US: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
- Thread starter johnyccc
- Start date
There are people who choose to believe the moon landings were faked. There are people who choose to believe the Earth is flat. And there are those who choose to believe Avery is innocent. For these idiots there will never be enough evidence to persuade them otherwise. Even if Avery confessed at this point they would cook up some convoluted conspiracy theory to account for it.
Finished season 2.
If anyone had doubts that Steven is innocent and season 2 doesn't move you in slightest after what Kathleen Zellner uncovers then I am astonished at your ignorance.
I've heard of people saying S1 was biased in favour of Steven being innocent and not all the evidence was shown to prove a guilty verdict in the documentary. It also doesn't show the other evidence to show a not guilty verdict. Can't say much more than that without spoilers. You have to watch to find out what I mean.
If anyone had doubts that Steven is innocent and season 2 doesn't move you in slightest after what Kathleen Zellner uncovers then I am astonished at your ignorance.
I was suspicious of Bobby during S1 after he came out of no where and incriminated himself by saying he saw Teresa enter Stevens shack which he also testified, but his brother Bryan disputes that claim and Bobby later recants and says he saw her leave which then means he perjured in court. That, with everything else Zellner uncovered is enough for a retrial.
I've heard of people saying S1 was biased in favour of Steven being innocent and not all the evidence was shown to prove a guilty verdict in the documentary. It also doesn't show the other evidence to show a not guilty verdict. Can't say much more than that without spoilers. You have to watch to find out what I mean.
Last edited:
Kathleen Zellner's face has ruined the entire second season for me, I know it's harsh, but it really winds me up 
It's a decent series, I'm on the fence regarding the actual outcome/verdict, but Bobby is deffo guilty of something
It's a decent series, I'm on the fence regarding the actual outcome/verdict, but Bobby is deffo guilty of something
I watched the first season, and I'm pretty convinced that he's guilty.
Aside from all the forensic evidence, for me probably the biggest thing the documentary makers left out from the court testimony, is how he called Teresa Halbach using a fake name from a hidden number (*67) this is very suspicious behaviour, especially considering the fact that her remains are found on his property shortly after.. It's pretty difficult to explain that one away.
Another one is the bullet found in Avery's garage that had Halbach's DNA on it, which had been fired by Avery's rifle. However the rifle in question had been in a police locker since November the 6th 2005, so if the police planted the bullet in the garage - how did they get one fired from Avery's rifle?
Another problem for me, was things like animal torture - Avery had been found guilty of burning the family cat alive, later there are statements from some of the inmates in prison that he planned to build a torture chamber to kill young women in. For me it creates a profile of someone who is capable of committing the crime in question and perhaps explains a motive.
In my opinion, the only way you can get to a position where Avery is innocent, is if you're willing to believe that literally every single piece of evidence, the phone records, the forensic evidence, literally everything is false, planted or a conspiracy.
Then of course, you have the problem of addressing the real killer of Halbach - if you're going to believe that everything was planted to frame Avery, then you're going to have to accept the uncomfortable idea that the police themselves killer her, directly or indirectly.
Consider that, with the fact that the majority of the law enforcement people involved were borderline halfwits - they'd never be able to keep a lid on it, it would come out one way or another.
Aside from all the forensic evidence, for me probably the biggest thing the documentary makers left out from the court testimony, is how he called Teresa Halbach using a fake name from a hidden number (*67) this is very suspicious behaviour, especially considering the fact that her remains are found on his property shortly after.. It's pretty difficult to explain that one away.
Another one is the bullet found in Avery's garage that had Halbach's DNA on it, which had been fired by Avery's rifle. However the rifle in question had been in a police locker since November the 6th 2005, so if the police planted the bullet in the garage - how did they get one fired from Avery's rifle?
Another problem for me, was things like animal torture - Avery had been found guilty of burning the family cat alive, later there are statements from some of the inmates in prison that he planned to build a torture chamber to kill young women in. For me it creates a profile of someone who is capable of committing the crime in question and perhaps explains a motive.
In my opinion, the only way you can get to a position where Avery is innocent, is if you're willing to believe that literally every single piece of evidence, the phone records, the forensic evidence, literally everything is false, planted or a conspiracy.
Then of course, you have the problem of addressing the real killer of Halbach - if you're going to believe that everything was planted to frame Avery, then you're going to have to accept the uncomfortable idea that the police themselves killer her, directly or indirectly.
