http://jezebel.com/making-a-murderer-victim-juror-react-to-series-i-cant-1751101514?utm_campaign=socialflow_jezebel_facebook&utm_source=jezebel_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Quote :

"On Tuesday morning’s edition of the Today Show, documentarians Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos shared that a juror in the trial that ultimately convicted Avery of Halbach’s murder recently came to them to confess that they, too, believed that Avery had been wrongly convicted of the second crime. “They believe that Steven was framed by law enforcement, and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin,” said Ricciardi. “Obviously we asked this person, explain what happened, why did you cast your vote for guilty?” continued Demos. “And what they told us was that they feared for their personal safety.”"

1/5/2016 1:36:52 PM

i can believe that his sweat is there for a legitimate reason over either of these two idiots being able to forensically clear that garage and/or house

hey guy that owns an auto salvage yard and works on cars for a living - my car's been idling weird, can you take a look?

1/5/2016 1:41:37 PM

There was one questioning of Colburn in the trial that really threw me, and they never really seemed to dive into.

At some point didn't they find a record of him calling in to dispatch about the RAV and the license plate after she was reported missing but before the search of the compound?

1/5/2016 2:05:23 PM

^Yep, I mentioned that on the last page but there are a lot of different back and forths going on so it wasn't really addressed. That was the "cliffhanger" on the episode after they found out his blood vial evidence case had been tampered with.

1/5/2016 2:10:26 PM

Wraith and Dynasty, here is Dean Strang addressing the juror being the father of a Manitowoc County Sherriff.

https://youtu.be/S9h5C901lGE?t=4m55s

From my understanding, potential jurors are submitted and each side is allowed 6 removals. In this interview, Strang said they used up all 6. I can only guess that the 6 they used were horribly against SA from the beginning of the case for them to allow a Sherriff's father on the jury.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/5/2016 2:27:16 PM

Oh yeah, kinda forgot about that. There were so many shady things that happened.

Also, not only was the evidence box opened and re-taped shut with scotch tape (both the outside box and inside box), and not only was there a pin prick hole in the blood vile, do I recall correctly that it was supposed to contain other items that were not in the box (maybe hair and fingernails or something)?

1/5/2016 2:57:55 PM

Quote :

" i can believe that his sweat is there for a legitimate reason over either of these two idiots being able to forensically clear that garage and/or house hey guy that owns an auto salvage yard and works on cars for a living - my car's been idling weird, can you take a look?"

Or
hey guy that I told my boss was creepy and I didn't want to come near you, please come look at my car

Yeah, neither of these happened.

^^ It's a small county, it's likely that a large percentage of the jury pool knows someone that works for the county. That doesn't really mean anything.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ]

1/5/2016 3:03:47 PM

LOL, you seem so sure of yourself.

You've said a few times that Teresa told her boss he was creepy and answered the door in a towel. Where did this come from? Did he (Teresa's boss) testify to her saying this? I'm not saying it wasn't said, just wondering where it came from. I did a very quick google search, couldn't find it, but found this in the comments section of what looks like a blog.

Quote :

"And here you are calling the makers of the documentary unethical, as you call Avery a lowlife and a creep!! Do you honestly think that regurgitating unverified information as facts is ethical on your part?? You repeated Ken Kratz’s version of the towel incident and stated that she told her boss she never wanted to go back there because he was creepy, despite the fact that this is not what the receptionist testified to!!"

If it just came from Kratz (prosectur), again, I wouldn't trust a word that guy said.

1/5/2016 3:19:01 PM

that one reporter was hot tho

1/5/2016 3:25:25 PM

I'm not sure of myself, other than this tv show and the articles I linked to, I don't know anything about this case. The prosecutor noted the documentary shows 4hrs of a 2 week long case. I don't think anyone should be sure of anything here.

I don't see where 267,000 people find the justification to sign a petition demanding the president pardon this guy. This just seems

The one easily provable thing that could have given some teeth to the idea of a frame-up, the planted blood, was scientifically tested to not have been planted. The test could be flawed, but a flawed test is better than the baseless conjecture of a defense attorney.

But even outside of this, wouldn't there be a log or camera footage of a cop stealing the blood sample? Wouldn't someone at the lab have to be complicit, they couldn't track anyone down willing to squeal?

