Making a Murderer?

Once more. Last time ... The people that made the movie openly admit they cherry-picked what they felt was relevant to tell Avery's side of the story. It's still part of the whole that was already reported on by multiple sources. In other words ... Nothing new. Same stuff that has already been covered, but slanted in such a way as to tell Avery's side. The guy that's OBVIOUSLY going to claim his innocence. There is no need to watch a movie covering admittedly cherry-picked evidence for the sole purpose of telling their chosen narrative. Especially when that same evidence is already out there as a part of the whole.

If that same person saying it was a bad movie has already seen his career play out in it's entirety, studied all of it b/c it was fascinating, and already knows the producers of the movie slanted the story and admittedly cherry-picked the "facts" for the movie. Then I come along and say he has no opinion on it because he didn't watch it ... Yes. Exactly.

 

Papa, I'm going to have to admit that Funk has an excellent point. A documentary is supposed to be a factual video showing all the points of a subject and not suggesting anything one way or the other. At least that's what I've always seen and believed. In this case the family has authorized a video that they're calling a documentary that only gives the facts that hint at their family member's innocence. It's one sided and doesn't prove anything since there are other facts that were left out. It is, in fact, a movie and not a documentary. Does that make sense?

 

Crooked cops and judge,trial should have been thrown out and him set free.Guilty or not.

 

It would, if it had more to do with what I said.

I stated in no uncertain terms that I haven't watched the documentary. So I can't comment on it. I never made any claims that it was fair or accurate. I'm just saying that you have to watch something before you can say it's bad. Otherwise, you're basically just commenting on other people's comments. That's all. I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

Fair enough. I'm not saying guilty or innocent.

Do you feel the cops handle the situation appropriately?

You feel that there was no suspicious activity from the police?

I don't care where you live, by the sheer factual evidence that could not be explained, or the evidence that showed up conveniently after 4 searches, or the evidence (lack thereof) of a fucking throat slit and shot 10 times, then you are part of the problem.

Dustin, you have formed your opinion already. Can you explain that?

I don't care how smart or stupid you are, NOBODY would be able to clean that garage of any blood evidence especially someone shot 10 times in there.

And where was the blood on the bed? Ya know where her throat was cut? No blood there, non on the walls, celing, sheets, door frame, etc. come on guys, I know you follow forensics...

We won't even get into the nature of the remains.

 

There was plenty about this case that was messed up, to be sure. It in no way sways my opinion that he's guilty as hell as the primary instigator of the crime.

If we're moving away from my issues with this "documentary", I'll give my take on it. I'm of the opinion that more Avery members were involved than just him. In fact, I think that's more responsible for the cops "questionable" issues than the cops being corrupt. They lived far too tightly together to not have anyone notice anything that HAD to have been going on. The smell of a burning body alone certainly should've caught someone's attention, right?

Half the family had been through the system in some way/shape/form. Certainly enough to understand it. I think it's just as likely a family member set up the evidence to frame him. 1) It would take eyes off of them. 2) If it didn't, it would certainly provide a sliver of reasonable doubt for their own defense. It would also explain inconsistencies that people currently try to attribute to the cops. (Key/bullet/etc) But Avery's undisputed actions still lead me to believe he was the one focused on her. (*67 calls/towel incident/requesting her/etc)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your 4th paragraph to even try to respond.

Again ... The above is my own theory since you asked me questions based on the evidence instead of the movie.

 

I'm sorry. I was not chastising your not seeing the movie rather I was simply stating that when someone has good knowledge of the actual case then seeing a movie adds nothing to that person's understanding about it. Seeing the movie cannot be more accurate than the actual case as it develops plus I've always found movies to be affected by the writer's biases. Like you I have not seen the video nor do I intend to. I don't really care that much about it.

 

Again, you're not hearing what I'm saying. I wasn't criticizing his understanding of the case. The case and the movie are two different things. And I would say that seeing the movie certainly adds something to a person's understanding of <drumroll> what's in the movie.