Consider that, with the fact that the majority of the law enforcement people involved were borderline halfwits - they'd never be able to keep a lid on it, it would come out one way or another.
I second this motion. There was enough scrutiny and false confirmations of evidence in S1 which stuck to get the conviction, and S2 blows it out of the water. Any other state and Steve and Brendan would most likely be walking free.
i third what the above two posters have put.
I was always on the fence but after S2 and in particular the last 3 episodes swung it for me. What the prosecution failed to give to the defence and has been uncovered by his new lawyer is just madness. It may not have been Steven but its very close to home..
I was always on the fence but after S2 and in particular the last 3 episodes swung it for me. What the prosecution failed to give to the defence and has been uncovered by his new lawyer is just madness. It may not have been Steven but its very close to home..
One the biggest what the **** moments for me was
I hope Ken Kratz gets done somehow.
when they said they had the likely locations of TH when she wrotd the notes in her diary and then somehow the ex had it in his possession... He said it was a print off from her computer but it had handwritten notes on it. Wtf. Maybe the notes and the times in the car don't coincide but it was a mouth dropper.
2ndly that they found no bone on the bullet but they did find wood as it was likely just a frgemtb from the garage wall, with tampered dna on it.. Jeez
2ndly that they found no bone on the bullet but they did find wood as it was likely just a frgemtb from the garage wall, with tampered dna on it.. Jeez
I hope Ken Kratz gets done somehow.
Have you ready Brendan Dassey's actual statement from when he was interrogated? I read the entire thing (because I was bored)
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta.../1452480329562/Transcript+-+March+1,+2006.pdf
In my view, his statement is legit and he's telling the truth, reasons why I think this;
- Detail - There is an immense amount of detail in his statement, obtained over several hours, whilst under pressure the vast majority of it adds up to the evidence which was found, it wasn't a load of nonsense that made no sense - the vast majority of it fits the crime scene.
- Consistency - The officers go back and forth and revisit some questions, Brendan gives consistent answers without tripping up (difficult to do if he's telling lies)
- Profile - For someone who has a low mental function and a low IQ - I find it highly improbable, that he could make up all of that and essentially tell lies to the officers, with that amount of detail, on the fly, under pressure - without being caught out with inconsistencies (remember he's just a school kid, not a mastermind)
- Evidence - In several questions he fills in details which the officers didn't know, which check out, without tripping himself up, like how her blood got into the Rav4, how Avery's blood got into the Rav4, what happened to the keys, what happened to the plates, the implements Avery used to stoke the fire - all of these things from his statement add up to what was found on scene - why would he lie about a confession but simultaneously provide so much useful and correct information?
- Cooperation - The police don't really have to do much to coax out the information from him, most of it he volunteers without too much persuasion or any threats.
It's total horse ****.
He thicker than a yellow pages, his story is just that because it's so rife with inconsistencies. First he's told to be honest, so he tells a story of going home and cleaning his room and then going to help his uncle on a car. That's not a correct answer for the cops so this time, his uncle aslks him to help and this time she's in the car, clothed. Then the cops tell him (in no uncertain terms) that's not a good enough truth story (because it doesnt fit their narrative), so this time instead he imbelishes the story. This time he hears screams and goes and watches TV and later goes to his uncles and he's raped her in the house and stabs her in the stomach (even though there is no evidence of this either, including no one else in the family hearing the scream he claims he heard from his driveway), plus shes tied up after being stabbed apparently. (which would leave a lot of blood everywhere) He also said that they used a low loader, which again there is no DNA evidence for. I mean come on.
If I told you that I was a champion skier, then you asked me all about skiing and I said actually no I'm a champion skydiver, etc etc and there is evidence of none of it. Your gona think I'm a lying ****
As proved by the second season. None of the story fits with any of the evidence.
He thicker than a yellow pages, his story is just that because it's so rife with inconsistencies. First he's told to be honest, so he tells a story of going home and cleaning his room and then going to help his uncle on a car. That's not a correct answer for the cops so this time, his uncle aslks him to help and this time she's in the car, clothed. Then the cops tell him (in no uncertain terms) that's not a good enough truth story (because it doesnt fit their narrative), so this time instead he imbelishes the story. This time he hears screams and goes and watches TV and later goes to his uncles and he's raped her in the house and stabs her in the stomach (even though there is no evidence of this either, including no one else in the family hearing the scream he claims he heard from his driveway), plus shes tied up after being stabbed apparently. (which would leave a lot of blood everywhere) He also said that they used a low loader, which again there is no DNA evidence for. I mean come on.