Or for the ashes, when would these ashes have been moved? What would they have been moved in? WOuldn't they have to have been moved before the investigation started? Seems like you could find evidence that someone took the time to burn a body (which in my experience with burning stuff, would take many, many hours), collected these ashes into some type of container, and instead of discarding them somewhere, drove to Avery's house to dump them in his backyard without him knowing.

Or... Avery burned the body in his yard when he was done, thinking the bones would be completely gone, but was wrong.

Which seems more likely?

All "Making of a Murder" shows is conjecture of what "could" have happened, the one actually testable claim they made (the blood) was not in their favor.

It seems very possible the detectives could have planted the bullet and keys, but this would warrant a retrial (which would still probably find Avery guilty based on the other evidence).

1/5/2016 3:32:37 PM

There was potential testimony from the secretary with the Auto magazine that would have said they had a conversation about SA being creepy and her not wanting to go back, him answering the door in the towel. However she wasn't allowed to testify(but can't remember the reason that was given). Also don't remember where I read this.

That was partly what is giving some legs to reason for him calling and using *67/giving fake name as his sister so that she would still show up or why she was still sent there when asking not to be sent there anymore if you think he did it.

However I'm trying to keep in mind that being backwoods, weird, and creepy, doesn't equal murdering someone. I'm sure we've all come across a lot of people that are just different, and this is def. one of those families that is a bit backwards. I think a lot of people view being different like that as a potential to do something bad, maybe seen Deliverance a few to many times, but I think the guy was just very odd more than anything. And when that is combined with the low IQ I'm sure it comes off with that vibe more than intended. She didn't seem to feel threatened, just creeped out by him based on what I had read.

1/5/2016 3:40:06 PM

Quote :

"It seems very possible the detectives could have planted the bullet and keys"

so you're saying that there's a reason to doubt?

1/5/2016 3:43:52 PM

Dude has an IQ of 70. Him answering the door in a towel isn't unreasonable. Just my thoughts on things that potentially could explain some of the things you mentioned though:

Quote :

"wouldn't there be a log or camera footage of a cop stealing the blood sample?"

I think they said Lenk or Colborn had a key/access to wherever the blood vial was. SOMEONE opened that package and poked a hole in the vial, but they didn't mention anything about any legitimate log entries dealing with the vial. Couldn't one of them have just gone in after hours when nobody was around?

Quote :

"Or for the ashes, when would these ashes have been moved? What would they have been moved in? WOuldn't they have to have been moved before the investigation started?"

Could have been moved in the middle of the night? Maybe moved in the burn barrel (hence fragments found in the barrel). They didn't find the car for like 5 days right, so I'd assume that is plenty of time to burn a body and plant the ashes.

Quote :

"Avery burned the body in his yard when he was done, thinking the bones would be completely gone, but was wrong."

He shot her in the head, then loaded her body in her car, drove it 5 feet to the burn site, then burned it?

Quote :

"that one reporter was hot tho"

Damn right

1/5/2016 3:47:00 PM

Quote :

"The one easily provable thing that could have given some teeth to the idea of a frame-up, the planted blood, was scientifically tested to not have been planted. The test could be flawed, but a flawed test is better than the baseless conjecture of a defense attorney."

It was tested by a test that had stopped being used by the FBI because it had scientifically been proven to not be a reliable test.

Quote :

"But even outside of this, wouldn't there be a log or camera footage of a cop stealing the blood sample?"

I thought it was pretty obvious that it had been tampered with. It was inside two boxes. Both boxes had the original tape cut, and was re-taped with scotch tape. And there was a tiny hole in the top of the vial. And wasn't other items supposed to be in the box (hair and fingernails, iirc?)

Quote :

"Wouldn't someone at the lab have to be complicit, "

Why? They did the test, and it came back showing that the preservative was not detected. But the test was scientifically proven to be unreliable... (and that lab technician was very sketchy on the stand).

Quote :

"WOuldn't they [ashes] have to have been moved before the investigation started?"

Not really. When they investigated the house, they made everyone on the 40-acre property leave and didn't allow them back on for seven days. The ashes could have moved anytime during that. Or they could have been moved to the trailer burnpit in the middle of the night after they had the bonfire (Halloween night).