 

Not that you will have the time, but go read the entire interview with Dassey. She was supposedly killed in the garage, and he didn't say 10 shots, he said a couple, possibly 4-5. Stabbed twice. And really it depends on the location. I have seen someone shot several times and not leave ton of blood. That is just based on my person experience stepping over bodies.

Go back and read the interview, Dassey said they had sex with her on the bed, then Avery carried her into the garage carrying his gun. Avery stabbed her once in the chest, then gave Dassey the knife, he stabbed her once in the gut, then gave the knife back to Avery. Then he turned his back he said and he heard the shots.

I think the police did some shady shit for sure. Not Calumet so much but Manatowch (sp). I think he did it like a mofo, but I think the police helped the case along. This is wrong. He can get another trial, but he will be convicted again.

As far as the remains, tires weren't such a bad idea to use. Tires (according to my google ninja skills) burn at 550 degrees C. Bones are turned to ash at 700. ASH. I do agree it's unlikely but I'm sure with enough time they can be reduced to not much.

My opinion isn't formed, not without all the evidence, but the actual evidence collected and that has been brought up, not only in the show I mean, is damning.

 

I have nothing to add, I just like the drumroll part lol

 

I'm no forensics expert by far and this is pure speculation, obviously. It seems to me that its possible that .22 rounds wouldn't leave a lot of blood everywhere while doing a lot of damage inside the body. I mean, while there could be exit wounds, they're probably not fist-sized holes like a .45 would leave. Again, total speculation and I could totally be wrong, but it seems logical...

 

Exactly. Typically there is no exit wound on small caliber rounds. Stabbings.... Well there is more naturally but it also depends on the location on the body. I've seen stabbings where there was a FUCK ton of blood, then some times very little. Just like most shit, every one is different.

 

On the blood issue I did read somewhere that the Dassey kid did say something to the cops about cleaning with bleach. Apparently it was a part of the confession that he came out with himself and not "lead" by the investigators on. Also, like Mongo said there could be little blood resulting from a stab wound. Maybe they stab her in the chest, nick an artery but she stays on her back and bleeds out inside...

 

So, no exit wounds on small caliber rounds, and we know she was shot in the head (twice, and at least one was in the back, according to the forensic anthropologist), but yet there's one bullet found with her DNA on it, and no blood... Zero... anywhere... Not on the gun, not on the heaps of shit in the garage, none on the floor (after prosecution claimed a description of blood seeping into the cracks during closing arguments in the Dassey case - I couldn't find the testimony, but its probably there somewhere). She had to have been shot at very close range, because that garage was full of shit.

Unless someone can show me otherwise, I've seen from reading and the series - there were really only a couple of spots of blood - two smudges from Avery, and one clump of bloody hair from the victim. Both inside the vehicle, but neither were mixed with the other's DNA. There's there's a spot of sweat on the hood latch/engine compartment from Avery. And the oddest of all - there's the key that has HIS DNA, but none of hers. But other than that, I don't remember seeing/reading about DNA anywhere... How is that even possible?

 

In the interview he said they cleaned it with bleach and paint thinner I believe. I am going off of memory from reading it.

She was shot in the head twice according to the pathologist yes, but as far as the amount of blood goes, Dassey said that Avery stabbed her in the chest, once, maybe twice, I don't recall. Then he did. The thing about being shot in the head is, Yes, GSW to the head usually produce a lot of blood.. When the heart is still pumping. That is, most people get shot in the head and die of that, but the heart is still pumping when they are shot. And continues to. Hence the blood that comes out, and trust me, when the heart is working it is A LOT. But if she was stabbed and the heart stopped pumping and/ or depending on her positioning, a .22 round may not produce a lot of blood.

It's possible because they didn't look EVERYWHERE for the DNA. Once they found what they wanted they stopped. Just like they did when the Rape victim was ID'd by the victim. Not so good police work. And how it is possible on the key is that Avery washed it, then handled it. Washed it for blood or something because remember, he had to move the car with it. Thereby possibly leaving his sweat DNA