ADVERTISEMENT

Making a Murderer

My thought is that Steven Avery may have killed her or maybe not. You say he maybe an irrational person yet you say he ordered the cuffs 3 weeks before the murder and tried to hide the car. I saw the pictures of the car. It wasn't hidden. It was set up to draw attention to it because no other cars had tree limbs leaning up against it. As for an Alibi...he was home. He lives by himself. Have you ever been home by yourself for an extended period of time?? You have no alibi if you are home by yourself. I don't think you can watch this and not come to the conclusion that there was planted evidence. That alone should bother every one on here. With that evidence the possible killer may not have gotten a fair trial. Because if there was planted evidence how can you believe any of the evidence IMO.
 
Whether you think he ought to be given another trial is one thing, but how anyone actually believes he is innocent is beyond me. For starters he has no alibi...none...if he had anything resembling the flimsiest alibi of all time, that overly favorable documentary would have presented it. He was there the whole time. Now, here is one of the many big problems for the conspiratorial minded in this thread...his phone calls the day of the murder. When first questioned, Avery told police he didn't see her or that she didn't show up. Why the lie?

This is a guy who bright and early at 8:12 the morning of the murder, right when Auto Trader opened up, called to request they send the soon to be dead woman to his property to take pictures of a van. He doesn't give his name but his sister's first initial and last name. Later in the afternoon, perhaps impatient cause she hasn't shown up yet, he twice calls her number with a blocked call. Considering these calls and considering he had on a previous occasion answered the door in a towel when she arrived (which understandably grossed her out a little), it is pretty easy to see he had a hard on for the woman. Do you honestly believe he didn't know exactly when she got there? Common sense would dictate one to believe that he was watching and was aware of her presence one the premises the moment she arrived. Do you think he didn't go talk to her? He had her on his mind bright and early that morning and was calling and blocking his number moments before she arrived. What other possible suspect in the area had ever shown near as much interest in this woman?

Then we get the defense for Avery that really isn't a defense...the why would he do this with possible millions on the way from a lawsuit? You ever met an irrational person? Or a person with no impulse control? A person who flies into rages. They don't think like you and I do, they don't weigh the pros and cons of a situation cause they can't control their crazy dumbass side. He may have not planned to kill her, she may have rejected him and he goes nuts. He did order handcuffs and leg restraints three weeks before the murder...maybe he did plan it.

Another interesting aspect of this long discussion is that the conspiracy types want to have it both ways...first they tell us Avery was too dumb to clean up a mess and then defend him by saying if he did it he would have obviously destroyed the car right away. But in the first breath you just told us how dumb he was? Perhaps that same lack of intelligence is why the car wasn't destroyed. Maybe he got done with her at such a late hour that he thought someone might notice him destroying a car at an odd time. Maybe he didn't even want the crushed, remnants of the car on his property and planned to move the car far away at a later date. And lets not forgot he left the day after or so after the murder, went a hundred miles away for 3 days, when he returned of course police would notice that significant cut on his hand.

And I forgot to add this was a woman who was quite frequently on her cell phone and pretty much when she arrives there is no activity on her phone ever again. So I think we can all agree that she was killed in that general area by someone who lived fairly close shortly after she arrived. If most of us agree on that, which of the 4 or 5 men/suspects in that immediate area knew she was going to be there that afternoon and knew about what time? Steven Avery. Which of the men showed he was thinking about her a lot that day? Blocked calls, giving his sister's name, requesting that Auto Trader send her out...Steven Avery. Which one tells police he didn't even see her? Some of those other 'suspects' told police they saw her out there taking pictures that day...kind of dumb to admit they saw her if they killed her. But Avery, the man calling her minutes before she arrives, didn't see a thing. Claimed at one point she was a no show. Jesus fellows, common sense.