Quote :

"Seems like you could find evidence that someone took the time to burn a body"

They found evidence of another burn pit in a quarry that had small bone fragments of hers. Is that not evidence?

Quote :

"Or... Avery burned the body in his yard when he was done, thinking the bones would be completely gone, but was wrong."

And then he decided to move a small amount of them to a nearby quarry, but leave all the rest of them in his backyard and in barrells near his house? That doesn't make a lot of sense either.


[and I'll readily admit that some of the details of my recollection of what was presented in the film may not be accurate, call me out I misstate something]

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 4:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/5/2016 3:49:25 PM

Quote :

"I don't see where 267,000 people find the justification to sign a petition demanding the president pardon this guy. This just seems "

I agree with you here. I think there's plenty of reasonable doubt and shady shit that occured during the investigation and trial to warrant a re-trial (and the fact that the prosecutor was proven to be an unethical sleazebag), but don't think a presidential pardon is warranted.

1/5/2016 3:51:15 PM

maybe birds and vermin of various sorts gnawed on the bones for sustenance and drug them all to another location, that happened to be another burn pit

1/5/2016 3:54:36 PM

Quote :

"Dude has an IQ of 70."

I thought this was just the kid, did Avery have the low IQ too?

Quote :

"so you're saying that there's a reason to doubt?"

For those pieces of evidence, based on what's shown in the TV show, seems that way. I don't really know how other murder investigations go though, do they typically find the smallest pieces of evidence the first go round, or do they take multiple passes? How does this compare to other murder investigations? Or should I just accept the insinuation of a man's defense lawyer that a suspect who could have possibly raped and murdered a woman is really innocent because investigators might have done a bad job searching?

Quote :

"I think they said Lenk or Colborn had a key/access to wherever the blood vial was. SOMEONE opened that package and poked a hole in the vial, but they didn't mention anything about any legitimate log entries dealing with the vial. Couldn't one of them have just gone in after hours when nobody was around? "

As someone that doesn't work in a forensics lab, this means nothing to me either way. They never testified that if the tape was open and there was a hole, this means the evidence was compromised. They insinuated this in the video, but it was never directly stated. For all I know, this is how this type of thing is commonly handled. But i'm not going to take the insinuation by a lawyer in a Netflix video that this is a real problem. Show me someone that works in the lab in a position of authority explaining how that tape was broken or what the hole means, then maybe this is meaningful.

Quote :

"Could have been moved in the middle of the night? Maybe moved in the burn barrel (hence fragments found in the barrel). They didn't find the car for like 5 days right, so I'd assume that is plenty of time to burn a body and plant the ashes. "

If they were moved in the burn barrel, that makes the theory they were planted even less likely. Barrels are a pain to move, especially if they are filled with burned stuff. And if some barrels just showed up in my backyard after news reports of a dead woman, i'd call the police.

Quote :

"He shot her in the head, then loaded her body in her car, drove it 5 feet to the burn site, then burned it? "

I don't know, it's not clear how she ended up being burnt. He could have stashed her in the car, then burned her later. He could have beat her in the car, then dragged her body around. There's not much evidence either way on what exactly happened.

Quote :

"It was tested by a test that had stopped being used by the FBI because it had scientifically been proven to not be a reliable test. "

Where did you see this? Why was it considered unreliable? And doesn't this just mean whether the blood was planted or not is, at best, inconclusive? We still have Avery's DNA on the latch of the hood, which Avery hasn't explained. Maybe she did have car trouble, but wouldn't Avery have mentioned this?

Quote :

"I thought it was pretty obvious that it had been tampered with. It was inside two boxes. Both boxes had the original tape cut, and was re-taped with scotch tape. And there was a tiny hole in the top of the vial. "

They wanted you to think it was obvious in the video, but this doesn't mean it's really been tampered with. The video just shows the lawyer whispering to the camera "they said this isn't normal". Who is "they" and why didn't they interview them? I don't recall them putting up a witness to say that the evidence was accessed outside protocol, and you'd think a forensics lab would have safeguards to monitor that type of thing wouldn't you?

