Making a Murderer followers....

Josie said:

If you're unfamiliar with the case and the Netflix documentary, Steven Avery was accused and convicted of a sexual assault back in the 80s. He was later exonerated by DNA evidence (which many of the investigators didn't agree with). A huge million-dollar lawsuit was taken out against the county and it's police officers. A few years later he was accused and convicted again (in the same county with the same investigators) of a murder on his property. The defense argued that evidence was planted by those same investigators to get Steven Avery because they truly believe that he's a horrible, evil person who shouldn't have been taken out of prison in the first place. He and his nephew (who the defense said was coerced into a false confession) are still in prison.

Kathleen Zellner who is well-known for helping innocent people get out of jail has taken the Steven Avery case. She wants to do testing on some bones that were found a half-mile from where the police say she was killed and burned. The police gave those bones to the family of the victim when all evidence is supposed to be kept until the suspect is out of prison. Zellner sent the prosecutors a letter asking them if those bones were in their possession so she could test them.

Steven Avery’s Lawyer Accuses Wisconsin AG of Destroying Evidence – Rolling Stone

A prosecutor accidentally called Kathleen Zellner when he thought he was calling someone on his team. He left a voicemail about those bone fragments that seems suspicious.

Avery attorney says voicemail shows state 'trying to deceive' on bones

I watched all of the Part 1 of the documentary and I'm now on Part 2. I kept going back and forth on if I thought he was guilty or not. At the end of Part 1 I was leaning toward guilty. But then Part 2 started and Zellner got on the case. She did numerous tests with blood splatter and some of the DNA evidence found on the victim's vehicle and I'm starting to be swayed back to the not guilty side. I think it's very possible that the police framed him.

Anyone else following this case or watched the documentary? What do you think?

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

Small world because i literally just started rewatching it last night because its such a bizarre case. I too am undecided. Theres a lot of very wuestionable things his lawyer points out but that is her job. e

Its really hard to get around that he was the last person known yo see her alive and her car snd remains show up on his property.

I lean toward he murdered that girl but the police dont really have the evidence to convict so they took some artistic liberty and framed him to make sure they got him.

That poor nephew i feel really bad for. I really dont think he was involved.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Josie said:

I was leaning toward him being guilty too. Not the nephew -- he was totally coerced into saying those things. But now I'm leaning more toward him being framed. The kicker was when a witness called Avery's lawyer and told her that he saw the victim's car down by the quarry (which is NOT Avery's property). This witness pulled into a gas station, saw the missing person's notice with the car and told the first policeman he saw. That was the same policeman who testified that the first time he saw the car was on Avery's property two days later. If that witness is credible, that stinks to high heaven.

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

Or avery drove her car there and something happened there

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Josie said:

But then how would the car get back on Avery's property two days later? The policeman testified to calling in the plates that very day to see who they belonged to. He was told the vehicle was registered to the missing woman. Two days later, the car is in a different place and a volunteer searcher finds it? Suspicious. Why wasn't anything done that day when the witness saw it and the policemen called in the plates?

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

I need to finish rewatching it i dont remember that part.

I honestly am undecided because tjeres a l9t going on. I csn see those.people being easily manipulated by the police. I can see police framing someone.

I also have a hard time getting around that he was the last known place she was at.

Just thinking outloud but i wonder if the car was too early for the gps tracking they put in them now that would clear up some questions

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

Something about that family gives me pause. I think they are a wilder bunch than they are letting on in front of the cameras.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Josie said:

Part 2 gets more into the theories Kathleen Zellner has. She said the victim's last cell phone pings put her in the quarry, not Avery's property. The quarry had a burn pit as well with human bones in it. That's around the place where the witness said he saw her vehicle that day.

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

Yeah the burn barrel thing i found interesting too along with the scent dogs trail.

The thing is though if he was framed it was a gold medal olympic framing they did. It had to involve multiple people and it had to begin as soon as she was reported missing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

I haven't seen the documentary but having read the thread I question that presumption. What if the cop who received the report is the murderer and he did everything?

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

Yeah the burn barrel thing i found interesting too along with the scent dogs trail.