And if this was a frame job it was quite an extensive one. His blood in her car and DNA on her keys you would think would be sufficient but no, they went the extra mile, and put her DNA on a slug and his non blood DNA on the latch of the hood. Even if you threw out the keys and slug and blood that were questioned in the show, you would still have his DNA on the latch and his lies and her bones in his back yard and camera and phone in his burn barrel...that and the cut on his hand, his odd behavior the day she was killed, last known person to have seen her alive and well. Lot of people in jail for terrible things with far less evidence, circumstantial and otherwise. He was guilty. Maybe someone else was involved, maybe they weren't but Steven Avery was one of the murders and most likely the only one. For a guy so eager to proclaim his innocence to the media before he was arrested, he refused take the stand on his own behalf..

You listed quite a bit of circumstantial evidence....now listen to why you are wrong.

He did have handcuffs. Yeah. Little pink furry sex toy cuffs. If they where used where is her DNA? His DNA on her key, where's hers? They were her keys BTW. The bones in his backyard prove nothing. They were obviously moved there after the fact. The camera and phone in the barrel...what does that point to?? Do they have an eyewitness of him placing them in there? There are cases all over the US who were incorrectly convicted. We hear of them all the time. There are also cases of people walking on far greater evidence. I guess you believe OJ is innocent then as well right? You keep saying "maybe". Did you ever think "maybe" he didn't do it? We do not convict people on "maybe". I know one thing that is certain. I'm certain you should not be on any jury. But, then "maybe" you should.

The whole case was fvcked up by the State. I have no idea if he is guilty or not. I have a damn good idea he got railroaded though. Get the case out of that crooked part of the State and give him a fair shake.
 
GLR, OJ was guilty as well, only his victims remains, vehicle with his blood in it , and personal items weren't found on his property.
 
There's a difference between tampering and incompetence.

You think the police intentionally planted evidence in the OJ case too? Or did his lawyers just do a good job convincing the jury they did?

Much like this case that's all the defense had to use, they threw a Hail Mary and it was caught in the end zone.
 
They didn't actually convince the jury of the planted glove....just made the mistake of him trying it on. Yes, that too was stupid.
 
I think evidence was tampered with. However what makes OJ different is there was no doubt he did it.

Avery, even if you believe he is guilty, is at least questionable. And still I think evidence was tampered with.

I think that's honestly why Avery is so confident that it was planted because he knows he didn't leave it there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GLR5555
You listed quite a bit of circumstantial evidence....now listen to why you are wrong.

He did have handcuffs. Yeah. Little pink furry sex toy cuffs. If they where used where is her DNA? His DNA on her key, where's hers? They were her keys BTW. The bones in his backyard prove nothing. They were obviously moved there after the fact. The camera and phone in the barrel...what does that point to?? Do they have an eyewitness of him placing them in there? There are cases all over the US who were incorrectly convicted. We hear of them all the time. There are also cases of people walking on far greater evidence. I guess you believe OJ is innocent then as well right? You keep saying "maybe". Did you ever think "maybe" he didn't do it? We do not convict people on "maybe". I know one thing that is certain. I'm certain you should not be on any jury. But, then "maybe" you should.

The whole case was fvcked up by the State. I have no idea if he is guilty or not. I have a damn good idea he got railroaded though. Get the case out of that crooked part of the State and give him a fair shake.

The use of the word 'maybe' was just to to point out scenarios of why for insistence the car may not have been crushed, the maybes had nothing to do with why I would or would not convict. There was no maybes on the phone records for example, no maybes that his DNA is on the hood latch. Saying the bones means nothing is hilarious. Did I consider he was innocent, yep, thought that was a possibility until a fuller picture came out and more facts came out that the documentary didn't see fit to show. Interesting every fact the filmmakers omitted are facts harmful to Avery. At least I'm not using the word 'obviously' and phrases 'like that is fact' about things that are very much up for debate and are nothing more than a opinion. Several on here have used statements like it's 'obvious' the state planted all the evidence. It is not obvious, some of the non blood DNA would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to plant. I think in the age of DNA people scoff way too much at circumstantial evidence, enough circumstantial evidence can be very damning. The OJ comment is a bit bizarre, OJ and Avery are both guilty as dogs. If it was in my power to give Avery another trial I would and I would throw out the bullet evidence which the woman contaminated with her own sample.
 
