Netflix - Making A Murderer

[Sarah G]

I never saw, but saw a special on it on ID - interesting. I don't see how he's not guilty...

He MAY be guilty but they botched the case so bad that it's no way to know for sure.

Remember that every piece of evidence that was found that helped the case along was found by Manitowoc, who had an obvious conflict of interest being there and expressly was not supposed to be there in the first place.

The car was not found by Manitowoc
The blood evidence in the car was not
The bones in the burn pit were not

The car wasn't secure. Remember the same Manitowoc officer who never signed into the crime scene was the same person who had access to the blood which had a pin hole in it and had been opened too.

That's why I want to get back to the documentary, you just reminded me of the officer who didn't sign in. Also, evidence wasn't found the first two or three times they went over there but mysteriously shows up after they looked again and again.

You don't continue to go back to collect evidence because the crime scene gets more sullied everytime you touch things.

 

[rightwinger]

I never saw, but saw a special on it on ID - interesting. I don't see how he's not guilty...

He MAY be guilty but they botched the case so bad that it's no way to know for sure.

Remember that every piece of evidence that was found that helped the case along was found by Manitowoc, who had an obvious conflict of interest being there and expressly was not supposed to be there in the first place.

The car was not found by Manitowoc
The blood evidence in the car was not
The bones in the burn pit were not

The car wasn't secure. Remember the same Manitowoc officer who never signed into the crime scene was the same person who had access to the blood which had a pin hole in it and had been opened too.

The blood in the car did not come from that vial....blew up in the defenses face

 

[ClosedCaption]

I never saw, but saw a special on it on ID - interesting. I don't see how he's not guilty...

He MAY be guilty but they botched the case so bad that it's no way to know for sure.

Remember that every piece of evidence that was found that helped the case along was found by Manitowoc, who had an obvious conflict of interest being there and expressly was not supposed to be there in the first place.

The car was not found by Manitowoc
The blood evidence in the car was not
The bones in the burn pit were not

The car wasn't secure. Remember the same Manitowoc officer who never signed into the crime scene was the same person who had access to the blood which had a pin hole in it and had been opened too.

The blood in the car did not come from that vial....blew up in the defenses face

Assertions are not proof tho. It could've since the vial had been tampered with without explanation. You can't just SAY sweat DNA without proof. You can't just SAY it didn't come from the vial without proof and yiu can't ignore the vial was opened for what? No reason?

 

[Muhammed]

I never saw, but saw a special on it on ID - interesting. I don't see how he's not guilty...

If I was on the jury I'd say guilty.

 

[rightwinger]

I never saw, but saw a special on it on ID - interesting. I don't see how he's not guilty...

He MAY be guilty but they botched the case so bad that it's no way to know for sure.

Remember that every piece of evidence that was found that helped the case along was found by Manitowoc, who had an obvious conflict of interest being there and expressly was not supposed to be there in the first place.

The car was not found by Manitowoc
The blood evidence in the car was not
The bones in the burn pit were not

The car wasn't secure. Remember the same Manitowoc officer who never signed into the crime scene was the same person who had access to the blood which had a pin hole in it and had been opened too.

The blood in the car did not come from that vial....blew up in the defenses face

Assertions are not proof tho. It could've since the vial had been tampered with without explanation. You can't just SAY sweat DNA without proof. You can't just SAY it didn't come from the vial without proof and yiu can't ignore the vial was opened for what? No reason?

The blood sample did not have EDTA, it did not have any type of preservative or alteration......it was just blood

The sheriff had no access to Averys clean blood

Avery did have a major cut on his middle finger which would have spread blood in the car. Now if the defense had shown that Avery did not have a scratch on him that would have left blood.....then they would have a case

 

[ClosedCaption]

The blood sample did not have EDTA, it did not have any type of preservative or alteration......it was just blood

The sheriff had no access to Averys clean blood

But remember the test wasn't if it EVER had EDTA. It showed that it didn't have EDTA at the time of testing and the FBI was unable to show anyone their method for their testing. Even other forensic specialists couldn't make heads or tails of their testing methods.

Secret methods that can't be duplicated isn't something that should be admissible at all. The sheriff had access to Averys blood. What you're doing is going along with the story the police are providing as fact. When none of it can be double checked by anyone.

It's like me saying something is a mermaid and then pointing to my own findings as proof it is. There hasn't been any independent duplication of any of their methods. Wink wink...how could that be?

 

[strollingbones]

i think avery is guilty and the series was rather one sided....but i do not see how you could not have had 'reasonable doubt'

 

[ClosedCaption]

The police have no answers for the following:

Why was Averys blood vial tampered with?