If I told you that I was a champion skier, then you asked me all about skiing and I said actually no I'm a champion skydiver, etc etc and there is evidence of none of it. Your gona think I'm a lying ****
As proved by the second season. None of the story fits with any of the evidence.
I find inconsistencies in your break down @Screeeech and derive different outcomes.
Weigert and Fassbender were prompting Brendan, what happened with so and so and this and that, we know the truth come on buddy the sooner we get what we want the sooner you can get out. Brendan's first answer to most questions is "I dunno" with a long drawn silence, this is hardly fabricating on the fly as you suggest in your Profile. So the agents prompt him, what happened with the knife Brendan "I dunno..." long drawn silence, come on buddy we know the truth you just gotta say it, "mmm.. he cut her" ok where was she cut Brendan "I dunno..." long drawn silence, come on buddy your doing great where was she cut, we know the truth you just gotta say it "mmm in the stomach.."
That's why Brendan's story fits so well, it was a lie and made up. Brendan may be clinically a retard but he's not amnesiac, I don't see why he'd forget a story he's constructing in his head especially with the 2 agents who keep going on at him giving him the building materials, "what happened in the garage Brendan" 'Brendans head: k so they want something about the garage' "mmm he shot her" where did her shoot her Brendan 'Brendans head: ffs I dunno, leg? arm? no... she's dead and that wouldn't do it' "mmm in the head"
Evidence. As I've said in the other thread the critical evidence actually has none. No blood or DNA in the bedroom, no restraints, no damage to the bed from the restraints, no blood or DNA or gunpowder residue in the garage or on Steven. The murder we are led to believe happened on Oct 31st 2005, so why did it take until Brendan's 'confession' on March 1st 2006 to build a case against Steven? apparently they already knew what happened as they kept telling Brendan so, yet every bit of the prosecutions account of the events on that day come directly from what Brendan said, and on March 2nd 2006 Ken Kratz gave his famous press conference and the double kicker of this is that Ken Kratz claims Brendan's confession wasn't required in convicting Steven. So then why wasn't Steven sent down 4 or 5 months earlier?
Cooperation. A four hour interrogation sure as **** sounds to me like Brendan took a lot of coercing, every bit of volunteered information was followed by "come on we know the truth" and then a bit of help "what really happened". Telling the truth doesn't take 4 hours, making up a story does.
Weigert and Fassbender were prompting Brendan, what happened with so and so and this and that, we know the truth come on buddy the sooner we get what we want the sooner you can get out. Brendan's first answer to most questions is "I dunno" with a long drawn silence, this is hardly fabricating on the fly as you suggest in your Profile. So the agents prompt him, what happened with the knife Brendan "I dunno..." long drawn silence, come on buddy we know the truth you just gotta say it, "mmm.. he cut her" ok where was she cut Brendan "I dunno..." long drawn silence, come on buddy your doing great where was she cut, we know the truth you just gotta say it "mmm in the stomach.."
That's why Brendan's story fits so well, it was a lie and made up. Brendan may be clinically a retard but he's not amnesiac, I don't see why he'd forget a story he's constructing in his head especially with the 2 agents who keep going on at him giving him the building materials, "what happened in the garage Brendan" 'Brendans head: k so they want something about the garage' "mmm he shot her" where did her shoot her Brendan 'Brendans head: ffs I dunno, leg? arm? no... she's dead and that wouldn't do it' "mmm in the head"
Evidence. As I've said in the other thread the critical evidence actually has none. No blood or DNA in the bedroom, no restraints, no damage to the bed from the restraints, no blood or DNA or gunpowder residue in the garage or on Steven. The murder we are led to believe happened on Oct 31st 2005, so why did it take until Brendan's 'confession' on March 1st 2006 to build a case against Steven? apparently they already knew what happened as they kept telling Brendan so, yet every bit of the prosecutions account of the events on that day come directly from what Brendan said, and on March 2nd 2006 Ken Kratz gave his famous press conference and the double kicker of this is that Ken Kratz claims Brendan's confession wasn't required in convicting Steven. So then why wasn't Steven sent down 4 or 5 months earlier?
