Making a Murderer - Netflix

Yeah... the big question that remains is: who actually did kill Teresa.

This may be a bit of a stretch but... does anybody else think that brother, the spokesperson for the Halbach family, is a bit weird? In IIRC the first time he appears in MAM, his sister was still missing, it wasn't clear that she was murdered yet. He was interviewed for a TV show and asked to comment on the situation and he said something that struck me as very strange. Can't remember what it was exactly but it was something about the period of grieving that would start after a body was found, and then immediately after it, as if correcting himself, he said something along the lines of "but of course, we hope to find her back alive".

Now I understand he was under a lot of stress but still... I thought it was weird.

The ex boyfriend was also very strange.

Don't forget her flatmate as well.

Never mind the key not having her DNA on it, where the hell were her other keys? No house keys, key rings or anything!

"I just guessed her password and made up a username"

I can't believe he got away with that. Such obvious bollocks.

Just finished Ep 6, straight into 7

Watched 5 Episodes tonight, final 5 tomorrow, so f'n addictive. Love it.

Photek wrote:The car key found after the 7th search is so blatantly planted that he should get a mis-trial, not only was the key miraculously not noticed but only avery's dna was on it, not the victims, despite her driving the car with that key for several years, blates was wiped clean and added averys blood, which in turn means they added his blood to the car. The needle hole in the blood sample was strawberry floating mental.

I recently finished Listening to Serial, a similar podcast in which dodgy evidence is used to convict a guy...thing is, I actually think he did it, like blatantly did it.

When you first take the blood it gets in the tube using a needle. The hole doesn't seem to me to be that big an issue.
There is blood in an unnatural place at the lid of the bottle though, so I still think evidence it was tampered with

Turboman wrote:

Photek wrote:The car key found after the 7th search is so blatantly planted that he should get a mis-trial, not only was the key miraculously not noticed but only avery's dna was on it, not the victims, despite her driving the car with that key for several years, blates was wiped clean and added averys blood, which in turn means they added his blood to the car. The needle hole in the blood sample was strawberry floating mental.

I recently finished Listening to Serial, a similar podcast in which dodgy evidence is used to convict a guy...thing is, I actually think he did it, like blatantly did it.

When you first take the blood it gets in the tube using a needle. The hole doesn't seem to me to be that big an issue.
There is blood in an unnatural place at the lid of the bottle though, so I still think evidence it was tampered with

I thought they made the point that they wouldn't ever use a needle on a tube?

I only finished watching this last night and I am not sure what to think. The documentary was obviously only showing one side of things, it's important to realise that they were not showing the cops/states point of view but the Avery side of things.

With that said though, the conviction of Brandon at least looks very dodgy. The DA saying things like "innocent people don't confess" is utter bollocks when you are dealing with a "normal" person, let alone a slow kid like him.

With Steven, I am not sure. It doesn't make any sense that he would rape and stab somebody in his bedroom, move her to the garage to shoot her, put her back in the boot of her own vehicle and then burn her just behind his bedroom. The state utterly failed to provide a proper narrative of what actually happened (assuming Steven killed her).

The state wants people to believe that Steven and Brandon (both slow individuals) cleaned up a crime scene so well that there was no evidence to be found at all, but then just left the vehicle in the yard, the bones in the fire pit and a bit of blood in the vehicle? Utter bullshit.

It's possible that they killed her but it certainly wasn't done in the bedroom/garage if they did. More likely (again assuming Steven guilty) he killed her elsewhere and then brought her back to burn the body. There is a massive amount of reasonable doubt there though.

Even if we accept the blood in the vehicle and the bones in the fire pit, the key was still an obvious plant. And that alone make the conviction unsafe (imo) and a new trial should be held.

Moggy wrote:I thought they made the point that they wouldn't ever use a needle on a tube?

They did. Also, the seal on the box had been broken.

It's weird how during Stevens trail ***next parts a spoiler and I don't know how to use spoiler boxes on tapatalk***

How kratz said during his closing argument that only one man done this and one man is guilty of this yet two men gets locked up for it.

shadow202 wrote:It's weird how during Stevens trail ***next parts a spoiler and I don't know how to use spoiler boxes on tapatalk***

How kratz said during his closing argument that only one man done this and one man is guilty of this yet two men gets locked up for it.

Strang made the point that this is somewhat of an accepted legal loophole, he pointed to a case in which 2 guys are convicted of murdering one person by having 2 trials and in one trial person A was the killer who shot the victim and in trial person B the other was the killer who shot the victim ending up with 2 guilty verdicts for 1 crime. It apparently happens a lot, which I find bizarre.

Shadow wrote:"I just guessed her password and made up a username"

I can't believe he got away with that. Such obvious bollocks.

That was so weird also, never got pushed on that point, plus he couldn't provide what the password was or how he got it.

Moggy wrote:

Turboman wrote:

Photek wrote:The car key found after the 7th search is so blatantly planted that he should get a mis-trial, not only was the key miraculously not noticed but only avery's dna was on it, not the victims, despite her driving the car with that key for several years, blates was wiped clean and added averys blood, which in turn means they added his blood to the car. The needle hole in the blood sample was strawberry floating mental.

I recently finished Listening to Serial, a similar podcast in which dodgy evidence is used to convict a guy...thing is, I actually think he did it, like blatantly did it.

When you first take the blood it gets in the tube using a needle. The hole doesn't seem to me to be that big an issue.
There is blood in an unnatural place at the lid of the bottle though, so I still think evidence it was tampered with

It's possible that they killed her but it certainly wasn't done in the bedroom/garage if they did. More likely (again assuming Steven guilty) he killed her elsewhere and then brought her back to burn the body. There is a massive amount of reasonable doubt there though.

The problem with that as I said on a previous page is the burnt remains that were found at the quarry. Why burn her then move the remains to your own property (or, assuming it was the other way round, leave the majority of the remains on your property)?

So frustrating, I just find myself going round in round in circles about what could have happened.

Also this tickled me:

I'm 5 episodes in. From what I've heard, we don't even find out if they are guilty or not?

That depends whether you mean they are convicted or whether they actually did it.

Episode 8 was horrible to watch as it reminds you in episode 1 how happy Steven was when released

Moggy wrote:

Turboman wrote:

Photek wrote:The car key found after the 7th search is so blatantly planted that he should get a mis-trial, not only was the key miraculously not noticed but only avery's dna was on it, not the victims, despite her driving the car with that key for several years, blates was wiped clean and added averys blood, which in turn means they added his blood to the car. The needle hole in the blood sample was strawberry floating mental.

I recently finished Listening to Serial, a similar podcast in which dodgy evidence is used to convict a guy...thing is, I actually think he did it, like blatantly did it.

When you first take the blood it gets in the tube using a needle. The hole doesn't seem to me to be that big an issue.
There is blood in an unnatural place at the lid of the bottle though, so I still think evidence it was tampered with

I thought they made the point that they wouldn't ever use a needle on a tube?

I believe they did at some point, but to get the blood into a vacuum blood bottle in the first place you need a needle.
This is how the majority of blood tests work across the world.
The needle going into the arm is attached to a second , hidden needle, which punctures the bottle and delivers the blood to the tube. This means you shouldn't have to remove the cap (which it looks like someone has done)
It doesn't make sense for the bottles to be used in another way