Dassey's brother is the one who had all of the sick 'dead woman' - related porn on his computer. He also lied (by his own admission) to police when he said he saw the girl heading towards Avery's trailer (he now says that she left the area just like Avery has always asserted). The cell phone towers that were pinged that day are well away from Avery's house. The dogs that were used the day the police showed up did most of their alerting on the adjacent property, not Avery's. One of the most compelling things she brought out was that it is highly unusual (almost unheard of) in a violent murder to not have mixed DNA samples. There was her blood and there was his blood, but there is nowhere where there is 'his and her blood' intermingled. Something is wrong with the DNA evidence. Then there's the fact that Avery's DNA found on the vehicle latch is 100x more prevalent than what would be expected to be found just by skin contact - how does that happen?

What this *feels* like to me is a police department so pissed that he got out of prison for the first unjust conviction that they are determined to put him back in. I think it's likely that someone else committed the murder and then got the smart idea to frame Avery for it. I'm not saying that's police - but they seem unwilling to even consider that they got the wrong guy - they won't even concede that they bullied the hell out of that halfwit to get a confession. I think they did what you suggest - they felt he was guilty and did whatever it took to make sure he got convicted.

My Dad worked for the Justice Department for 30 years. He told me that he personally experienced FBI and ATF agents planting/distorting evidence and then flat out perjuring themselves on the stand. If that can happen with FBI and ATF agents, it sure as hell can happen with a podunk Wisconsin sheriff's office who has an axe to grind.

Finally - it blows me away that a guy like Avery, who without question was wrongly imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit, gets no benefit of the doubt when it comes to the Sheriff's dept that railroaded him into a murder charge and ruined his life. We're supposed to trust these ****ers after that?
 
Agree on the boy - but I'm not so sure on Avery. Some of the stuff his new attorney uncovered makes me seriously question it. For starters, Dassey's brother is the one who had all of the sick 'dead woman' - related porn on his computer. He also lied (by his own admission) to police when he said he saw the girl heading towards Avery's trailer (he now says that she left the area just like Avery has always asserted). The cell phone towers that were pinged that day are well away from Avery's house. The dogs that were used the day the police showed up did most of their alerting on the adjacent property, not Avery's. One of the most compelling things she brought out was that it is highly unusual (almost unheard of) in a violent murder to not have mixed DNA samples. There was her blood and there was his blood, but there is nowhere where there is 'his and her blood' intermingled. Something is wrong with the DNA evidence. Then there's the fact that Avery's DNA found on the vehicle latch is 100x more prevalent than what would be expected to be found just by skin contact - how does that happen?

What this *feels* like to me is a police department so pissed that he got out of prison for the first unjust conviction that they are determined to put him back in. I think it's likely that someone else committed the murder and then got the smart idea to frame Avery for it. I'm not saying that's police - but they seem unwilling to even consider that they got the wrong guy - they won't even concede that they bullied the hell out of that halfwit to get a confession. I think they did what you suggest - they felt he was guilty and did whatever it took to make sure he got convicted.

My Dad worked for the Justice Department for 30 years. He told me that he personally experienced FBI and ATF agents planting/distorting evidence and then flat out perjuring themselves on the stand. If that can happen with FBI and ATF agents, it sure as hell can happen with a podunk Wisconsin sheriff's office who has an axe to grind.

Finally - it blows me away that a guy like Avery, who without question was wrongly imprisoned for a murder he didn't commit, gets no benefit of the doubt when it comes to the Sheriff's dept that railroaded him into a murder charge and ruined his life. We're supposed to trust these ****ers after that?

I don't disagree with all the poisonous evidence that would have gotten him acquitted, I believe the police were absolutely corrupt. I think they realized after a couple days on that property that they would not find enough to convict him, so they set him up.


And, I don't disagree that the brother of Brendan may have even been involved to a degree, but there is little in my mind that can convince me Steve Avery was not involved in the murder, or attempted coverup of this girl's murder.
 
Have you watched the 2nd season? I just binged it and it convinced me that this is a total frame job.

I was not at all sure after the first season.
 
Have you watched the 2nd season? I just binged it and it convinced me that this is a total frame job.

I was not at all sure after the first season.

Yes, I had to fast forward through a lot of it because it was boring as shit, but I did see his new attorney throw a thousand theories at the wall hoping one would stick.

She was able to cast enough doubt that there should be a new trial in his future, probably seeing him released.

However, I think Steve Avery is involved. I believe the state was bitter, could not find enough evidence to convict, so they planted it all.

I just keep going back to poor Brendan, I do believe that kid was not a participant, but his brother was. I think he knew or heard just enough to give the police what they essentially forced him give to involve himself on their "false promises". And his stupid mother should be bitch slapped for allowing the police to question him.

But Steve Avery killed that girl, just because it wasn't in his house or the garage, as his new attorney clearly debunked, did not mean he wasn't the one who took her into the gravel pit and killed her, then burned her body.
 
El, I seen you state numerous times that you think he did it.
But I'm just curious what overwhelming evidence convinced you that he did ?
Because IMO, every bit of evidence that the prosecution has presented against him, at least one of his defense lawyers, past or present, has done a good job of poking holes in it, creating enough reasonable doubt on each piece of evidence.

Or are you just going by 'gut feeling' that's telling you he's guilty ?
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top