Cooperation. A four hour interrogation sure as **** sounds to me like Brendan took a lot of coercing, every bit of volunteered information was followed by "come on we know the truth" and then a bit of help "what really happened". Telling the truth doesn't take 4 hours, making up a story does.
Your argument puts you in a terrible position that's difficult to maintain.
In the actual interrogation itself, once the police apply some pressure to get him to talk - the information begins to flow quite freely, they encounter some initial resistance, but I don't see that as unusual for a young boy who's found himself in a lot of trouble and knows it. It's exactly how I'd expect the first part of an interrogation to go - he takes a bit of softening up. This is true of many of many other interrogations I've watched, things get off to a slow difficult start - then once the officers establish a bit of a rapport, progress is made and information starts to come out, I don't see anything remarkable at all.
They offer him drinks, food, breaks - as far as I can tell, compared to other interrogations I've watched they were pretty reasonable with him.
Onto the evidence, how do you explain the amount of information he gives, that matches with the crime scene?;
- Brendan Dassey volunteers on his own - that Avery initially wanted to dispose of Halbachs body in the lake (gravel pit) and put her body in the back of the Jeep, he then changed his mind and decided to burn her - which explains why her remains were in the burn pit AND why her blood was in the back of the Jeep - that was Brendans information that matches what was found at the scene.
- He recalls a lot of detail regarding how the body was burnt, including how they used tyres and how Steven used a rake to stoke the fire, on the scene her bones were found entwined with around 5x tyres, and a rake nearby was found with bone fragments on it. This was Brendan's information from his statement none of it came from the Police and it matched the scene.
- He describes (entirely by himself) how and where they placed her Rav4, how they covered it in branches and other stuff, how Steven took the plates off (because the plates were missing when it was found) All of this came from Brendan and matches exactly how it was found, he even explains what happened to the plates.
- He volunteers a lot of additional information, such as how he raped Halbach, how her throat was cut but she didn't die, many of the things she was saying as she pleaded for her life - why would he further incriminate himself by making up these additional unnecessary admissions? I say he admitted the truth because he couldn't handle it and, he didn't have enough mental fortitude to be able to spar with a pair of detectives who've caught him bang to rights.
- He explained how in the process of ditching her Rav4, Avery went and opened the hood - low and behold, when police swab under the hood - they find Avery's DNA on the latch. How is Brendan able to offer such useful and accurate information if everything he's making up is a lie and fabricated?
- The vast majority of these intricate details were not publicised at the time of Brendan's interrogation, so it seems extremely unlikely to me that he could make up this great big story full of intricate detail, (such as the burning of her, the details of the car, etc) and it actually line up with the crime scene, it's insane to think he made it all up.
- Further more; all of this goes directly against Steven Avery because we know Halbach was on the Avery premises on Oct 31st, we know Steven Avery had asked her specifically to go, so we know the victim was in that area at that time, pretty much the exact same time Brendan claims in his statement - the timeline adds up,
I put it to you, that it's literally almost impossible in light of the evidence - that Brendan could have totally fabricated the above 7 points, and they so closely match up with what was found at the murder scene and the timeline, it's ridiculous.
This is why he was found guilty, and why he's sat in a jail cell.
If you want to believe Brendan's confession do you believe all of it or some of it?. Let's say it's true and he knew the plates were taken off and the rake somehow held bone fragments on it because it was indeed used to rake the fire, it only incriminates Brendan and only Steve by name and only by name because every other detail which should have evidence doesn't have evidence, namely everything that happened in the house, and the garage bullet ONLY turned up after Brendan said she was shot in the head in the garage, the bullet which has no blood or bone matter on it. Ken Kratz says in his book that Brendan hates guns and didn't look when Teresa was shot, and it cannot be proven where she was shot if she was shot so it's just Brendan's guess taken as fact. The hood latch was only investigated after Brendan said about it and lo and behold it has Steven's DNA, not skin or blood or hair or fingerprints, just "stuff" explained away as sweat. Not only was the DNA highly concentrated it was also the only thing present, no dirt or debris of anything. Rather unusual for a hood latch if you ask me. Should also be noted that the finger prints found on and in the Rav4 were not used in the case so either they were not Stevens and tucked away or the finger prints were not checked at all and that's a huge omission. I don't remember from the show if the plates were printed or checked for DNA and can't find anything online pointing me to an answer.
