[user104658]

I'm telling you, it's a catspiracy. That's right. Catspiracy. The fire-cat survived all those years ago and all of this has been part of it's evil master-plan. Avery in fact knew that the cat was a supervillain all along, that's why he tried to destroy it the only way he knew how. With flame.

Everyone forgot about the damned cat.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm telling you, it's a catspiracy. That's right. Catspiracy. The fire-cat survived all those years ago and all of this has been part of it's evil master-plan. Avery in fact knew that the cat was a supervillain all along, that's why he tried to destroy it the only way he knew how. With flame.

Everyone forgot about the damned cat.

plot twist

[ChristmasNeeve]

any of you read/watch these? I'm definitely leaning more on the side that he is actually guilty now

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/co...erer-14280387/

[andybigbro]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

any of you read/watch these? I'm definitely leaning more on the side that he is actually guilty now

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/co...erer-14280387/

Really ? I might read them later if I get time

[user104658]

It's pretty obvious that the documentary itself is one-sided and plays certain things up / down from drama and entertainment...

...That said, there's quite a bit of irony in seeing someone complaining about how one-sided and biased the documentary is, and then proceed to be completely biased in the opposite direction . I'd like to see someone go through it all with genuine impartiality and counter each point. Having skimmed a few of those transcripts... there's an awful lot of conjecture and guesswork going on in the rebuttals?

[In the Drunk Tank]

^ Agree. Just looking at the first one:

In yet another example of Making a Murderer minimizing or ignoring anything that would make Avery or his family look at all unsympathetic, the series does not explain that Avery’s brothers, Charles and Earl, were also well known to law enforcement, which would have had reason not to trust them.

Three years after Steven was convicted of the rape, Charles was charged with sexual assault but acquitted. In 1999, his former wife accused him of sexually assaulting her and wrapping a telephone cord around his neck. A deferred prosecution agreement saved him from serving prison time.

In 1992, Earl pleaded no contest to battery and fourth degree sexual assault after attacking his wife.

Do these sound like entirely credible witnesses? Or would it have been logical for investigators to believe that they were lying to protect their brother?

Even if that wasn't all conjecture, the writer seems to be using Charles and Earl's charges as a justification for authorities not believing them despite those incidents taking place years after Steven's trial and conviction

[ChristmasNeeve]

Yeah of course it's one sided but I guess that's to even up the onesideness of the documentary I guess

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah of course it's one sided but I guess that's to even up the onesideness of the documentary I guess

But it's just one preaching one thing at loggerheads with another preaching the opposite; two conflicting forms of extremism don't even out into one reasonable stance. You don't get any real objective balancing of the facts.

...a bit like TiBB Serious Debates and News actually.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But it's just one preaching one thing at loggerheads with another preaching the opposite; two conflicting forms of extremism don't even out into one reasonable stance. You don't get any real objective balancing of the facts.

...a bit like TiBB Serious Debates and News actually.

In this instance he's just countering claims made by the documentary though.

I am really interested to hear about this new phone evidence though

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

In this instance he's just countering claims made by the documentary though.

I am really interested to hear about this new phone evidence though

Yeah but not just with evidence. He's not just saying, "The documentary said X but actually here's some evidence that might show Y, Z, etc."

There's an awful lot of "But it COULD have been this, or this, or this... because I think this... and they might not be trustworthy because blah blah..."

Too many ifs, buts and maybes to be branding itself as a "rebuttal". It's more a guy just arguing that he disagrees and sharing his musings, just like we do here... which is fine... it's more the way that it's been set out as something more conclusive that bothers me.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yeah but not just with evidence. He's not just saying, "The documentary said X but actually here's some evidence that might show Y, Z, etc."

There's an awful lot of "But it COULD have been this, or this, or this... because I think this... and they might not be trustworthy because blah blah..."

Too many ifs, buts and maybes to be branding itself as a "rebuttal". It's more a guy just arguing that he disagrees and sharing his musings, just like we do here... which is fine... it's more the way that it's been set out as something more conclusive that bothers me.

Fair enough.

What do you think about it though? Do you reckon he did it?

[ChristmasNeeve]

This is a good read also, she's a criminal profiler who was familiar with the case before the documentary came out

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.ie...sis-of_49.html
What I want to do here is just point out the basic profiling and crime analysis issues relating to the Halbach crime.

1) Where victim's body is found

The body was found on Avery's property. This is why the police went to Avery and talked to him. He wasn't targeted. You have the corpse of a murdered individual on your property; you are going to become a person of interest.

2) Where the victims' vehicle is found.

That was on Avery's property as well. Again, police are not targeting Avery. They are doing their job which is to investigate where the vehicle was found and who could have put the vehicle at that location. Since it was hidden on Avery's property, he is going to become a person of interest.

3) The last place the victim was seen

That was on Avery's property. Anyone who lives on the Avery property is going to become a person of interest; this includes Steven Avery

4) The last person to have contact with the victim

That would be Steven Avery. The police are obviously going to investigate the last person who was in contact with the victim or was with the victim.

5) Where physical evidence of the crime exists

That would be in the Avery fire pit, in the Avery burn barrel, in Steven Avery's house, and in the victim's car on Avery's property. All the physical evidence implicates Steven Avery (his DNA in the car), the victim's body parts, DNA, and personal items in the firepit and barrel, and the key and his DNA in his house.

6) Witnesses

The only people that claim to have seen Teresa Halbach right before or after her disappearance are Bobby and Brendan Dassey. Bobby Dassey states he say Halbach photographing a car and then heading toward Steven Avery's house. Brendan Dassey states he saw Halbach tied up in Steven Avery's house, saw Steven Avery kill her and saw Steven Avery burn her. There are no witnesses saying they saw Teresa Halbach anywhere else or with anyone else.

So, it comes down to this. Overwhelming evidence that Steven Avery is guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach. Unless he was framed.

Framing Steven Avery would require:

Someone knowing or getting lucky that Halbach was coming out to Avery property that day.
Someone getting lucky that there are two witnesses to say she was with or near Steven Avery that day
Someone getting lucky that a witness can describe the crime in detail so that most of it matches the evidence
Someone has to kill Halbach for some reason and burn her body on the property right under the nose of Steven Avery (or bring her burned body parts (this did not happen) to the property and mix them in with the stuff Steven Avery had already burned.
Someone had to hide the victim's car on the Avery property
Someone had to hide the victim's car key in Steven Avery's house
Someone had to plant Steven Avery's DNA in the victim's car and on the key

So either law enforcement found out Halbach was going out to Steven Avery's house and just as she was leaving, they kidnapped her, killed her, burned her up, and spread all the evidence and DNA around Avery's property and house OR someone else saw the opportunity to kill Halbach, killed her, burned her up somewhere and spread her cremains and personal items around the Avery property and then law enforcement saw a great opportunity and jumped on board by planting Avery's DNA and the key.

Or maybe Steven Avery is just guilty as hell and all the evidence proves it.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Also, that 3rd call Steve Avery made to Teresas phone where he didn't block his number was made after she went missing, with him asking why she never showed up, eventhough he did admit to her showing up afterwards, that's pretty compelling evidence right there, why was he trying to make out that she never showed up?

[Ammi]

..I still think he's guilty and I still think that he somehow thrives off being 'the innocent man' and all of the positive attention he receives from the public with that...the interesting thing with this../ ..with Kathleen Zellner taking up Steven's case etc..is that apparently, Brendan's case has not progressed at all from the documentary...maybe that can't happen unless Steven's innocence could be proven first...

[Smithy]

There's no blood evidence tho? All that was ever found was a bullet, where was the blood

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Smithy

There's no blood evidence tho? All that was ever found was a bullet, where was the blood

Her DNA was found on the bullet

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Smithy

There's no blood evidence tho? All that was ever found was a bullet, where was the blood

Also, the day after she died Steven and Brendan cleaned his garage with Bleach, they both admit to that, Brendan even had bleach on his jeans

[ChristmasNeeve]

Steve Avery slams his Lawyers Dean Strang and Jerry Buting......mmmhhmmm

This is unexpected, to say the least. Steven Avery has written a letter from prison complaining about his lawyers Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, accusing them of not doing their investigation correctly.

Eh, not our Dean and Jerry surely? The lawyers proved hugely popular with fans of the Netflix series and seemed firmly on Team Steve, however, in a letter obtained by InTouch, Steven insists they didn't do their job properly and should lose their licence.

Here's a page from the letter, the full version will be released in this week's print edition of InTouch;



This is the first time Steven has spoken negatively about the lawyers saying; "They don’t now what justice is and they don’t now what is a investigation is because if they did they would have done it for a innocent man like me!!!"

This seems to have come completely out of left field, but here's hoping season two clears up what exactly went down here.

Also on a side note, grammatically, the letter is all over the shop, but doesn't Steven Avery have nice handwriting? Just saying.

http://entertainment.ie/tv/news/Maki...ter/383588.htm

[Smithy]

Guess thats why they're not his lawyers anymore

[user104658]

He deserves life in prison for that grammar and spelling alone.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

He deserves life in prison for that grammar and spelling alone.

He deserves life in prison for dissing Mr Stranglove

[Ammi]

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

He deserves life in prison for dissing Mr Stranglove

Don't worry, Strang has ways to get to him on the inside. He won't stand for this.

[ChristmasNeeve]

[Josy]

Brendans conviction has just been overturned

Breaking news on sky and CNN