Amazing series. Very sad story. Perfect example of why you never speak to the cops without an attorney no matter how smart you think you are.
OT: Making A Murderer on Netflix
- Thread starter dahliaclone
- Start date
That blood vial still sticks out in my mind because it was such a big deal and then it was just gone with that one test that was somewhat questionable anyways. What would the possible explanation aside from police conspiracy for the hole in the top of the blood vial be? The lab said they don't do that, so who would have a reason to break into the evidence to do it?
I think Serial 3 is another one along these lines. My wife and daughter were listening to it on our drive to Cedar Falls while I tried to sleep in the back seat but it caught my attention.
This. And I'll be the first to say that the vast majority of law enforcement are good people honestly trying to do their job. But if you've got reason to think you're potentially involved in a crime, there is very little chance to talking your way out of it and you're very likely hurting yourself.
It struck me as interesting or maybe horrifying how the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing was basically not a thing at all in this particular case and probably in many high profile cases. With the police and then the story is perpetuated over and over again in the news about how he's an alleged rapist and murderer, how could you ever hope to have a fair trial by jury? There's no way, no possible way that you'll find 12 people that are completely unbiased and impartial in a case like this.
I felt the defense did a pretty good job of discovering evidence there may have been tampering but from what was shown, I didn't feel like they hammered a couple points hard enough. I didn't think they went into that vial deep enough. They didn't put anyone on the stand as an expert on that to say that there is no reason it should have been opened. Then I didn't think they hammered on the key enough. I thought they should have been harder on how it was found and the fact there was only one person's DNA on it. The last thing was the DNA evidence around the vehicle. There were no finger prints, yet a cut on the finger of Avery was supposed to have dropped blood in the car. There were just those few things that I would have beaten to absolute death in any way I could.
The hole in the vial is there because that is how the blood goes in during the blood draw. The lab that did a later test did not use the hole because they just pull the stopper out.
Also, for those of you who think he is innocent the police found Steven's non-blood DNA under the hood latch of the Rav 4. So they planted blood and skin cells?
Also, for those of you who think he is innocent the police found Steven's non-blood DNA under the hood latch of the Rav 4. So they planted blood and skin cells?
Also they found the car on a 40 acre plot of land with who knows how many vehicles in less than 20 minutes? Yeah. Sure. I think it was almost certainly someone that lived on the property that killed the woman, maybe Steve, maybe Bobby, maybe Brendan's step-dad? Then Colburn finds the car while he's illegally searching the property because he is sure an Avery is involved. He calls in the plates, lies on the stand saying he wasn't looking at the car when he called it in, directs the searchers to the car so they find it almost immediately. And then between him and Lenk they plant a little more evidence, the key, the blood, maybe the bullet in the garage, to make sure the charges stick to Steve.
I think whether or not Steve or Brendan killed the woman is kind of outside the point of this show though. I think the key thing to take away is that neither of them got what I would consider to be a fair trial. So many mistakes, so many improprieties by law enforcement, lawyers (Brendan's lawyer basically selling him up the river to prosecutors), investigators (Manitowoc county sheriffs supposedly giving the case up but still taking active roles in searching and investigating?), expert witnesses (how about the lab that decides their protocols for contamination all of a sudden don't matter because they can just use common sense instead??? WTF!?).
I think whether or not Steve or Brendan killed the woman is kind of outside the point of this show though. I think the key thing to take away is that neither of them got what I would consider to be a fair trial. So many mistakes, so many improprieties by law enforcement, lawyers (Brendan's lawyer basically selling him up the river to prosecutors), investigators (Manitowoc county sheriffs supposedly giving the case up but still taking active roles in searching and investigating?), expert witnesses (how about the lab that decides their protocols for contamination all of a sudden don't matter because they can just use common sense instead??? WTF!?).
After watching it I was convinced he was innocent. Now I am not sure - yeah the cops aren't credible but why would a guy who spent 18 years in prison even go around doing anything remotely suspicious or to draw attention to himself? If I did hard time I would get the hell out of dodge and lead a clean and sober life. Something just doesn't add up.
I thought this was interesting
Unless you have been sitting in the courtroom and have had the opportunity to hear all of the evidence, it is really not possible or fair to second guess the jury verdict. Clearly the documentarians here had a point of view and skewed their presentation to support only their point of view. We are getting only that evidence that they want us to see, and that bolsters their belief that SA is not guilty. Folks, this was never intended to be an unbiased, objective presentation, otherwise why not include the finding of DNA evidence on the hood latch, why not include the fact that SA specifically requested Teresa when he booked the appointment, that he called her three times that day -- twice using *67 to hide his identity, why not mention that the bullet found in the garage matched a .22 rifle in SA's house, etc.
Unless you have been sitting in the courtroom and have had the opportunity to hear all of the evidence, it is really not possible or fair to second guess the jury verdict. Clearly the documentarians here had a point of view and skewed their presentation to support only their point of view. We are getting only that evidence that they want us to see, and that bolsters their belief that SA is not guilty. Folks, this was never intended to be an unbiased, objective presentation, otherwise why not include the finding of DNA evidence on the hood latch, why not include the fact that SA specifically requested Teresa when he booked the appointment, that he called her three times that day -- twice using *67 to hide his identity, why not mention that the bullet found in the garage matched a .22 rifle in SA's house, etc.
I (like everyone else) have absolutely no clue as to what happened, but to think they didn't have access to Avery's non-blood DNA after being at his residence for so long is ridiculous.
Also, the only place I've seen this extra evidence is from interviews with Kratz, and forgive me if I don't take that guy at his word.
Isn't that like constantly only highlighting the negative side of a person and then when they do something good you discount it because "Look at all the bad he has done?" If you teach your kid that *random politician* is a liar and crook and only show the worst of him of course your kid won't believe anything when *random politician* does something meaningful or good. Completely discounting someone because their enemy tries to discredit them is silly. Of course their enemy will try to discredit them.
He kind of discredited himself, albeit after this case, by being found to be a generally scummy individual and resigning his position in shame.
Also interesting that the dismissed juror said he wasn't sure he was guilty, but there were a vocal minority of jurors who did right away. That's coming from someone who sat thru the whole case, so he would know more than any of us.
Didn't they say the first polling of jurors was 7 not guilty to 3 guilty with 2 undecided? I've never been on any jury let alone a murder case jury but that's interesting that 7 people could sit through the entire trial, think someone is not guilty and then be persuaded or convinced to change their minds. Not a comment about this case in particular, just on the whole jury dynamic in general.