There's too many untruths and flip flops about Brendan's confessions and the only parts which stuck are parts that led to further, unworthy 'evidence'. It was public knowledge that Teresa was burned so he already knew she was in the pit and since he was there at the fire it's not unreasonable he knew the contents of the fire, like tyres and it's not the first fire he's been too, everyone rakes and pokes fires. Her bones were there no questions about that, possibly for 3 days from 31st to the 3rd and more until the date they were discovered, a date I don't know nor can I find it but it's some where between the 5th(Rav4 found) and 13th of November which covers the 8 days Avery Auto's was being investigated.
I still maintain Teresa left the Avery's as Steven said and Bobby originally said which he also told Bryan. Something I had forgotten about was the Zipperer's, George Zipperer, Teresa's last scheduled visit for the day. The wife testified that she thinks Teresa was there though she didn't see her leave, and that Teresa had called to say she was having trouble finding the house.
How could that have happened if she never left the Avery's? This completely throws out Brendan and that the accurate details he had that matched is just knowledge of actions everyone does at fires like the raking. Do you have any idea's on this?
An article this morning about Len Kachinsky facing 5 years in jail for stalking. He was Brendan's first lawyer. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...an-Dassey-faces-five-years-jail-stalking.html
There's too many untruths and flip flops about Brendan's confessions and the only parts which stuck are parts that led to further, unworthy 'evidence'. It was public knowledge that Teresa was burned so he already knew she was in the pit and since he was there at the fire it's not unreasonable he knew the contents of the fire, like tyres and it's not the first fire he's been too, everyone rakes and pokes fires. Her bones were there no questions about that, possibly for 3 days from 31st to the 3rd and more until the date they were discovered, a date I don't know nor can I find it but it's some where between the 5th(Rav4 found) and 13th of November which covers the 8 days Avery Auto's was being investigated.
I still maintain Teresa left the Avery's as Steven said and Bobby originally said which he also told Bryan. Something I had forgotten about was the Zipperer's, George Zipperer, Teresa's last scheduled visit for the day. The wife testified that she thinks Teresa was there though she didn't see her leave, and that Teresa had called to say she was having trouble finding the house.
How could that have happened if she never left the Avery's? This completely throws out Brendan and that the accurate details he had that matched is just knowledge of actions everyone does at fires like the raking. Do you have any idea's on this?
An article this morning about Len Kachinsky facing 5 years in jail for stalking. He was Brendan's first lawyer. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...an-Dassey-faces-five-years-jail-stalking.html
None of what you're saying successfully refutes any of the 7 points I've made.
The only way you can make any attempt to refute them, is by going down the conspiracy theory path by claiming that key evidence, (blood and DNA) was planted by the police in order to frame Avery, along with the Rav4 and all the other evidence that goes with it.
Then you're forced into an even worse position than when you started off, because along with all of that - you also have to explain why all of the testimony provided by Brendan matches up with all the evidence which was apparently planted by the police.
A good example of this is the condition of the Rav4;
Also consider this; false confessions rarely yield useful or accurate information. Someone who's being screamed at, is frightened or being threatened whilst in pursuit of the truth, usually will just give out a load of nonsense that doesn't make sense, in order to make it stop or give in because they can't take it. But a false confession like that, would rarely come with any useful or meaningful information, because it's made up.
Let's be honest with ourselves here, Brendan doesn't just say "yep I was involved, Avery killed her but I don't really remember much else" he goes on for hours, giving details which align with the evidence from the scene.
I outright reject Kethleen Zellner's DNA claims, and claims that evidence was planted. I don't think they can be trusted, they're highly biased - she's out to make a ton of money and fame on Netflix and as such I pay no attention to what she's claiming, I'm making my determination based on the original court transcripts, interviews, statements and evidence, not Netflix's biased interpretation.
edit.
Another massive problem for the false confession allegation, is that Brendan Dassey is interrogated on three separate occasions, by several different people.
We can all agree that Brendan is a low functioning individual with an IQ of 60-70, are people really going to suggest - that someone with that level of intelligence, cooked up that entire story by himself, managed to keep it consistent, under the pressure of several full police interrogations, without totally contradicting himself or churning out pure nonsense that made no sense.
The only way you can make any attempt to refute them, is by going down the conspiracy theory path by claiming that key evidence, (blood and DNA) was planted by the police in order to frame Avery, along with the Rav4 and all the other evidence that goes with it.