Why did the police who were at the scene never sign in? And why did he give 2 different times of arrival under oath that contridict each other?

Why can't anyone else duplicate the method for EDTA testing?

 

[AquaAthena]

What those like rightwinger keep forgetting...jurors can only convict someone based exclusively and entirely on only what the prosecution shows.
Jurors cannot base their decision on anything else but what the prosecution states, and how the defense answers those charges.
In saying that, there is no way - no how - not on this planet or any other planet did Steven Avery, or anyone else for that matter, murder Theresa Halbach in the way the prosecution said it happen. However and whoever murdered this woman, did not murder her anywhere on Steven Avery's property, PERIOD. Didn't happen.
I do not know if Avery killed this woman, but what I do know is that there were other suspects who had motive and access to Theresa...and they were all not even questioned. I do know that the evidence on the scene was almost beyond a doubt - at the very least altered if not planted.
Steven Avery and Dassey were convicted of the same crime, where the SAME PROSECUTOR PRESENTED TOTALLY DIFFERENT EVIDENCE AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT METHOD OF DEATH...how the f*ck is that possible??

I could not see how Dassey could be convicted of worse crimes than Avery was charged with

They did not even bring up Dassey's wild, ever changing stories during Avery's trial

But what evidence was there to convict Avery?

Last known person to see her alive
He specifically requested she come to take pictures (lured her to the property)
Her car was found on his property
No evidence of her ever being off the property. No witnesses, no phone calls after seeing Avery.
Avery's blood and sweat were found in the car
The keys to the car were in his room
The charred remains were found 30 feet from his trailer

If I was on the jury, I would have convicted

The keys were not found by the outside investigators after FOUR DAYS OF SEARCHING the trailer and garage.
But lo and behold, the very man that was being sued just happen to find it - right in plain site!! AMAZING!!!...
The blood and sweat - again, not allowed in testimony for God only knows why - a vial of his blood was found in Police custody and had been tampered with. Getting Steven's sweat would have been easy.
But no one drop, or even a forensic droplet of Theresa's blood found in the garage. You tell me how you can shoot someone in the head and hack their body into pieces and not get any blood anywhere??
Impossible.
The prosecution and judge in both cases did such an unbelievably unethical and to the point of bizarre activity in both cases that it boggles the mind how there was no re-trial.

I gave it 5 stars.

 

[rightwinger]

The blood sample did not have EDTA, it did not have any type of preservative or alteration......it was just blood

The sheriff had no access to Averys clean blood

But remember the test wasn't if it EVER had EDTA. It showed that it didn't have EDTA at the time of testing and the FBI was unable to show anyone their method for their testing. Even other forensic specialists couldn't make heads or tails of their testing methods.

Secret methods that can't be duplicated isn't something that should be admissible at all. The sheriff had access to Averys blood. What you're doing is going along with the story the police are providing as fact. When none of it can be double checked by anyone.

It's like me saying something is a mermaid and then pointing to my own findings as proof it is. There hasn't been any independent duplication of any of their methods. Wink wink...how could that be?

All the defense had to do is test the blood in the vial and show that it no longer had EDTA. They couldn't
The Sheriff had no access to clean Avery blood until after he was arrested a week after the murder. Still hard to do without Avery knowing

 

[rightwinger]

The police have no answers for the following:

Why was Averys blood vial tampered with?

Why did the police who were at the scene never sign in? And why did he give 2 different times of arrival under oath that contridict each other?

Why can't anyone else duplicate the method for EDTA testing?

There's one big problem with this crucial piece of evidence in favor of Steven Avery on 'Making a Murderer'

that court papers from Avery's appeal show prison nurse Marlene Kraintz was set to testify in Avery's trial for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach that she punctured a hole in the test tube of Avery's blood, and in fact such holes are commonplace, because that's often how the blood gets put in the tube in the first place.

 

[ClosedCaption]

All the defense had to do is test the blood in the vial and show that it no longer had EDTA. They couldn't

Of course they couldnt because as mentioned before their testing methods were secret and could not be duplicated by any other forensic specialist.

I mean it's easy to say no one could do what the FBI did when the FBI couldn't tell anyone how they did it so that it could be tested independently. I can't do a trick by Penn and Teller until they tell me how. This is how the FBI is operating in the name of Justice. "It's a secret"

 

[ClosedCaption]

The police have no answers for the following:

Why was Averys blood vial tampered with?

Why did the police who were at the scene never sign in? And why did he give 2 different times of arrival under oath that contridict each other?

Why can't anyone else duplicate the method for EDTA testing?

