Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by bessie, Jan 9, 2016.
He ran his cousin off the road and pulled a firearm on her. He was convicted for that incident.
I think that was because the first 6 years of his 18 year prison stay was for the cousin thing and since he had been a convicted felon from that charge he was not supposed to have firearms. Think I read that somewhere but I can't remember where.
Ok I gotcha! I knew he had been convicted of that. Seems they mean he was arrested for possessing a firearm "NOW" because he was convicted in 1985 for that incident. Poor wording LOL
I thought it was said that even if blood is not visible to the eye the DNA test can only identify nucleated cells. Same goes with any DNA evidence not visible to the eye. Could have come from blood, skin cells, sweat, saliva, etc.. For instance the evidence on the bullet fragment,Culhane admits she don't even know if that was blood. Just that it was DNA by Nucleated Cells. Such as the key found on the floor of his bedroom. Had only his DNA on it. Same with the Key they do not know if it was sweat. just Nucleated Cells. Rubbing in his floor or in his slippers could transfer his DNA on to that key. The only one who claims it is sweat is Kratz. This is the same man who states in opening statements at Dassey's Trial for the same crime that she had her throat cut. However now that its questionable hes claiming it was only a scratch. This is coming from a man that with in a week said He was not asked to be interviewed for the Docuseries but in a people article states he was asked. The man is a liar. I have to wonder when his drug habit began that supposedly turned him into the sexual harassing DA he resigned from.
Now that Kratz is a defense lawyer, I wonder had he had this case and had to go up against this case with a prosecutor such as he was, how he would now defend his client?
In addition to the claim that LE searched the junkyard without finding TH vehicle prior to it being found, in this video, the SA's lawyer at the time was complaining that LE was denying him access to his client. I thought that was interesting.
I think just because some one may be an addict that does not mean that this case is not good.
This man killed her and is in jail for it. I think conviction stands. It should..
I think I have said this before. I wish I didn't have all this critical thinking and logic, that occurs in my brain. Wish I could be narrow minded (tunnel visioned) and may this case wouldn't keep me up thinking about it. However Evidence that I have seen, through reading court documents, the Dassey trial transcripts, Dasseys confessions and even the picture evidence shows me that there was a lot more then met the eye. The pure conflict of interest should have been a problem. Being it wasn't and it did go to trial we have to look at the evidence as a whole. Who do you find credible with their testimony, who lied under oath. And to me it points to both men being wrongfully convicted. Colborn himself says and shows how he Twisted, pulled and shook the Open faced bookshelf then the Key was there. He lies. Why do I believe this you might ask yourself. Well go to the key thread here. Look at the several photos that were entered into evidence. From the first picture they took of that shelf to the one they had with the key that shelf was never moved from the place it sat on the floor. And Lenk in his report dont mention the twisting pulling and shaking. he states in his written report that they were tipping the books binders and magazines inside of the shelf. Had these two men not been on the lot, had Manitowoc backed off, like they should have done, they wouldn't be putting the Halbach's through more pain with the conspiracy that now surrounds their daughters murder. And the question of it being possible that her murderer is still out on the streets.
As for Kratz being a drug addict and how long, it goes to his credibility too. Kratz now has more sexual assaults on women then Steven Avery has been convicted of. How can we trust or find credible anything he did in any trial. not just Avery's while he was on drugs. That is his excuse for Sexually Harassing a Victim right? Cause being an addict is an excuse at all. He was calling her making advances while he was prosecuting the case of against her abuser. If he was an addict in any of these cases he prosecuted I would be asking myself which witnesses and victims he coerced or personally contacted in inappropriate ways that effected other cases. For all I know Kratz was directing officers to frame Avery, I mean he was corrupt there for he had a soft spot for the Manitowoc county that was was being sued for liability in a wrongful conviction that made the county also look corrupt. He was biased the moment he stepped up as special prosecutor, He was looking for guilt in Avery not the truth of what happened to Teresa. And that is sad. Proven not to care about the victims.
Hello, I am not sure where to jump in here. I just finished the series and I have one burning question I wanted to post. I certainly have not read everything yet so please forgive me if I missed a discussion on this.
In the video taped March 1 interrogation with Brendan at the Sheriffs Department (The one where his mother doesn't come in with him, but comes in at the end and he says they ' got in his head') they are asking him what happened with Theresa's head. During the questioning on this topic it sounds like Brendan says "They cut her hair" then they push him more and he says "They punched her". I wasn't reading along the first time I heard this clip. I heard this again because this clip is replayed in Episode 8 or 9. I went back to Episode 3 again and read that the subtitles say "THAT HE cut her hair" and "THAT HE punched her" which really doesn't make any sense grammatically ( not that Brendan is always grammatically correct either). I just wanted to point out, it sure does sound like "They" to me and not "That he". MOO, did anyone else hear it like this?