Quote :

"And then he decided to move a small amount of them to a nearby quarry, but leave all the rest of them in his backyard and in barrells near his house? That doesn't make a lot of sense either. "

That does make sense, that he did a bad job of trying to hide the evidence. Maybe he took her to the quarry, she wasn't burning so good, then he wrapped her up and brought her back to his trailer, i dunno. Maybe after he burned her he could only find those ashes and then took them to the quarry. Maybe the cops planted the bones in the quarry. Either way, a bunch of a dead woman's stuff ended up in his burn pit(s), along with her car, the same day he called her on the phone; his nephew as dumb, as he is, repeatedly implicated him in the murder, gave actionable details that lead to Avery's DNA being found on her car.

There's a lot of things to speculate on, the burned body obscures many details, but still seems to point back to Avery.

1/5/2016 4:22:07 PM

I believe they said Avery had a 76 iq in the first episode?

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 4:32 PM. Reason : oh so you're a guilty until proven innocent advocate then?]

1/5/2016 4:31:29 PM

Quote :

"Where did you see this? Why was it considered unreliable? "

I don't exactly recall. The lawyer stated that the testing for EDTA (preservative to keep blood from clotting) had been discontinued by the FBI because it was shown to be unreliable. And somebody testified on the stand (FBI? Lab Tecnician? I don't remember who) that the test just showed that it wasn't detected, but that didn't mean it wasn't in there, just that it wasn't detected, and that it wasn't a reliable test.

^And yeah, it all comes down to innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I think there was all kinds of reasonable doubt about their case against him.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 4:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/5/2016 4:38:13 PM

Avery has an IQ of 70 and Dassey has an IQ of 73. I think Avery's IQ test was from the 80's when he was originally on trial though, so not sure if testing standards have changed or anything since then.

The forensics lab thing was kind of weird. They showed it as a cliffhanger but never really said much more about it. I agree with you in that I'd think they would bring up the issue of logbooks, any evidence of tampering, etc., but they just left it at the preservative test and nothing else.

With regard to the burn barrel, they didn't actually show any pictures of it or anything, but given that it was a junkyard there was stuff all over the place anyway. There could have been a bunch of other barrels laying around. One could have been taken and loaded up or one could have just been added to a group of them.

1/5/2016 4:46:36 PM

Quote :

"Avery has an IQ of 70 and Dassey has an IQ of 73. I think Avery's IQ test was from the 80's when he was originally on trial though, so not sure if testing standards have changed or anything since then."

Okay, i didn't watch the first 2 episodes, so missed that part. That seems to make sense then why he did such a half-assed job covering up this murder.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 5:51 PM. Reason : ]

1/5/2016 5:49:51 PM

I find shows like these so interesting, but I loathe when they purposefully show a skewed view of the events and then feign like that wasn't their intent. Even the name of the show ("Making a Murderer") is heavily loaded in its insinuation that the police 'made' a murderer.

Yes, there is strong evidence showing police misconduct and planting evidence.
Yes, the story as told by prosecution does not make a lot of sense.
Yes, he was likely convicted by bad evidence.

He still could be a murderer, though.
. . . and likely is assuming the transcript between Brennan and his mom (which I would assume is not coerced) is accurate.

1/5/2016 6:20:19 PM

Quote :

"was scientifically tested to not have been planted"

not at all...They swabbed 6 total examples and only tested 3 of them for the EDMT. Those 3 did not show EDMT but he got the tech on that because he said just because it doesn't show up in those 3 did not mean that it was not on the other 3 and they could not be sure that the evidence of those swabs was provided correctly by the police dept. considering how shady they were.

The WHOLE thing screams corruption from the top. Avery probably should have declared a mistrial when that juror was excused...he would have gotten more time.

I don't see how there isn't a test to detect EDMT...chances are there is one but the State doesn't want to go through with it because they know.

I feel that he will get another trial simply because of all the attention...too many things stand out as being either planted, inconsistent or totally flat out WRONG.

and yes...that reporter could get it.