There's one big problem with this crucial piece of evidence in favor of Steven Avery on 'Making a Murderer'

that court papers from Avery's appeal show prison nurse Marlene Kraintz was set to testify in Avery's trial for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach that she punctured a hole in the test tube of Avery's blood, and in fact such holes are commonplace, because that's often how the blood gets put in the tube in the first place.

Ok, so look at the tube. Why is there dried blood between the cap and glass if someone only used a syringe? It would've had to be opened for that to happen. The nurse did that too?

 

[james bond]

Your second pic doesn't show up for me, but I have a question. Wasn't the vial in a plastic bag? What happened to the plastic bag?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Your second pic doesn't show up for me, but I have a question. Wasn't the vial in a plastic bag? What happened to the plastic bag?

The second pic was the same pic but it didn't work for some reason. No, the vial was in an evidence box that had also been opened and only found out AFTER the police claimed they didn't have access to it. The defense showed them a pic of Avery's evidence box in the office and then they came up with the excuse of basic "Yeah, but...So?"

They basically have treated every contridict in statement they've ever put out with the response "Ok, my bad...but he's guilty" and since they are the law no one but the defense has ever questioned it. Not the Judges, the appeals....none of them.

 

[rightwinger]

The police have no answers for the following:

Why was Averys blood vial tampered with?

Why did the police who were at the scene never sign in? And why did he give 2 different times of arrival under oath that contridict each other?

Why can't anyone else duplicate the method for EDTA testing?

There's one big problem with this crucial piece of evidence in favor of Steven Avery on 'Making a Murderer'

that court papers from Avery's appeal show prison nurse Marlene Kraintz was set to testify in Avery's trial for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach that she punctured a hole in the test tube of Avery's blood, and in fact such holes are commonplace, because that's often how the blood gets put in the tube in the first place.

Ok, so look at the tube. Why is there dried blood between the cap and glass if someone only used a syringe? It would've had to be opened for that to happen. The nurse did that too?

Moot

Because none of THAT blood was found in the car

 

[strollingbones]

okay i dont think the blood was tampered with....and why was the seal on the evidence box broken..those types of errors lead to reasonable doubt....now remember the jurors heard all of the evidence ..that is what we have not done...heard all the evidence

 

[ClosedCaption]

The police have no answers for the following:

Why was Averys blood vial tampered with?

Why did the police who were at the scene never sign in? And why did he give 2 different times of arrival under oath that contridict each other?

Why can't anyone else duplicate the method for EDTA testing?

There's one big problem with this crucial piece of evidence in favor of Steven Avery on 'Making a Murderer'

that court papers from Avery's appeal show prison nurse Marlene Kraintz was set to testify in Avery's trial for the 2005 murder of Teresa Halbach that she punctured a hole in the test tube of Avery's blood, and in fact such holes are commonplace, because that's often how the blood gets put in the tube in the first place.

Ok, so look at the tube. Why is there dried blood between the cap and glass if someone only used a syringe? It would've had to be opened for that to happen. The nurse did that too?

Moot

Because none of THAT blood was found in the car

There was no independent testing.

 

[ClosedCaption]

okay i dont think the blood was tampered with....and why was the seal on the evidence box broken..those types of errors lead to reasonable doubt....now remember the jurors heard all of the evidence ..that is what we have not done...heard all the evidence

The evidence box was opened and retaped. If someone pin pricked it...ok, but how does blood get dried up on the outside?

But like all the other questionable things that went on the Prosecution just did what rightwinger is doing. Just say it's a moot point and assert there's no reasonable doubt because they say so

 

[james bond]

Here's one scientist's opinion of the EDTA test done by the FBI.

"The testing that would have been required to scientifically validate this test would have required some time. After following standard validation procedures, I would have taken blood from an EDTA vial (any blood) and put it onto a vehicle surface. After the blood was completely dry, I would have used the same blood swabbing and collection procedure used during the investigation, and then tested that sample. This would be a positive control, since the technician would know that there was EDTA in that sample. Does the newly-developed test detect the EDTA? If so, repeat it at least 10 times, and you have a strong scientific ground to make the statement that there was no EDTA present in the blood from the vehicle. If the test does not detect EDTA from the experiment above, one cannot make any mention about the presence or absence of EDTA in the blood swabs from the vehicle because the test could not detect EDTA amounts that small."

Full article here
A Scientist Explained Why The Blood Evidence Used In ‘Making A Murderer’ Is Complete And Utter Garbage

This vial of blood is the most controversial piece of evidence in the 'Making a Murderer' mystery -- here's how the test that was run on it works
This vial of blood is the most controversial piece of evidence in the 'Making a Murderer' mystery — here’s how the test that was run on it works