Then you're forced into an even worse position than when you started off, because along with all of that - you also have to explain why all of the testimony provided by Brendan matches up with all the evidence which was apparently planted by the police.
A good example of this is the condition of the Rav4;
- Brendan tells the officers exactly, how they attempted to disguise it using branches (which is how it was found)
- Brendan describes how Steven takes the plates off (the plates were missing)
- Brendan also says how Steven had a cut on his finger, which was caused when he stabbed Teresa, (Avery's blood was found inside the Rav4)
- Brendan explains how they put her in the back of the Rav4 before removing her and burning her (Teresas blood was found in the back of the Rav4)
Also consider this; false confessions rarely yield useful or accurate information. Someone who's being screamed at, is frightened or being threatened whilst in pursuit of the truth, usually will just give out a load of nonsense that doesn't make sense, in order to make it stop or give in because they can't take it. But a false confession like that, would rarely come with any useful or meaningful information, because it's made up.
Let's be honest with ourselves here, Brendan doesn't just say "yep I was involved, Avery killed her but I don't really remember much else" he goes on for hours, giving details which align with the evidence from the scene.
I outright reject Kethleen Zellner's DNA claims, and claims that evidence was planted. I don't think they can be trusted, they're highly biased - she's out to make a ton of money and fame on Netflix and as such I pay no attention to what she's claiming, I'm making my determination based on the original court transcripts, interviews, statements and evidence, not Netflix's biased interpretation.
edit.
Another massive problem for the false confession allegation, is that Brendan Dassey is interrogated on three separate occasions, by several different people.
- March 1st 2006 (Wigert / Fassbender)
- May 12th 2006 (Mike o Kelly)
- May 13th 2006 (Wigert Fassbender)
We can all agree that Brendan is a low functioning individual with an IQ of 60-70, are people really going to suggest - that someone with that level of intelligence, cooked up that entire story by himself, managed to keep it consistent, under the pressure of several full police interrogations, without totally contradicting himself or churning out pure nonsense that made no sense.
Last edited:
To be frank, your comparison is ridiculous. You are comparing completely lunatic conspiracy theories to a crime story where regardless if you think the people were innocent or guilty, they most definitely shouldn’t have been sent to prison on the evidence provided.
One thing I never got -
Brendon said - he stabbed her in the stomach and slit her throat (in bedroom-no dna found at all despite carpet and absorbent textiles everywhere) but the cause of death was a .22 bullet to the head in the garage?? How does a woman with a stabbed stomach and slashed throat get to the garage alive, stand there and be shot in the head....
I've just finished watching the second series, again rather one sided and seemingly a bit of a showcase/free PR for the superwoman get out of jail lawyer. I do feel it could have been compressed in half instead of dragged on for so long. I think they're probably both guilty but I can certainly see why there is some controversy, especially with regards to Brendan.
I notice Brendan's dad admits that he's a bit slow too and speculates that Brendan probably gets it from him, I think Brendan's mum is easily just as much to blame! If she'd simply asked for a lawyer before the interview then he'd probably not be where he is at the moment. Then again if he'd take a plea bargain he'd probably have served his time and been out by now too. She's all over the place on the phone call towards the end of the series where she and her husband blow up at Steve Avery after finding that her husband and Bobby are being accused by Steve's lawyer, claims they didn't have Internet access when there is evidence of Bobby's sick internet searches etc..
It also highlights how political the justice system can perhaps be over there, Brendan might well be free at the moment had he not been who he is, for example when the federal judge ruled in his favour... seemingly part of the reason the state was fighting it to the panel of 3 judges at the 7th circuit apples court and then appealing again to the full court was simply because of all the publicity the case had had. On the other hand all that publicity has worked in Steven Avery's favour in so far as he'd not have the lawyer he currently has if it weren't for the first season of the show - Brendan on the other hand might well have had the two lawyers from North Western University regardless as they're seemingly more interested in the cases/arguments themselves than simply publicity.
I do worry about some judges in the US, there was one guy who (at least in the snippet we saw in the show) seemed a bit clueless/wasn't following at all with his ramblings about the investigators needing two murderers... I looked him up and he's 79 years old and was appointed by Reagan. I'm not sure it is a good idea to have people that age still making these sorts of decisions.