The thing is though if he was framed it was a gold medal olympic framing they did. It had to involve multiple people and it had to begin as soon as she was reported missing.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

I haven't seen the documentary but having read the thread I question that presumption. What if the cop who received the report is the murderer and he did everything?

Click to expand...

Josie said:

I don't think it would've required many people at all. If he was framed, it would've started the second that the vehicle was found along the quarry. The officer called in the plates, realized it was a missing woman, found where she was murdered and burned, collected all of that evidence and took it all to the Avery lot. They probably assumed it was Avery and thought, "We're really going to get him THIS time" so they made sure all DNA was wiped away and then planted his DNA to ensure that he would be put away for life. Then all they had to do was wait for the volunteer searches to find the car where they put it and let everyone else on the crime scene investigation team do their job analyzing it all. Maybe only 2 or 3 people knowing about the cover-up. That's my theory anyway. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Josie said:

I don't think the cops killed her. I think they just realized they had an opportunity to get the guy that was suing them for millions of dollars for wrongful imprisonment. I tend to think they really thought he was guilty of the first crime and wanted to get him off the streets.

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

Whats your theory of what happened to the girl?
She goes there to list a car and is never seen alive again. What fo you think happened?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

The defense is saying they got the blood dna evidence from breaking in his trailer 2 days after she dissppeared and gathering it from his sink where he cut himself earlier but nefer bothered to clean it up. I find that to be a big stretch by the defense.

1. They did not know if the girl was dlive or dead at this point
2. How could someone possibly know that there would be blood evidence thst could be gathered from his seek to be used to plant in the car.
3. Who does not wash the sink after tgey bled all over it?

Imo that explination by the defense falls flat with me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

The defense is saying they got the blood dna evidence from breaking in his trailer 2 days after she dissppeared and gathering it from his sink where he cut himself earlier but nefer bothered to clean it up. I find that to be a big stretch by the defense.

1. They did not know if the girl was dlive or dead at this point
2. How could someone possibly know that there would be blood evidence thst could be gathered from his seek to be used to plant in the car.
3. Who does not wash the sink after tgey bled all over it?

Imo that explination by the defense falls flat with me.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Josie said:

I just found out the timeline. The officer called in the license plate number and found out it was the missing girl's car sometime in the afternoon of Nov. 3rd. In the evening of Nov. 3rd is when Steven says that he thinks someone broke into his house and cleaned up his blood. The vehicle was found by a volunteer searcher on Nov. 5th.

Click to expand...

trouble13 said:

I will grant you that maybe he did not wash the sink. We can call that plausable.

Lets analyze the rest. According to defense the blood evidence was planted. They make a decent case for it with blood splatter forensics and the flaking you described. (I just watched the episode) even the DNA evidence on the latch and lack of testing on the parts seems suspicious.

All that said i find it hard to believe that the blood evidence was from his sink. It would rewuire them to illeagally enter his trailer to collect hours after the cop found the car. Again they dont if the girl is alive or not because they still dont have the body.

For the theory to plausable the cop would of had to move the car to his property. Break into his home gather evidence. Plant it in the car? Return back to his oatrol car and drive away. Without anyone seeing his car parked st the quarry or see him sneaking around the junkyard.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Josie said:

If you're unfamiliar with the case and the Netflix documentary, Steven Avery was accused and convicted of a sexual assault back in the 80s. He was later exonerated by DNA evidence (which many of the investigators didn't agree with). A huge million-dollar lawsuit was taken out against the county and it's police officers. A few years later he was accused and convicted again (in the same county with the same investigators) of a murder on his property. The defense argued that evidence was planted by those same investigators to get Steven Avery because they truly believe that he's a horrible, evil person who shouldn't have been taken out of prison in the first place. He and his nephew (who the defense said was coerced into a false confession) are still in prison.

Kathleen Zellner who is well-known for helping innocent people get out of jail has taken the Steven Avery case. She wants to do testing on some bones that were found a half-mile from where the police say she was killed and burned. The police gave those bones to the family of the victim when all evidence is supposed to be kept until the suspect is out of prison. Zellner sent the prosecutors a letter asking them if those bones were in their possession so she could test them.