You can see this by going to episode 3 and to the 53 minute mark.
AND did they twist/shake multiple pieces of furniture throughout the search of the trailer or just 'lucky' enough to do so to that one shelf where the key was hiding?!
BBM - or used his on-site car crusher. Since he was such a *brilliant* criminal and able to erase all blood evidence from the bedroom and mattress where her throat was cut and all the blood from the garage where she was shot - (was it 5 times?) - does it make since that someone that through and that talented would be stupid enough to leave her car on his own property in plain view? All that was missing was a neon sign with an arrow pointing to the car that said "LOOK HERE"!!!
I would not read into the cutting her/punching her testimony too much, it is obviously false. They spend a good portion of the 5/13 interview (the one thrown out because Kachinsky has no idea how to be a defense attorney) trying to get him to change his statement on this, which he eventually does. He is clearly guessing about what happened to her head. Here is the relevant section from the transcript
W: What else did he do to her? We know something else was done. Tell us, and what else did you do? Come on. Something w. the head. Brendan?
W: What else did you guys do, come on.
F: What he made you do Brendan, we know he made you do something else.
W: What was it?
W: What was it?
F: We have the evidence Brendan, we just need you to, to be honest w. us
B: That he cut off her hair
W: He cut off her hair? In the house?
W: Why did he do that? Was she alive?
W: What did he do w. the hair?
B: He set it down on the counter
W: The counter where?
B: Like a dresser
F: What did he use to cut her hair off with?
B: The knife
F: Was she alive?
F: Did he say why he did that?
W: Ok, what else?
F: What else was done to her head?
B: That he punched her
W: What else?
W: What else?
F: He made you do something to her, didn't he? So he would feel beter about not being the only person, right? Yeah.
F: What did he make you do to her?
W: What did he make you do Brendan? It's Ok, what did he make you do?
B: Cut her
W: Cut her where?
B: On her throat
W: Cut her throat? When did that happen?
B: Before he picked her off the bed?
W: So she was alive yet, right?
(Brendan nods yes)
W: So Steve stabs her first and then you cut her neck? What else happens to her in her head?
F: It's extremely, extremely important you tell us this, for us to believe you
W: Come on Brendan, what else?
F: We know, we just need you to tell us
B: That's all I can remember
W: All right, I'm just gonna come out and ask you. Who shot her in the head?
B: He did
F: Then why didn't you tell us that?
B: Cuz I couldn't think of it
All of this conversation is just a pathetic attempt for them to get Brendan to say Teresa was shot. This conversation, IMO, is completely useless. Brendan is clearly trying to figure out what happened to her head, he has absolutely no idea. He cannot come up w. her being shot w.o Wiegert telling him, he clearly was not there for any of this. This is a great example of him trying to come up w. answers he thinks they want. Wiegert should be ashamed of himself for for giving up the information that she was shot. Of course Brendan was going to answer that she was, he was trying to figure out what happened to her head, he couldn't do it, because he wasn't there. That should have been obvious to them.
Just want to point out, from the DNA analysis (see Documents; Steven Avery *No Discussion*, post #7), they compared the collected DNA against, what appears to be, the Avery adults. And per the analysis, these relatives were allegedly "eliminated." Assuming their lab results were sound, that would eliminate SA's brothers.
BBM - Those 3 words tell the tale in my opinion.
This is an excellent in-depth discussion between a former FBI S.S.A., a neuroscientist, and a former prosecutor discussing the finer points of the case. I seriously disliked the prosecutor as she seemed to spend the entire discussion making excuses for the appalling behavior of LE and the prosecution side in this case, but she redeemed herself a bit by the end with her statements at the end of video.
Jaiddie, you have consistently provided most interesting links. Thank you!
Thank you! Since watching MaM, I have found myself quite obsessed with lurking on the reddit site to see any new developments, and try to post anything that has not been shown here that I think ya'll might find as intriguing as I do, lol.
On that note... I did see that a member there has reached their fundraising goal to get copies of SA trial transcripts... they could be up as early as Monday. Hope so!
I think Sgt. Andy Colborn has most of the answers to this case. Remember when he called dispatch inquiring about Theresa's license plate? I think he had the car in front of him and I think that Theresa was in the trunk. I do not think him and Lenk were involved in her death but I do think they did the rest.
He probably figured that the gig was up on the sexual misconduct and drugs, so he figured if he did them a favor at this trial, they'd do him a favor when his trials came up? One hand washes the other? IMO, of course.
Wow...I was reading the old thread and just read that Avery's uncle retired from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Dept. With Allen already under surveillance, I wonder how easy it would have been for him to alter the evidence in the 1st rape case. Just a thought....