1/5/2016 6:36:14 PM

Speaking as someone who does Validation for a living when they bring up the validation documents for the EDMT test method they mean they never established a Limit of Detection for the method. That means you can not reliably attest that the samples didn't have EDMT just that the method didn't detect it which could be because the method wasn't sensitive enough with the small sample size of the swab samples. One other thing (which was never talked about in documentary portion of the trial) about validating test methods for swabs is that you also have to establish the baseline recovery you are getting from each swab. Without that the test results are worthless which is what the analyst the Defense was trying to convey to the jury.

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 7:02 PM. Reason : M]

1/5/2016 7:01:10 PM

M

[Edited on January 5, 2016 at 7:03 PM. Reason : Oops double post from my phone ]

1/5/2016 7:01:10 PM

I approve validations (QA) and thought the exact same thing.

1/5/2016 8:06:45 PM

Quote :

"Even the name of the show ("Making a Murderer") is heavily loaded in its insinuation that the police 'made' a murderer."

I didn't take that from the name. If you think he was the murderer it implies that the system and it's failures that put him in place for 18 years caused him to become a murderer, made him snap, etc.. If you think he was framed, setup, or just innocent in general then the name implies that they made him out to be the murderer. If anything the name is just clever, not pushing an agenda.

1/5/2016 9:02:01 PM

The detection limit of EDTA by mass spec is in nanogram. The amount of EDTA required per mL of blood is in microgram, so they should be able to detect it. I don't know how to explain this mystery either.

Quote :

"Methods of detection and analysis The most sensitive method of detecting and measuring EDTA in biological samples is selected-reaction-monitoring capillary-electrophoresis mass-spectrometry (abbreviation SRM-CE/MS), which has a detection limit of 7.3 ng/mL in human plasma and a quantitation limit of 15 ng/mL.[35] This method works with sample volumes as small as ~7–8 nL.[35] EDTA has also been measured in non-alcoholic beverages using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) at a level of 2.0 µg/mL.[36][37]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylenediaminetetraacetic_acid

1/5/2016 9:31:51 PM

i feel like I've heard on law & order type shows prosecutors saying that they "make a murder" if they convict someone of murder. short for "make a murder charge" I guess.

1/5/2016 9:33:37 PM

I've watched episodes 1 and 2. From these, I feel like I got all I needed to know about the first investigation being shady. And I'm already convinced that the dude is guilty. Is it worth watching anymore?

I love how these kinds of documentaries bring out people's conspiracy theories hardcore. Same shit with Serial.

1/6/2016 8:59:15 AM

Quote :

" From these, I feel like I got all I needed to know about the first investigation being shady. And I'm already convinced that the dude is guilty. Is it worth watching anymore?"

Why do you feel that way without even knowing any facts yet? Why would you jump to that unfounded conclusion? Unfortunately, I imagine a few of the jurors felt the same way before they heard any of the evidence. Again, he may be guilty, but it doesn't take "conspiracy theories" to realize there was all kinds of shady shit going on in the new investigation, and there was plenty of reasonable doubt as to whether he's guilty, at least from what was in the show and other info I've read on the internet.

[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 9:35 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2016 9:22:09 AM

Mainly because I think it's far more likely that a man with 70 IQ does a shit job of cleaning up evidence of him murdering a woman than it is that these idiot cops stage a world class framing by 1) tailing the dude 2) murdering a woman who was last seen on his property and 3) then planting all related evidence/DNA right back on the property. Plus the dude just looks and sounds like he's lying frankly.

All that's just my impression, not a certainty beyond reasonable doubt.

But then I read through this thread and see the mountains and mountains of evidence against Avery and now it really doesn't seem worth finishing the show. Feel free to convince me otherwise.

1/6/2016 9:39:29 AM

Quote :

"Mainly because I think it's far more likely that a man with 70 IQ does a shit job of cleaning up evidenc"

if they (avery and his nephew) did it the way the prosecution says (tying her to a bed, cutting her up, raping her, slashing her throat, dragging her to the garage, shooting her 11 times, and dragging her to his backyard), he did an absolutely meticulous job of cleaning it up. Better than most experts could. Blood and DNA would be everywhere (iirc, wasn't the bed still in his house? how would he clean a bed where a woman was cut-up, her throat was slashed, and she was raped? if he shot her 11 times in the garage of a hoarder that had dust-covered junk stacked waste-high, how would he clean blood and guts and bones that would splatter everywhere?)