Steven Avery’s Lawyer Accuses Wisconsin AG of Destroying Evidence – Rolling Stone

A prosecutor accidentally called Kathleen Zellner when he thought he was calling someone on his team. He left a voicemail about those bone fragments that seems suspicious.

Avery attorney says voicemail shows state 'trying to deceive' on bones

I watched all of the Part 1 of the documentary and I'm now on Part 2. I kept going back and forth on if I thought he was guilty or not. At the end of Part 1 I was leaning toward guilty. But then Part 2 started and Zellner got on the case. She did numerous tests with blood splatter and some of the DNA evidence found on the victim's vehicle and I'm starting to be swayed back to the not guilty side. I think it's very possible that the police framed him.

Anyone else following this case or watched the documentary? What do you think?

Click to expand...

Josie said:

If you're unfamiliar with the case and the Netflix documentary, Steven Avery was accused and convicted of a sexual assault back in the 80s. He was later exonerated by DNA evidence (which many of the investigators didn't agree with). A huge million-dollar lawsuit was taken out against the county and it's police officers. A few years later he was accused and convicted again (in the same county with the same investigators) of a murder on his property. The defense argued that evidence was planted by those same investigators to get Steven Avery because they truly believe that he's a horrible, evil person who shouldn't have been taken out of prison in the first place. He and his nephew (who the defense said was coerced into a false confession) are still in prison.

Kathleen Zellner who is well-known for helping innocent people get out of jail has taken the Steven Avery case. She wants to do testing on some bones that were found a half-mile from where the police say she was killed and burned. The police gave those bones to the family of the victim when all evidence is supposed to be kept until the suspect is out of prison. Zellner sent the prosecutors a letter asking them if those bones were in their possession so she could test them.

Steven Avery’s Lawyer Accuses Wisconsin AG of Destroying Evidence – Rolling Stone

A prosecutor accidentally called Kathleen Zellner when he thought he was calling someone on his team. He left a voicemail about those bone fragments that seems suspicious.

Avery attorney says voicemail shows state 'trying to deceive' on bones

I watched all of the Part 1 of the documentary and I'm now on Part 2. I kept going back and forth on if I thought he was guilty or not. At the end of Part 1 I was leaning toward guilty. But then Part 2 started and Zellner got on the case. She did numerous tests with blood splatter and some of the DNA evidence found on the victim's vehicle and I'm starting to be swayed back to the not guilty side. I think it's very possible that the police framed him.

Anyone else following this case or watched the documentary? What do you think?

Click to expand...

Josie said:

If you're unfamiliar with the case and the Netflix documentary, Steven Avery was accused and convicted of a sexual assault back in the 80s. He was later exonerated by DNA evidence (which many of the investigators didn't agree with). A huge million-dollar lawsuit was taken out against the county and it's police officers. A few years later he was accused and convicted again (in the same county with the same investigators) of a murder on his property. The defense argued that evidence was planted by those same investigators to get Steven Avery because they truly believe that he's a horrible, evil person who shouldn't have been taken out of prison in the first place. He and his nephew (who the defense said was coerced into a false confession) are still in prison.

Kathleen Zellner who is well-known for helping innocent people get out of jail has taken the Steven Avery case. She wants to do testing on some bones that were found a half-mile from where the police say she was killed and burned. The police gave those bones to the family of the victim when all evidence is supposed to be kept until the suspect is out of prison. Zellner sent the prosecutors a letter asking them if those bones were in their possession so she could test them.

Steven Avery’s Lawyer Accuses Wisconsin AG of Destroying Evidence – Rolling Stone

A prosecutor accidentally called Kathleen Zellner when he thought he was calling someone on his team. He left a voicemail about those bone fragments that seems suspicious.

Avery attorney says voicemail shows state 'trying to deceive' on bones

I watched all of the Part 1 of the documentary and I'm now on Part 2. I kept going back and forth on if I thought he was guilty or not. At the end of Part 1 I was leaning toward guilty. But then Part 2 started and Zellner got on the case. She did numerous tests with blood splatter and some of the DNA evidence found on the victim's vehicle and I'm starting to be swayed back to the not guilty side. I think it's very possible that the police framed him.

Anyone else following this case or watched the documentary? What do you think?

Click to expand...