Making a murderer - The Avery case (Spoilers)

Well watch it and find out.

If the lab admits there mistakes, then you would have every person that was sent down on the evidence from that lab screaming for a retrial.

A lab has looked at the bullet and found nothing but wood fragments.

The bullet was fired in to wood. No bone of blood or DNA was found when the lab looked at it.

What's the point in you debating this, when you won't learn from the new evidence?

Firstly, a lab making a mistake, admitting it made a mistake - making no attempt to cover it up, isn't really that notable or unique. In this case - it doesn't really hurt the prosecution, because they're admitting it in open court, without making any attempt to cover it up - exactly as they should do.

Procedural errors have occurred in many different cases - where they're admitted and shown isn't really a red flag at all, it certainly doesn't advance a conspiracy theory argument that evidence is being framed.

Secondly, if you think that Netflix, Zellner and her "team" are operating in a completely unbiased way, concerned only with finding the "truth" by splashing drops of blood onto various surfaces, firing guns at wooden doors, using totally unproven pseudoscience - such as ridiculous brain scans that have no scientific basis or modicum of credibility, so on and so forth - you're willing to call that 'evidence', whilst rejecting all of the original evidence and testimony from the crime scene, along with a confession obtained three times?

I put it to you, that none of what you're saying refutes anything I've said, it only affirms that you're easily led, will believe a good conspiracy theory over the facts of a case and get your information from the television, rather than from the actual case itself.
 
The bit I didn't understand from Season 1 and again in Season 2 is when Colborn finds her car before anyone else and radios it in then lies about it in court. It seems like such a major part of the case but nothing seems to be done about it. Am I missing something?

I don't understand how he cleaned all of the blood off the bed. I know whenever I've split anything on the bed it's gone through to the mattress yet there wasn't a drop of blood found on Avery's. Maybe I need to ask him what mattress protector he was using.
 
The bit I didn't understand from Season 1 and again in Season 2 is when Colborn finds her car before anyone else and radios it in then lies about it in court. It seems like such a major part of the case but nothing seems to be done about it. Am I missing something?

It's pretty normal for a police officer on patrol, to call despatch to verify or check on information he's been given in the field, indeed - he didn't "find' a car at all, he was verifying information (plates / vehicle /year) that had been given to him, it doesn't stop conspiracy theorists jumping onto it like flies on **** though.

Secondly, it's pretty far fetched to claim Colborn lied in court, there were some errors in his record keeping - but extrapolating that to the point where he's lying is far fetched.

I don't understand how he cleaned all of the blood off the bed. I know whenever I've split anything on the bed it's gone through to the mattress yet there wasn't a drop of blood found on Avery's. Maybe I need to ask him what mattress protector he was using.[/QUOTE]

The problem is, nobody knows exactly what went on in the trailer - where the blood went, how much there was, crucially - Avery had the luxury of his trailer to himself, from the 31st of October until the 5th of November before Halbach's car was found on his property, in that time he could have done literally anything with the scene - we simply don't know and will never know what happened in that trailer. All we have to go on, is Brendan Dassey testifying that Avery burnt the bloodstained bedding, there's no other evidence that goes either way.

@Screeeech, you seem to be giving a lot of credence to Brendon’s confession(s), despite all of the issues surrounding his case and the way he was treated.

I do give it credence yes, mostly because the information he gives, obtained on three separate occasions, is not only reasonably consistent - it's also packed with detail that aligns with the details found at the crime scene.

In order to prove Brendan Dassey's statement wrong, or claim it's a false confession - the information he provided would have to be wrong, alas; many false confessions - those obtained under torture, threats of physical violence or bribery, often amount of a big pile of nonsense that doesn't add up. In the case of Brendan Dassey, many major details came out that made sense with the facts on the ground, many of which make sense, good examples of these were;

  1. Dassey alleges that Avery shot Halbach in the head; Forensic investigation of the skull fragments show damage consistent with that of a gunshot wound to the skull.
  2. How Habach's blood got into the Rav 4 when it had no logical reason to be there, which puzzled the detectives; Dassey explains how Avery originally planned to dispose of her body in the quarry by driving her body down there in the back of the Rav4, they remove it after he changes his mind and decided to burn her.
  3. How Avery's blood got into the Rav4; Dassey explained how Avery cut himself when he stabbed Halbach and was bleeding, this explains the source of Avery's blood on the Rav 4
  4. The condition of the Rav4; Dassey explains in detail, how they disguised her Rav4, using branches and other junk to disguise it, along with how the plates disappeared (which matches exactly how it was found)
  5. Dassey confessed that after they shot her in the garage, they cleaned up the blood using bleach. Dassey's jeans had significant bleach stains on them when he handed them to the police, luminol testing in the areas Dassey pointed out, also came back as positive
  6. Dassey explains how they carried her to the burn pit and used tyres to burn her, along with a rake to stoke the fire; Halbach's remains were found entwined with the remains of burnt tyres, a rake found nearby was also found with her bone fragments on it.
On how he was treated, I watched the full confession and I've read all three of his statements and I didn't really see anything that bad given the context; A young woman murdered when he'd admitted being there, what do people expect? for the officers to simply say "oh that's fine Brendan, we don't want to upset you, you can tell us what happened to her some other time"