To be honest the interview wasn't as bad as it perhaps could have been, they did obviously feed him stuff and that stuff should clearly carry very little weight at all, but he also mentioned things like the handcuffs etc.. which turned up int he room. Sure he was all over the place and seemingly the police (as one of the judges mentioned) are allowed to bluff/mislead etc... IIRC his IQ was mentioned in the program and was in the 80s, so he's not too far off say the average African American IQ. I wonder how many cases concerning currently incarcerated African Americans could be appealed based on a low IQ score and invalidating the taped confession if Brendan's case were to have been allowed at the Supreme Court and a favourable ruling given. Brendan isn't really as dumb as they'd like to make out, he's certainly not "retarded", he'd need to drop by another standard deviation to get to that level and he's perfectly happy to reply to all his fan mail on his own etc..
Brendan's brother is a sick, sick individual though I don't think that necessarily makes him the murderer. (I don't mean to be too judgemental but they seem like a bit of an odd family, that one of the kids living in a trailer is into some weird stuff on the internet isn't too surprising) - that the prosecutor didn't want that CD at trial is perhaps understandable (albeit rather unethical of him) though I don't think they considered Brendan's brother was a suspect rather I think they realised that it just didn't look good for him because it is sick stuff that would understandably horrify a jury. Avery's lawyer still needs to rely on some convoluted conspiracy theory about scooping up dried up blood from his sink (yeah they're going to run with his dubious explanation from the original trial) and planting DNA elsewhere too, of course just the right people had access to the vehicle, the bullet etc.. at the right time and just happened to stumble on some blood in the sink when they broke into his trailer for some unexplained reason (and just happened to have the means to collect and store it when they discovered it by chance too).
Part of her approach seems to be to baffle with science... that brain wave stuff was a crock of ****. While there might be some utility in a lie detector test pre-trial if the suspect is ignorant and believes that lie detector tests actually work (just the fact they agree to it if they believe they work is perhaps a good sign for their lawyer) this is someone with nothing to lose, who is living with a load of other criminal and who has been spending a lot of time reading up about the law/preparing his own defence etc.. I think he's likely already aware that lie detectors are BS and either way he's post trial, with a life sentence, no parole and nothing to lose so of course he's going to agree to it.
The blood spatter "experiments" didn't seem like experiments but more play acting in order to support her "theory" or to pick holes in the prosecution narrative. For example putting the key in and calmly turning it to demonstrate that the blood stain didn't come from Avery's finger... well we don't know that he calmly turned the key... if you'd just killed someone you could be super anxious/panicky getting into their car etc.. hand shaking a bit - you could easily hit that back panel with a shaking hand.
Likewise they examined the flakes on the bit of carpet from the centre of the car.... then the "expert" got some similar carpet and dripped some blood from a few inches above it... OK so we can assume that blood drops didn't drop from his hand a few inches about that bit of carpet, so what? He's got an old wouldn't on his finger that has seemingly opened up - there could easily be dried blood on his hand/finger... that could easily flake off if he were to, for example, reach into his pocket to get out the keys... left hand drive car, right hand goes into pocket, reaches for keys, some of the dried blood flakes off and is found on the carpeted bit in the centre.
Anyway, sorry for the wall of text, those are my initial thoughts on it, I might read up a bit on the case too.
I notice Brendan's dad admits that he's a bit slow too and speculates that Brendan probably gets it from him, I think Brendan's mum is easily just as much to blame! If she'd simply asked for a lawyer before the interview then he'd probably not be where he is at the moment. Then again if he'd take a plea bargain he'd probably have served his time and been out by now too. She's all over the place on the phone call towards the end of the series where she and her husband blow up at Steve Avery after finding that her husband and Bobby are being accused by Steve's lawyer, claims they didn't have Internet access when there is evidence of Bobby's sick internet searches etc..
It also highlights how political the justice system can perhaps be over there, Brendan might well be free at the moment had he not been who he is, for example when the federal judge ruled in his favour... seemingly part of the reason the state was fighting it to the panel of 3 judges at the 7th circuit apples court and then appealing again to the full court was simply because of all the publicity the case had had. On the other hand all that publicity has worked in Steven Avery's favour in so far as he'd not have the lawyer he currently has if it weren't for the first season of the show - Brendan on the other hand might well have had the two lawyers from North Western University regardless as they're seemingly more interested in the cases/arguments themselves than simply publicity.
