It makes absolutely no sense that he'd wipe the car absolutely clean of finger prints but not wipe off the obvious blood.
Making a Murder - Netflix Original Series
214,218 Views |
1382 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Pluralizes Everythings
quote:Again, I don't care about Avery's innocence. I'm looking at it like a skeptical defense attorney. It could be used to poke holes in the prosecution. It's not the defense's job to convince people he was innocent, just that he was not guilty of the crime based off the evidence the state presented. Innocence does not mean not guilty. We've been through this.
Still means nothing in terms of Avery's innocence. Just because you can think of a situation that fits your theory doesn't mean it's evidence.
If the car towing was never brought up in the case, that sucks. Because it would make it even more bizarre that the car was towed by Steve, yet his blood was clearly found inside the car, but no other dna at all other than the couple blood stains. So he'd be smart enough to tow it so as to not get in the car, but not smart enough to clearly see blood and clean it up after already having been in the car?
The tow theory isn't a smoking gun. But it provides more interesting evidence of a possible towing, and if the defense was trying to imply that evidence was planted, that'd be mighty important.
If that's the piece of this you can't wrap your head around, I can't help you.
I feel like some people are just as tunnel visioned towards SA's innocence as the cops were in his guilt.
I feel like some people are just as tunnel visioned towards SA's innocence as the cops were in his guilt.
Not only was the key found by Lenk, after multiple searches, but the only DNA on the key was Steven's?
No blood in the garage?
No blood in the garage?
quote:It's circumstantial and 1 of my postulated responses. I also think he could have taken his glove off to start the car.
It makes absolutely no sense that he'd wipe the car absolutely clean of finger prints but not wipe off the obvious blood.
Listen, I feel like people are nitpicking a single line in my post and ignoring the fact that I have stated that SA should probably not have be found Guilty. Or at least his case warrants a serious second look.
My posts are from the practical side - of my own viewpoint to which I wonder if he's TRULY GUILTY or NOT. Not in a legal sense, from a real sense. That's it.
Can't believe I'm the only one?
quote:I feel like you have a very loose grasp on what most of the other folks on this thread are trying to do. Much like the post from the article i quoted, I think he probably did it. But I also think there's no way I could find him guilty based off the case the state put forward.quote:It's circumstantial and 1 of my postulated responses. I also think he could have taken his glove off to start the car.
It makes absolutely no sense that he'd wipe the car absolutely clean of finger prints but not wipe off the obvious blood.
Listen, I feel like people are nitpicking a single line in my post and ignoring the fact that I have stated that SA should probably not have be found Guilty. Or at least his case warrants a serious second look.
My posts are from the practical side - of my own viewpoint to which I wonder if he's TRULY GUILTY or NOT. Not in a legal sense, from a real sense. That's it.
Can't believe I'm the only one?
Just because we're digging through evidence and discussing theories does not mean everyone thinks he's innocent. You love bringing up innocence. I can't speak for others, but I'm not saying he's innocent.
Not Guilty does not mean Innocent.
Don't take this post the wrong way. it isn't meant to be hostile. This is more of what I was getting at yesterday when I felt like you were on a different "track" than a lot of others on the thread. Most of what is going on is just people theorizing, not making blanket statements of innocence and guilt. It just seems like as we're bringing things up, you are responding from a POV that we believe or are advocating for anything that we are discussing as if we think it's fact. I can only speak for myself, but that couldn't be further from the truth.
I may be wrong, but it seems like a lot of folks are posting from a more "unsure" position and discussing all theories that would either help or hurt Steve's case, and either help or hurt the prosecution or police, and then you're reacting to that discussion as if we're making factual statements. Then you try to "disprove" everything with other theories or resorting to the most practical and logical theory that Steve was the killer. Which is ok, but I think that's causing the confusion from both ends. You're just reading and reacting to the thread in a different way than some of us, and even though we mostly(or all) probably agree Steve is the most likely killer, we aren't framing all discussion around it.
Does that make sense? And maybe this entire post is wrong, but I don't feel like it is.
With the evidence presented its hard to imagine 12 people could find him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt
quote:And what was the original vote? 7 not guilty or something like that?
With the evidence presented its hard to imagine 12 people could find him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt
lol You can stop lecturing me on the difference between guilt and innocence in the court of law. I get it. That's not what I'm talking about. If it's a different track to you, then fine. I'm on a different track.
Good and well. But I'll continue to bring it up (not lecture) every time as long as you continue to make statements like this:
Since you posted it directly towards someone on this thread and then made a more grand statement of "some people," I'll have to assume you mean those you're discussing this with on here. And I don't know that anyone on here is saying he's innocent.