Indeed, I think they're pretty good with him - they offer him breaks, drinks, opportunities to see his mother, I really don't see anything untoward going on at all, Netflix attempted to make it look like some abuse of human rights but I wasn't phased by it, I've watched loads of interrogations and it didn't really seem remarkable.

Lastly, Brendan apparently has an IQ of 80, if his confession was false - how did he manage to fabricate so much information (from the points above), recite it three times, under pressure from hardened detectives, and manage to actually match it all up with the forensic evidence, specifically things like the forensics of the Rav 4, and how he raped Halbach - why confess to that, it makes no sense to confess to the rape so why do it?

My theory is, he simply did not have the mental fortitude and character to spar with a special agent and a detective, when caught red handed for a terrible crime he's been involved in - without the intelligence and mental agility to lie his way out of the situation, plagued by guilt and shock, he simply couldn't hack it, caved in and spilt like the Exxon Valdez.
 
I did post this below in the TV thread, but seems its way more active here:

Blood splatter can be hard to win a case on, but there is plenty of other very shocking things she uncovered which would be huge red flags to any reasonable Jury:

- All the Brady violations (including completely withholding evidence such as the HDD analysis)
- The witness who spoke to the cop about the location of Teresa car
- Her planner, and how her BF obtained this when it was meant to be in her car given her last known steps
- The ballistics information from the bullet the state claimed was used to kill her

The things that stands out to me the most with the whole case that make me believe he is innocent, or at the very least not guilty in the way the state suggests:

1. If this was a horrific murder as they suggest (Rape, dismemberment etc.) then why is there not more DNA evidence to prove these things? No cuff marks on the bed, no blood in the room of the trailer, no DNA evidence etc. (from memory) to suggest these things ever happened.

2. He apparently burnt her body in a burn barrel to get rid of the evidence - there is plenty of science to confirm how hard this would be, in addition to creating yet more DNA sources to cover up. Which the state would have you believe he did very well?

3. Based on point 2: He is amazing at getting rid of a body and associated DNA evidence from a crime scene but not amazing at getting rid of a vehicle that links him to the supposed crime? Yet lives on a salvage yard I assume with access to a crusher (as you see that in Season 2)?

4. If he was so good at getting rid of DNA evidence (again as per point 2) why didn't he get rid of the painfully obvious blood from the car he didn't crush?

There are so many things that just don't add up here...
 
I posted the following in the other thread:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32226844/

tl:dr - I think they likely both did it (especially Avery) but there are definitely serious questions raised by the program. Brendan probably wouldn't have been convicted if his mother wasn't so dumb and had simply requested a lawyer. His confession is certainly borderline thus the very narrow victory by the prosecution in the full 7th circuit court of appeals but seemingly they at least found some value in it and didn't want to throw away the whole thing, especially given there are parts that weren't fed to him and are backed by evidence.

- All the Brady violations (including completely withholding evidence such as the HDD analysis)

They didn't withhold it the defence agreed to it having nothing significant/didn't bother paying attention to it - of course the defence assumed that it was worthless as they'd have assumed that any evidence on it would be potentially incriminating for their client and so would have been happy with nothing being found thus agreed to sign off on it. They didn't consider that it had some disturbing stuff to undermine Bobby as a witness.

- The witness who spoke to the cop about the location of Teresa car

That one is fishy, he only raised this after the Netflix TV show, it isn't very credible... you'd think he'd call the police upon seeing it but instead he claims he just happened to bump into the cop featured on the show, told him verbally and no one can independently verify if it ever happened.

- Her planner, and how her BF obtained this when it was meant to be in her car given her last known steps

We don't know this, this is just a handwaving argument presented in the program by Avery's lawyer without much in the way of explanation.

- The ballistics information from the bullet the state claimed was used to kill her

specifically what? The wood etc..? I don't doubt that Brendon's confession/memory is hazy at best and he's been actively attempting to lie etc.. but it is perfectly possible for the bullet to have picked up some wood, hit a wooden wall.garage door etc.. it still had her DNA on...