I do worry about some judges in the US, there was one guy who (at least in the snippet we saw in the show) seemed a bit clueless/wasn't following at all with his ramblings about the investigators needing two murderers... I looked him up and he's 79 years old and was appointed by Reagan. I'm not sure it is a good idea to have people that age still making these sorts of decisions.
To be honest the interview wasn't as bad as it perhaps could have been, they did obviously feed him stuff and that stuff should clearly carry very little weight at all, but he also mentioned things like the handcuffs etc.. which turned up int he room. Sure he was all over the place and seemingly the police (as one of the judges mentioned) are allowed to bluff/mislead etc... IIRC his IQ was mentioned in the program and was in the 80s, so he's not too far off say the average African American IQ. I wonder how many cases concerning currently incarcerated African Americans could be appealed based on a low IQ score and invalidating the taped confession if Brendan's case were to have been allowed at the Supreme Court and a favourable ruling given. Brendan isn't really as dumb as they'd like to make out, he's certainly not "retarded", he'd need to drop by another standard deviation to get to that level and he's perfectly happy to reply to all his fan mail on his own etc..
Brendan's brother is a sick, sick individual though I don't think that necessarily makes him the murderer. (I don't mean to be too judgemental but they seem like a bit of an odd family, that one of the kids living in a trailer is into some weird stuff on the internet isn't too surprising) - that the prosecutor didn't want that CD at trial is perhaps understandable (albeit rather unethical of him) though I don't think they considered Brendan's brother was a suspect rather I think they realised that it just didn't look good for him because it is sick stuff that would understandably horrify a jury. Avery's lawyer still needs to rely on some convoluted conspiracy theory about scooping up dried up blood from his sink (yeah they're going to run with his dubious explanation from the original trial) and planting DNA elsewhere too, of course just the right people had access to the vehicle, the bullet etc.. at the right time and just happened to stumble on some blood in the sink when they broke into his trailer for some unexplained reason (and just happened to have the means to collect and store it when they discovered it by chance too).
Part of her approach seems to be to baffle with science... that brain wave stuff was a crock of ****. While there might be some utility in a lie detector test pre-trial if the suspect is ignorant and believes that lie detector tests actually work (just the fact they agree to it if they believe they work is perhaps a good sign for their lawyer) this is someone with nothing to lose, who is living with a load of other criminal and who has been spending a lot of time reading up about the law/preparing his own defence etc.. I think he's likely already aware that lie detectors are BS and either way he's post trial, with a life sentence, no parole and nothing to lose so of course he's going to agree to it.
The blood spatter "experiments" didn't seem like experiments but more play acting in order to support her "theory" or to pick holes in the prosecution narrative. For example putting the key in and calmly turning it to demonstrate that the blood stain didn't come from Avery's finger... well we don't know that he calmly turned the key... if you'd just killed someone you could be super anxious/panicky getting into their car etc.. hand shaking a bit - you could easily hit that back panel with a shaking hand.
Likewise they examined the flakes on the bit of carpet from the centre of the car.... then the "expert" got some similar carpet and dripped some blood from a few inches above it... OK so we can assume that blood drops didn't drop from his hand a few inches about that bit of carpet, so what? He's got an old wouldn't on his finger that has seemingly opened up - there could easily be dried blood on his hand/finger... that could easily flake off if he were to, for example, reach into his pocket to get out the keys... left hand drive car, right hand goes into pocket, reaches for keys, some of the dried blood flakes off and is found on the carpeted bit in the centre.
Anyway, sorry for the wall of text, those are my initial thoughts on it, I might read up a bit on the case too.
He's not, he's in the 80s according to what his lawyers said in the appeals court hearing in the latest series - that puts him just on the edge of the "normal" IQ range, albeit right at the lower limit of "normal".
Sorry I was confused, I think it was Avery who was said to have an IQ of 70.
Agree with pretty much everything you wrote though,
The threatrical “experiments” with the blood spatter and dripping blood onto bits of carpet, in season 2 doesn’t add up to anything for me, a very similar thing takes place in “the staircase” which is also worth a watch on Netflix.
Agree with pretty much everything you wrote though,
The threatrical “experiments” with the blood spatter and dripping blood onto bits of carpet, in season 2 doesn’t add up to anything for me, a very similar thing takes place in “the staircase” which is also worth a watch on Netflix.