Maybe i'm getting caught up on choice of words, but it is a major difference because it completely changes the point of view many of us are posting from.
quote:
If that's the piece of this you can't wrap your head around, I can't help you.
I feel like some people are just as tunnel visioned towards SA's innocence as the cops were in his guilt.
Since you posted it directly towards someone on this thread and then made a more grand statement of "some people," I'll have to assume you mean those you're discussing this with on here. And I don't know that anyone on here is saying he's innocent.
Maybe i'm getting caught up on choice of words, but it is a major difference because it completely changes the point of view many of us are posting from.
Got it man. (Usually this is where I would tell my GF "you know exactly what I meant and you're just trying to be difficult on purpose")
I'm only on episode 7 and I haven't researched the case otherwise. Thanks for the spoilers :p
quote:quote:It's circumstantial and 1 of my postulated responses. I also think he could have taken his glove off to start the car.
It makes absolutely no sense that he'd wipe the car absolutely clean of finger prints but not wipe off the obvious blood.
Listen, I feel like people are nitpicking a single line in my post and ignoring the fact that I have stated that SA should probably not have be found Guilty. Or at least his case warrants a serious second look.
My posts are from the practical side - of my own viewpoint to which I wonder if he's TRULY GUILTY or NOT. Not in a legal sense, from a real sense. That's it.
Can't believe I'm the only one?
Actually... I think he probably did it.
But he absolutely didn't do it the way that the prosecution says he did. They came up with their theory, made sure that the evidence was present by planting it, and coerced a confession from a special education teenager (and ultimately convicting him) to corroborate it. The Manitowoc county sheriff's office should have been nowhere near that investigation and assured the public they wouldn't be, but there they were, at every step, finding the key pieces of evidence to prove the completely nonsensical theory of a kidnapping, rape, and murder. And that's 100% unaccepable law enforcement practice, even though I think SA is probably the killer.
My cousin is a sergeant for a small town...I'll see if he's watched this and give me his thoughts on the case.
Watdhing the ex-bf's testimony, he seems to say something I was thinking -- if you were going to commit a crime in that area, and you could link Avery to the investigation, you knew the police would chase him first.
I hate Judge Willis and the slimy prosecutors.
if Rosie O'Donnell thinks he is innocent, then I am definitely on the wrong side. That s.o.b. must be guilty!
Let's go back to the initial sexual assault.
Here is what happened:
Police zero in on Steve if one hour after the crime and NEVER investigate anyone else. Heck, he was arrested either that day or the next.
Police manufacture evidence - the eyewitness drawing that didn't match Steve's current looks, but his old mugshot.
The description by the assailant does not match Steve at all. Not at all.
Other police department, say Hey - it's this guy, who we are following and who has committed a crime in that exact spot. Police choose to ignore.
18 eyewitnesses, almost all family, place him somewhere else
He is railroaded and then exonerated by DNA. Now, after all that, NOT ONE policeman will say he is innocent of the crime. NOT ONE. Under oath, during depositions, what have you.
Now, we have a new crime.
Police zero in on Steve right when she is reported missing and NEVER investigate anyone else.
Same police who manufactured evidence in trial one now find the key, the car, the bullet, the burned bones.
It just makes you wonder.....
He really could be guilty. He seems creepy but then again he has a 70 IQ. I still don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that Brendan was involved.
Here is what happened:
Police zero in on Steve if one hour after the crime and NEVER investigate anyone else. Heck, he was arrested either that day or the next.
Police manufacture evidence - the eyewitness drawing that didn't match Steve's current looks, but his old mugshot.
The description by the assailant does not match Steve at all. Not at all.
Other police department, say Hey - it's this guy, who we are following and who has committed a crime in that exact spot. Police choose to ignore.
18 eyewitnesses, almost all family, place him somewhere else
He is railroaded and then exonerated by DNA. Now, after all that, NOT ONE policeman will say he is innocent of the crime. NOT ONE. Under oath, during depositions, what have you.
Now, we have a new crime.
Police zero in on Steve right when she is reported missing and NEVER investigate anyone else.
Same police who manufactured evidence in trial one now find the key, the car, the bullet, the burned bones.
It just makes you wonder.....
He really could be guilty. He seems creepy but then again he has a 70 IQ. I still don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that Brendan was involved.
quote:
With the evidence presented its hard to imagine 12 people could find him guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt
The prosecution does not have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. Only beyond a reasonable doubt.
That said, I am not sure they did that.
