Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by TheDuchess, Jan 4, 2016.
If by amusing you mean ridiculous then I aggree
I can see how that can happen. DH and I watched them together and by episode 3 or 4 , I was thinking " he probably did it''. Maybe I've been trained via WS to look at things with a more open mind . The power of media is HUGE. Please remember this when you're watching your favorite candidate in the run up to the coming election !
wasn't 6 years of the 18 year sentence for another crime he did commit ? or has that been disproved ? honest question ?
Straw man argument. Not the same case. Not relevant to my comment.
Not weird to me that people don't like being wrong.
That's why you need to stay objective and not choose a horse.jmo
Yes - 6 years for the assault on his cousin that started the whole ball rolling. But I would imagine that sentence would have likely been far less without the other case, but just my opinion.
IMO it is NOT a straw man argument. You cannot separate the two without separating the players. IMO.
Yes. The truth is he did 12 yrs for a crime he did not commit. Is 12 a whole lot better than 18? Maybe, maybe not, but the 18 yr phrase needs to be dropped.
Watching Kratz describe that scene as he saw it at that press conference was extremely disturbing. He THOROUGHLY enjoyed telling that tale, his face was alight with glee. So gross.
I heard someone describe it in a very graphic way that let's say, Kratz was aroused while telling his tale. :sick:
In my opinion a day is too long but if we're dealing in facts he did 12 years for a crime he did not commit and 6 for a crime he did....or just say 12 years moo
Kratz has the only narrative of any crime that ever was offered, right ? I said days ago she may have been strangled, which would lead to no blood anywhere. But then you've got the ' bloody bullet' with no blood on it so she must have been shot, right? Plus her bloody hairstrokes in the car, so somewhere there must be some blood. I thought she could have been killed in any of the 100's of cars on the lot and wondered if every single car was processed for evidence. Doubt it !
BBM I don't think she was killed indoors at all , not the home nor the garage. mooo
yep, many have mentioned this, but that's kind of the point, is that it did!
The better question is how would you feel if this time it was not investigated by the same people from the first conviction and had no reason to be biased ?
If that was the case, I'd imagine there'd be a dramatically different perception about his innocence.
So it's not just enough to say "what if he had not been wrongfully convicted prior?" - it's a level deeper than that.
He has the official narrative of the trial.
Check reddit and this thread for many that are far more realistic.
I'm just pointing out that 99.9% of the people here are in the choir everyone is preaching to.
So, I think it's more constructive to work on theories that make sense. I have seen examples on this thread and reddit that are far more plausible.
Many of us keep saying it's possible that the police planted everything and Avery is still guilty.
I have learned over time that I don't have to know exactly what happened to know someone did it.
I still am not sure the order of events in Travis's Killing but I know that JA killed him. Granted she left more obvious evidence but I still see evidence here that points to him.
I know that he called her to come there. That he tried to cover his number.. He calls her saying.. Where are you aren't you coming??? and yet he goes on national tv and says he saw her that day.
He is covering because he killed her. Her bones are found there, her car is found there..
I believe he killed her. I don't need all the details in a box to think that. I have learned over the years there are some things you never get to know.
As a former research science I like to only look at the facts. And regardless of actual guilt, the fact is things were handled completely wrong during several aspects of this case. That rubs me the wrong way. If anything, SA should have been subjected to an investigation that was done more carefully than most. Tunnel vision on a crime is never a good thing, and even if he did do this, the tactics used by LE were dreadful.
I personally believe it was done by two people who lived on that property, and they just lucked out with cops only looking at SA. Several things make no sense to me. Mainly, the key and lack of DNA. Also, why the car was so poorly hidden. He had time to do a better job of hiding/disposing of it. I also think the autotrader magazine, and bill of sale being put up is a very strong indicator that TH's appointment went normally.
"Whatever about the planting" ? Wow.
It's about reasonable doubt. If you think Steven and Brendan are where they should be, then you think the ends justifies the means?
Sorry if I missed it earlier in this thread, it's a very long read! But did anyone have an explanation for why the cop called in the license plate and model/make of the missing car two days before the search party woman found it on SA's property?
I too wonder if all the cars on the property were thoroughly searched. There was a cadaver dog brought out correct? She could have still been held in a car. That is one thing I have wondered about. Could she have finished taking pictures, handed SA the magazine and BOS then he said, hey I actually have another car over here I need pictures of...then lead her deeper into the salvage yard? But then I question how he could have been so nonchalantly talking with Jodi that evening. Even bringing up to phone call to BD. That seems like a normal thing to talk about on a normal day. If you just murdered someone do you really stand around talking about your phone calls that day while burning a body?