And it wasn't a "world class frame". If it was a frame, it wouldn't be hard for some people with lots of power with full access to the property for seven days to do it the way it was done. They didn't actually have to commit the murder to frame him.

Quote :

"see the mountains and mountains of evidence"

There wasn't "mountains" of evidence. A few things that could easily be planted under the circumstances, and a lot of circumstantial stuff that doesn't prove that he murdered her.

Quote :

"Feel free to convince me otherwise."

You should probably just watch it.

[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 10:03 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2016 9:44:46 AM

You should watch the rest.

Because a guy with a 70 IQ does not forensically clean his bedroom (where she was purportedly bound raped and lacerated) and a hoarder level garage (purported murder scene) and then leave her car key with just his DNA on it in the same bedroom.

1/6/2016 9:46:43 AM

A key, mind you, that only had his DNA on it (not hers) that was just lying on the carpet in plain site in the bedroom where she was supposedly tortured. A key that was somehow missed by professional investigation teams during multiple searches for several days, and only found days later by the non-local sheriff's department that wasn't even supposed to be involved in the investigation because of a conflict of interest.

[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2016 9:52:33 AM

and then forgets to clean blood up in the car

1/6/2016 9:53:36 AM

That he supposedly just parked in his lot and laid a few branches on, despite having access to a car crusher. And absolutely no explanation of why her blood was in the trunk of the car if the events went-down the way the prosecution said they did (she parked in his front-yard and he kidnapped, tortured, murdered and burned her at his house/garage)

1/6/2016 10:06:19 AM

There are definitely some corrupt officials in Manitowoc County. As soon as the van was found on the Avery property, the Manitowoc sheriff's and police departments should've only been involved as perimeter security if at all. The active civil suit between the Averys and the department created an enormous conflict of interest with any Manitowoc department conducting an investigation on the Avery property. I feel there should be a re-trial, but he definitely shouldn't be given a pardon.

1/6/2016 1:13:49 PM

I don't know how they could possibly retry him if they every decide that the Sheriff's department's involvement was a conflict of interest. They'd have to throw out almost all of the physical evidence since there was Sheriffs all over that crime scene for over a week.

1/6/2016 1:33:50 PM

That's the big problem. All the evidence and the Manitowoc departments involvement is so interwoven that it's a big clusterfuck.

I might have missed, so correct me if I'm wrong. With the EDTA testing, did the FBI test the purple vial blood from Avery to make sure their machines detected the EDTA, or did they just test the 3 swabs from the vehicle?

1/6/2016 2:16:27 PM

Quote :

"That he supposedly just parked in his lot and laid a few branches on, despite having access to a car crusher. And absolutely no explanation of why her blood was in the trunk of the car if the events went-down the way the prosecution said they did (she parked in his front-yard and he kidnapped, tortured, murdered and burned her at his house/garage)"

If he crushed the car, that almost guarantees Avery's guilt, because it's not like anyone can just roll up and crush a car whenever they want.

He would have been screwed either way, but it worked out better for him to just park the car and try to hide it.

1/6/2016 2:24:56 PM

If he had crushed that car it would be next to impossible to identify for a layman, thus giving the police no initial evidence to lock down the compound and much harder to even secure a warrant.

1/6/2016 2:29:25 PM

Quote :

"If he crushed the car, that almost guarantees Avery's guilt"

If they were able to find it and identify it.

Quote :

"but it worked out better for him to just park the car and try to hide it"

There you go again with your definitive statements of his guilt.

If he did such a meticulous professional job of wiping away every single piece of DNA evidence in his bedroom, on the bed where he spilled her blood and the kid raped her, in the garage where he blew her brains out, etc. etc., don't you think he'd be smart enough to try to park it somewhere less noticeable on the 40 acre property with 1000s of cars, and hide it a little better than laying a few branches on it and not even removing the license plate? The picture showed that it was parked on the very outside perimeter.

Between your comments on all the BLM threads and then in here, I just can't figure you out.

[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2016 2:48:45 PM

That and I feel like he could have just piled a bunch of other cars on top of it and hidden a lot better than just throwing some sticks and branches over it. If he had even just thrown a tarp over it and weighed it down with some cinderblocks or something, it would probably have been over looked in the sea of cars by that lady who found it.