Last edited:
They didn't actually convince the jury of the planted glove....just made the mistake of him trying it on. Yes, that too was stupid.

There was a whole lot more supposed tampered evidence than the glove.

They too said Oj's blood was planted. Averys defense basically used the exact same defense as OJ's team.
 
I was really hoping that his ex-girlfriend would give us a "smoking gun" of some sort during her interview last night, but she didn't.

She added to the (inadmissible) narrative that Steven was a white trash POS, but that's about it. And, of course, she has some credibility issues, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyway, I was disappointed. I'd hoped we could put this thing to rest once and for all. Then again, it was Nancy Grace, so I should've known better.
 
Well if that isn't appropriate for this thread......only thing left is a murder and setup!
 
You know what I found most odd in this whole thing, they did not have 1 servilence camera at all keeping an eye on a junk yard. It was easily accessible to thieves bums etc etc.

You'd think they would have come across a reason to have one by then.
 
One thing some of you are forgetting, Avery doesn't have to prove he didn't do it. The state has the burden to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he DID do it. In my opinion, there is enough reasonable doubt that it would be hard for me to convict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ukfan03
You know what I found most odd in this whole thing, they did not have 1 servilence camera at all keeping an eye on a junk yard. It was easily accessible to thieves bums etc etc.

You'd think they would have come across a reason to have one by then.


You'd think if your owner's of a junk yard somebody in you're employee's would think too have a servilence camera at least one u kno what I mean?
 
I'm curious to what everyone else thinks about the blood in the vehicle next to the ignition. It clearly to me looks as if someone took a quetip or something and applied the blood there. There is clearly two dots and I can't see how someone could transfer blood off of themselves in that matter. Clearly planted in my opinion. I'd like to hear what other's think about this.
 
I'm curious to what everyone else thinks about the blood in the vehicle next to the ignition. It clearly to me looks as if someone took a quetip or something and applied the blood there. There is clearly two dots and I can't see how someone could transfer blood off of themselves in that matter. Clearly planted in my opinion. I'd like to hear what other's think about this.
I've worked on cars, bikes, etc for 25 years, currently maintenance in industrial plastics. I've had hundreds cuts on my hands and have smeared it, dripped it, drowned things in blood. It's clearly planted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ukfan03
Stachowski, who maintains that she has never watched an episode of Making A Murderer, said the documentary is "all lies."
She knows what she told them. And she'd be far, far better equipped to say if the guy is a murderer than any of us, and she says she believes she is.
 
And she'd be far, far better equipped to say if the guy is a murderer than any of us
I don't trust her to know something about the case or about what happened that night because she dated the guy. She may have some useful insight, but dating the guy doesn't make her an expert on anything.
 
^^^^
At this point nothing is going to convince you conspiratorial types...I mean look a couple posts up, now we got catsillustrated posters who can look at a picture and discern whether blood was planted. This thread keeps getting better.
 
I don't trust her to know something about the case or about what happened that night because she dated the guy. She may have some useful insight, but dating the guy doesn't make her an expert on anything.


At this point the Avery documentary is about as credible as the one I link here. A lot of people bought that one at first.
 
^^^^
At this point nothing is going to convince you conspiratorial types...
I don't know if nothing will convince me, but you can probably cross "drunk whore who Nancy Grace paid to come on her show" off the list of possibles, yes.
 
I don't know if nothing will convince me, but you can probably cross "drunk whore who Nancy Grace paid to come on her show" off the list of possibles, yes.