I may be biased, though because I have a cousin who spent 20 years in prison for sexual assault that was proven innocent due to DNA evidence just like Avery. His case is remarkably similar. He was the only person in both the photo an in person lineups, and was identified by the victim because of that. My cousin won his lawsuit. This happened right here in Texas, by the way.
What will/should happen due to this series?
Brendan's attorney Len should be disbarred at least. I'm not sure what crime it would be but what he did and didn't do as a court appointed attorney should be criminal.
Brendan should be out yesterday with a new trial. He has the mind of an 8 year old. His greatest hits - in a tragic way - doesn't know what inconsistent means, doesn't know difference between feet and yards, spells bonfire "bomb fire", just wants to get out of questioning to turn in a school report and watch WWE.
Kratz should be rightly vilified for his conduct at trial and creepiness outside of this case.
The judge should not have heard the appellate case - for TexAgs lawyers out there - is this common?
Brendan's attorney Len should be disbarred at least. I'm not sure what crime it would be but what he did and didn't do as a court appointed attorney should be criminal.
Brendan should be out yesterday with a new trial. He has the mind of an 8 year old. His greatest hits - in a tragic way - doesn't know what inconsistent means, doesn't know difference between feet and yards, spells bonfire "bomb fire", just wants to get out of questioning to turn in a school report and watch WWE.
Kratz should be rightly vilified for his conduct at trial and creepiness outside of this case.
The judge should not have heard the appellate case - for TexAgs lawyers out there - is this common?
Looking forward to TexAgs lawyers to chime in on lots of aspects of this case once they see this.
My sister and her husband are both lawyers. They are on E6 or E7 right now. Waiting to hear back from them...
Great stuff. Not convinced of SA's innocence, bit am pretty certain there was tampering/manufacture of evidence by the Manitowac Sherriff's office to ensure a conviction. If I understood correctly, they had a hell of a motive to quickly discredit and convict SA, as several involved were personally named in the civil suit, and with the insurance coverage denial, were potentially personally liable for massive civil damages.
Anybody else notice the voice doppelgngers of defense attorney Dean Strang with Saul Goodman? Close your eyes on some courtroom scenes and you might be hard pressed to tell whether you're watching Making a Murderer or Better Caul Saul...
Anybody else notice the voice doppelgngers of defense attorney Dean Strang with Saul Goodman? Close your eyes on some courtroom scenes and you might be hard pressed to tell whether you're watching Making a Murderer or Better Caul Saul...
How in the world could they convict Dassey? There was no DNA evidence anywhere that they found. They didn't prove their case to me without a reasonable doubt.
quote:This is all I could think about every time the Sturms were shown or mentioned.
We need the Ticket to come off dry dock so Strum can comment on whether or not he knows the Sturms who found the SUV
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,871
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
(Usually this is where I would tell my GF "you know exactly what I meant and you're just trying to be difficult on purpose")
does she ever tell you to shut up and look in a mirror? because she should.
My favs in this were almost all on the defense team
Dean Strang and Jerry Buting
Dvorak - defense post conviction attorney
Laura Nirider - cute post conviction attorney for Brendan
Dean Strang and Jerry Buting
Dvorak - defense post conviction attorney
Laura Nirider - cute post conviction attorney for Brendan
quote:+1
My favs in this were almost all on the defense team
Dean Strang and Jerry Buting
Dvorak - defense post conviction attorney
Laura Nirider - cute post conviction attorney for Brendan
I'm only on episode three, but something I was thinking about after reading about the tow truck theory: Steven works at a auto salvage. Adhering to Occam's razor, wouldn't the easiest explanation be that he towed it from where the victim parked to the yard himself using a company truck?
I definitely think he was railroaded on the rape charge. I'm 50/50 so far on the murder
I definitely think he was railroaded on the rape charge. I'm 50/50 so far on the murder
Keeper of The Spirits
Joined:
Nov 12, 2008
Posts:
8,432
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No bus driver I ever had was as good looking at that bus driver,
Keeper of The Spirits
Joined:
Nov 12, 2008
Posts:
8,432
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
the above tweet shows teresa's phone records from the day she went missing, and instructions from cingular back then on call forwarding, which the person tweeting is is alleging happens after the 2:41 call, as you can see there is no more icell or lcell, which means it's being forwarded to a land line.
That's the claim at least.
That's the claim at least.
Featured Stories
See All
69:56
18h ago
4.5k
11:45
18h ago
1.1k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. Texas
by Tom Schuberth
12:13
20h ago
8.4k
Seersucker Ag 2011
How Do the Ags Matchup with Texas (Basketball)?…..
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
12