Well for the rest he's perhaps cleaned up some of it, some of that is also based on the assumption of how much blood was involved during the assault within Avery's trailer, they presumably didn't hit any arteries when supposedly slitting her throat else she's not need to be shot too, it isn't clear how the handcuffs were used to attach her to the bed... but they did indeed find handcuffs, they found the weapon, they found a bullet, they found a vehicle with blood from both Avery and the victim, they found evidence of a cleanup, they found the victim's bones, they found the victims property... that is a heck of a lot of running around planting evidence and multiple conspirators involved. not to mention apparent use of a crystal ball to determine that there would be some partially dried blood in the sink they could get if they happen to break into his trailer (or perhaps they were just lucky when breaking in and happened to have some pipettes etc.. with them...
 
They didn't withhold it the defence agreed to it having nothing significant/didn't bother paying attention to it - of course the defence assumed that it was worthless as they'd have assumed that any evidence on it would be potentially incriminating for their client and so would have been happy with nothing being found thus agreed to sign off on it. They didn't consider that it had some disturbing stuff to undermine Bobby as a witness.

Of course the defence weren't interested in it potentially discrediting Bobby as a witness. How would they have known?! It was listed LATE and listed INCORRECTLY as it didn't mention it was pertaining to Bobby's browsing history.

The whole thing continues to stink, even though on the evidence presented at the time it was the correct verdict as that's all the jury has to work with. But the things that have been uncovered since, and all the inconsistencies, the BS confession littered with coercion and steering have me seriously doubting the trial was fair.
 
Of course the defence weren't interested in it potentially discrediting Bobby as a witness. How would they have known?! It was listed LATE and listed INCORRECTLY as it didn't mention it was pertaining to Bobby's browsing history.

I know, this was covered in the program. The defence didn't bother to request it/look at it.

edit - I think it is the correct verdict regardless (at least as far as Avery is concerned), unless you want to buy into some rather dubious conspiracy theory about collecting up blood from his sink after happening to stumble upon it in a break in or somehow knowing it would be there etc.. and planting multiple items, multiple instances of DNA evidence etc.. it is rather ridiculous.

The Brendan aspect is a bit more of a close call with regards to the confession, though the appeals court has narrowly rules it is allowed and if we're allowed the confession then it does seem likely he was involved too.
 
I know, this was covered in the program. The defence didn't bother to request it/look at it.

They should and probably would have looked at it if it was labelled correctly. The defence failed in that regard but in my eyes that was down to dirty tactics by the prosecution, and as a result the jury didn't get to see see/hear that evidence and instead had Bobby Dassey on the stand as a credible witness.
 
They should and probably would have looked at it if it was labelled correctly. The defence failed in that regard but in my eyes that was down to dirty tactics by the prosecution, and as a result the jury didn't get to see see/hear that evidence and instead had Bobby Dassey on the stand as a credible witness.

And all those pictures of dead\cut up bodies\cild porn found on the hard drive that was downloaded by Bobby Dassey.
 

But what about Teresa's car? If he can clean up a murder scene well enough to completely get rid of "most" DNA evidence, burn a body against many scientific suggests to say its near on impossible in the way the state claim, why didn't he just crush the car too? As apparently hes a criminal mastermind....

Your right: yes the state would have to plant lots of evidence, but they had a good reason/motive to. So its not out of the realms of possibility. If its going to save them close to $40m dollars, I'm sure they would try anything.

Personally I think they didn't expect the Averys (typical redneck family) to get any support or be believed on the matter. I think they assumed anyone would believe the trustworthy state over a small redneck family like the Avery's

In addition to that what reason/motive would Avery have to want to murder someone, when he had already spent many years in prison for another wrong conviction?

None of it adds up to me. But then nothing does these days.
 
Many people make a point, or have a theory that goes something like this;

"The state hated Avery and wanted to get out of paying $36m dollars, in order to do so - they framed him for the murder of Halbach"

If that theory is true, then the person trying to advance it has a hell of a lot of work to do, because it implies that the police were complicit in either arranging the murder of Halbach or performing it directly, there's no evidence whatsoever that this took place. They could have been lucky enough to come across her body after it had been murdered by an unknown third party, but I find that even more implausible, considering she was at the Avery property when she was last seen.

Secondly, it implies that the authorities staged the entire scene - most of which was on occupied private property, along with planting all of the forensic evidence, even evidence of the aftermath (cleanup) - all of this without ever being seen once.

For me the DNA evidence makes it almost impossible for the scene to have been framed by somebody else, for example (and there are lots of them) - Avery's gun was confiscated by the police on the 6th of November (6 days after she disappeared) if the police planted the bullet in the garage, then;

- They'd have to have taken Avery's gun from the police locker
- Fired it
- Collected the bullet,
- Transferred Halbachs DNA (and only hers) onto the bullet, after she'd been burnt (would probably require a lab and DNA expert along with Halbachs DNA)
- Plant it in the garage where it could be found

That's just for the gun - you've now got to deal with the car, Avery's blood and DNA inside the car, the body, the burn pit, the fire itself (she was burnt in Averys burn pit for a fact) the bleach, her belongings, the evidence she was there with Avery on the day she disappeared, finally - They were lucky enough to get a detailed confession from Brendan with useful information in it.

There's just too much, way too much - too many moving parts, too easy to prove wrong, too many people would have to be involved, it just does not stand up in my opinion. It would have been far simpler, easier safer if the state had just bumped off Avery somehow, than to resort to killing an innocent young woman and framing Avery for it.
 
Last edited:
You do realise rednecks shoot things on thier own property ALL the time.

They could have found any bullet, and planted small trace DNA on it quite easily .....
 
You do realise rednecks shoot things on thier own property ALL the time.

They could have found any bullet, and planted small trace DNA on it quite easily .....

Ok, so if you're going to go with that - we have to assume that the rednecks in question, are not only educated in DNA, how to collect it and transfer it - they're also highly competent, because in all of the DNA evidence - there's no DNA found from any other people of significance or anything that identifies other suspects. (basically, these rednecks are pretty damn good.)

Aside from being DNA experts, they're also blood-spatter analysis experts, because the blood in the Rav 4 wasn't just thrown in there any old way, it was exactly in line with how it would be from a cut from someone's hand (from Avery) and in the back (from Halbach), exactly in line with blood and bloodied hair from a body being loaded in and out.

You see how the problems start stacking up, when you go with a planting / framing theory, or a third party planting evidence theory?
 
I wonder why the DA never mentioned that the Cell phone towers put her at a different place at the time of her death?

I think Bobby may have done it.
 
Ok, so if you're going to go with that - we have to assume that the rednecks in question, are not only educated in DNA, how to collect it and transfer it - they're also highly competent, because in all of the DNA evidence - there's no DNA found from any other people of significance or anything that identifies other suspects. (basically, these rednecks are pretty damn good.)

Aside from being DNA experts, they're also blood-spatter analysis experts, because the blood in the Rav 4 wasn't just thrown in there any old way, it was exactly in line with how it would be from a cut from someone's hand (from Avery) and in the back (from Halbach), exactly in line with blood and bloodied hair from a body being loaded in and out.

You see how the problems start stacking up, when you go with a planting / framing theory, or a third party planting evidence theory?

The blood splatter marks on the car was going downwards and not right to left as the DA said.
Pictures can't lie
 
You always have to be careful with documentaries as editors can easily lead you along a path of you believing what they want you too. However I did find that bullet evidence odd. The garage was searched thoroughly for over 8 days originally then a few months later garaged was searched again nothing was found, then on the third day a bullet was found. Then when it was getting tested, the lab tech manged to contaminate her DNA in with the results. Lab guidelines say to run the test again however apparently there was only enough DNA for one test and it couldn't be checked again.
I don't know if he did it or not. But if he did it's a strange case of him being a criminal mastermind coupled with him being a bungling idiot. For example despite being able to crush the car Avery left it on his property just waiting to be discovered, poorly hidden by a few branches. Then things like being told it was a very violet death of being stabbed, shot, throat cut etc but there wasn't any DNA evidence of her being in the in Avery's trailer or garage.
 

Basically my mindset too.

It just doesn't add up.

"Criminal mastermind yet a bungling idiot" completely summarises why i cant believe he is guilty without any reasonable doubt. There is WAY too much doubt cast from the evidence provided by the state in my opinion.

Screeeech; I'm quite baffled how you feel the blood splatter is enough to convict him on. I mean your obviously entitled to your opinion but i just cant agree with regards to that specific topic.

Also re-reading what you put I think you misunderstood my point ref the bullet - but doesn't matter!
 
It just doesn't add up.

"Criminal mastermind yet a bungling idiot" completely summarises why i cant believe he is guilty without any reasonable doubt. There is WAY too much doubt cast from the evidence provided by the state in my opinion.

Indeed. Which is why i'd love to see a re-trial on this with ALL relevant evidence disclosed and with all the extra information gathered.
 
Back
Top Bottom