1/6/2016 2:50:14 PM

Quote :

" If he had crushed that car it would be next to impossible to identify for a layman, thus giving the police no initial evidence to lock down the compound and much harder to even secure a warrant. "

This is not event remotely true... crushed cars don't vaporize, they still are very large and obvious and easy to identify. Even if they used a shredder, the pieces are very big still.

Quote :

"If he did such a meticulous professional job of wiping away every single piece of DNA evidence in his bedroom, on the bed where he spilled her blood and the kid raped her, in the garage where he blew her brains out, etc. etc., don't you think he'd be smart enough to try to park it somewhere less noticeable on the 40 acre property with 1000s of cars, and hide it a little better than laying a few branches on it and not even removing the license plate? The picture showed that it was parked on the very outside perimeter. "

DNA isn't like on TV shows, you realize this right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect

And in 2005, DNA technology was less advanced than now anyway.

Quote :

"Between your comments on all the BLM threads and then in here, I just can't figure you out."

LOL, not sure what you mean by this...?

[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2016 2:59:18 PM

Do you remember who found the car and how she found it? She probably wouldn't be able to find and identify a crushed car if it was thrown in a pile of 100s of other crushed cars. Of course unelss someone with knowledge of where it was drew her a map and told her where to start looking.

Quote :

"DNA isn't like on TV shows, you realize this right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect And in 2005, DNA technology was less advanced than now anyway."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Maybe you could explain further? I know that the prosectuion described an extremely brutal torture and murder scene in both the bedroom and the garage, where blood and guts and bones would be scattered all over the place. I would think that any halfway competent investigation team would be able to find blood, guts, bone, or DNA somehwhere if the murder happened the way they said it happened. Where am I wrong? How does your wikipedia link refute this?

Quote :

"LOL, not sure what you mean by this...?"

I mean, in those threads you constantly go out of your way to give citizens the benefit of the doubt and blame the cops.... but in this case it seems like you're doing the exact opposite, and seem to be convinced that the citizen is guilty and the cops are innocent, when there is all kinds of things that cast reasonable doubt on the conclusions you've made. It's weird.

[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 3:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2016 3:02:13 PM

^ that's true, but investigators would have gotten around to it at some point, and it wouldn't have taken them long to match up a VIN (which is stamped on most if not all parts of a car-- as im sure you know).

Quote :

"I mean, in those threads you constantly go out of your way to give citizens the benefit of the doubt and blame the cops.... but in this case it seems like you're doing the exact opposite, and seem to be convinced that the citizen is guilty and the cops are innocent, when there is all kinds of things that cast reasonable doubt on the conclusions you've made. It's weird."

I'm only ever interested in justice. I don't hate cops or love citizens. I'm a little alarmed at how people see so convinced by this Netflix show, when the evidence they put in the show is really inconclusive as it is, would be meaningless without their insinuations, and the fuller body of evidence points to Avery doing it.


[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 3:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2016 3:04:26 PM

If he went so far as to crush it you think he'd do a thorough job, plus hide it under at lease a couple other cars. How would volunteer searchers, even if they did spot it, get to it to even have the chance to pull a VIN? I'm also not sure if this podunk county would have the financial resources to pull apart a crushed vehicle to search for minute forensic clues.

Again, you can't have it both ways. This is a man with an IQ of Forrest Gump, if he's leaving the car out under some brush and dropping DNA laced keys by his shoes he can't also be mastermind enough to forensically clean 2 crime scenes.

I'm not saying the man is innocent, but you have to acknowledge that there is some seriously shady circumstances surrounding the 'evidence' the prosecution had at hand.

1/6/2016 3:07:34 PM

^^Again, the compound was only locked down after some random woman happened to stumble across the intact car, with license plate, on the very outskirts of the compound.

Quote :

"which is stamped on most if not all parts of a car-- as im sure you know"

I'm sure the guy who works on cars and sells them for a living also knows this....

[Edited on January 6, 2016 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2016 3:08:25 PM

Quote :

"Again, the compound was only locked down after some random woman happened to stumble across the intact car, with license plate, on the very outskirts of the compound."

After searching for half an hour.

1/6/2016 3:10:14 PM