Just because a person is or was a drunk doesn't make them dishonest, but due to my hatred of Nancy Grace in general...fair enough
 
  • Like
Reactions: Comebakatz3
Just because a person is or was a drunk doesn't make them dishonest, but due to my hatred of Nancy Grace in general...fair enough
I'm not even saying she's necessarily dishonest, necessarily a drunk or whatever. She may be a wonderful person. But it's a fallacy to say "Well she knew him, and she thinks he's guilty, so there you go." It's just as misguided as it is to say "His Father and Mother think he's innocent and they know the guy better than anyone, so there you go."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vandalayindustries
All she knows is that he's crazy. I don't see how this is groundbreaking. it's not like she even claims he told her that he did it or anything. There's no news here
 
I don't know if nothing will convince me, but you can probably cross "drunk whore who Nancy Grace paid to come on her show" off the list of possibles, yes.
:joy::joy:

god you people are idots. So let me guess, she was coerced to telling stories of Steven beating her, knocking her unconscious and dragging her to her car. LOLLOLOLOL She lied about all of that!!!! Its Kratz fault!!! And Lenk!!! Those dirty bastards made her say all of that stuff to incriminate Steven!! They paid her off from the 36million that they didnt have to pay avery when the cops killed her!!!! LOLOLO:joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy::joy:

And now we have a factory worker in this thread saying he knows what planted blood looks like. Hey dipshit, by dads a freaking doctor, I guarantee you hes seen more blood than you and hes not trained to tell whether the blood was planted.

I swear I think the STEVEN IS INNOCENT!!!!! crowd would have been a Jim Jones follower. No doubt in my mind.

BTW, there was a People.com article released tonight where Stevens mom says that Halbach isnt even dead!!!! LOL Why dont you idiots go read that and sign a petition.
 
Last edited:
Why are you so angry? Settle down psycho

Not even a little angry. I really laugh at anybody that thinks hes innocent and goes the lengths that you all have gone to beat up on people like Bill and call him names because you disagree. See how stupid I sound when I post like that?? That has been you and crazyqwhatever for 5 pages.

Having said that, Im sure jodi lied and made the ENTIRE thing up. Steven is a really good guy who treats women well.

I honestly hope that the guys defending him have daughters that end up dating guys EXACTLY like Steven Avery. Now that will be funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheySoSensitive
lol, holy shit. Maybe take a break from it, ABH. Master of None was good. Maybe watch that for awhile.

Nothing you list that she said in your post did I say I doubted. I just said she's not an expert on whether he killed Theresa or not. Which is true. Really hope you wouldn't debate that or claim that her saying "I think he did it." is really the smoking gun here.
 
lol, holy shit. Maybe take a break from it, ABH. Master of None was good. Maybe watch that for awhile.

Nothing you list that she said in your post did I say I doubted. I just said she's not an expert on whether he killed Theresa or not. Which is true. Really hope you wouldn't debate that or claim that her saying "I think he did it." is really the smoking gun here.

No, but the behavior she describes is exactly the type of person that I would expect to kill someone. Not to mention what he did to the Sheriffs wife and the other felons he committed before he killed and burned Teresa. Hearing her stories about his behaviors only further cements that he is more than capable of murder and is exactly where he belongs, in jail for life.
 
Like I have said on here before. I don't know if Steven Avery is guilty or not. There looks like convincing evidence that he is. There is also convincing evidence that was planted with out a doubt. So it looks like what is on trial here is the Judicial System. IMO it is Guilty in not rendering a verdict beyond a shadow of doubt. To me it looks like they already tried and convicted Stephen Avery before his first day in court and to me that is wrong on a lot of levels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Comebakatz3
Anybody who willingly sets a family pet on fire is an effing psycho. It's totally obvious this guy is a redneck, psycho, piece of shit. The exact type of person you'd expect to rape/murder someone...

Did the police plant evidence? Probably. Does that change the fact that Avery is better off in jail? Nope.

Let the a-hole rot. He clearly has a track record of effed up actions, only a matter of time before something happens again.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT