• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Making A Murderer - Netflix 10-part documentary series - S1 now streaming on Netflix

H

hawk2025

Member
Erigu said:
Well, the prosecution certainly didn't help... I couldn't believe my eyes when the expert went ahead and showed a graphic that literally said "1) if we find some, there's some 2) if we don't, there isn't any". What the fuck.
Click to expand...

That was such a gross disregard of the actual science behind these type of tests.

Zero understanding of type 1 and type 2 errors.
 
S

Sai-kun

Banned
episodes 3 and 4:
all this shit with brendan pisses me the fuck off. sick fucks taking advantage of a kid. boils my god damn blood. the way len's investigator friend just coerces him into changing his confession. what the FUCK
 
TwoDurans

TwoDurans

"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
PetriP-TNT said:
Googled #strangers and it brought me pretty NSFW results on Twitter 0_0
Click to expand...

image.php
 
J

joelseph

Member
Main state prosecutor looks like he has been eating Cheetos all the time.

I have such a hardon for the two Defensive attorneys. Makes me wish I was a lawyer.
 
O

oti

Banned
joelseph said:
I have such a hardon for the two Defensive attorneys. Makes me wish I was a lawyer.
Click to expand...

image.php


-

So, is something happening after this documentary got released? Any consequences for the people involved (other than hatemail)? Any repercussions?
 
H

Homeboyd

Member
oti xero said:
image.php


-

So, is something happening after this documentary got released? Any consequences for the people involved (other than hatemail)? Any repercussions?
Click to expand...

Anon planning a protest to get the DOJ to review the case (sheriff's office and court): https://twitter.com/BrendanandSteve

CYIO0zOWsAAgFym.jpg


Jerry Buting calling for people to come forward with info saying "cops won't dare retaliate now" for those who might have been afraid to come forward before... https://twitter.com/jbuting

etc. etc.

Basically nothing has happened yet, but it's gained so much attention now it seems more likely if SA and BD are innocent, they'll have better means to prove it (or at least prove the issues with the prosecution the first time should lead to a mistrial). And if another trial or trials happened, jurors wouldn't be afraid to give verdicts against the cops.
 
F

Fourth Storm

Member
FlyinJ said:
Also the parallels between this and the West Memphis 3 is startling. The coerced confession from a mentally disabled teenager was that entire case as well.

And it was the Paradise Lost documentaries that eventually got them released as well.
Click to expand...

This is an old post and slightly off topic, but I find it worth mentioning that those Paradise Lost movies left out many incriminating details. I watched them all a few years back, took an interest, and did a bit of follow up research. It wasn't all cut and dry the way HBO depicted it.
 
S

Sigma722

Member
Fourth Storm said:
This is an old post and slightly off topic, but I find it worth mentioning that those Paradise Lost movies left out many incriminating details. I watched them all a few years back, took an interest, and did a bit of follow up research. It wasn't all cut and dry the way HBO depicted it.
Click to expand...

It sounds like there have been a few missing details from MaM as well. Probably not enough, but things worth mentioning.
 
S

Sai-kun

Banned
Episode 5:
What the FUCK is with the judge not calling for a mistrial or at least getting the jury to strike what Bobby said about joking about a body from how they view the case

what the fuck?

what the fuck

i just dont understand

how can anyone think like that

this makes me so sad
 
S

Sephzilla

Member
Finished the series last night. Regardless of whether or not Avery actually committed the crime, that trial should have taken place far away from Manitowoc County. Avery did not get a fair trial in any sense of the word. There were so many "what the actual fuck?" moments in that trial.
 
TwoDurans

TwoDurans

"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
Sephzilla said:
Finished the series last night. Regardless of whether or not Avery actually committed the crime, that trial should have taken place far away from Manitowoc County. Avery did not get a fair trial in any sense of the word. There were so many "what the actual fuck?" moments in that trial.
Click to expand...

Once the DA did that "not for children's ears" press conference he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial anywhere in the country.
 
T

Tubie

Member
I just finished watching it all.

The level of fuckery and batshit crazy just kept going up and up, episode after episode, and at some points I had to stop watching for a few minutes just to calm down.

I'm so angry that this can basically happen to anyone in the US.

What happened to Brendan was just depressing as hell. I can't believe those cops took advantage of a clearly vulnerable kid like that.
 
R

RedShift

Member
It's hard to pick who the worst person in this story is but I think it has to be that detective Brenden's "defence" attorney hired.

ep 10
oh, you're making me read out about how I wanted to wipe out my client's family from the face of the earth, I'm sorry, I need to pretend to cry about a ribbon a little.

Pure evil people exist, and he's one of them.
 
V

Virzeth

Member
RedShift said:
On episode 10
WHAT THE FUCK

Hot young nymph... A date to an autopsy...

Just... What
Click to expand...

Wanna see how deep the rabbit hole goes?

Jerome Buting ‏@JButing Jan 1
Kratz wasn't even honest in his own Supreme Court discipline case. See paragraphs 34-48, 64-67. https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113968 …
Click to expand...

No idea if that's actually Buting's Twitter account (doubt it), but the link is good. And it is just the funniest shit.

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

Office of Lawyer Regulation,
Complainant,
v.
Kenneth R. Kratz,
Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST KRATZ

---

¶ 47 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, we agree with the referee that a four-month suspension is necessary discipline for Attorney Kratz's misconduct in this matter. Attorney Kratz's conduct toward S.V.G. was appalling. Through a series of wheedling text messages, Attorney Kratz attempted to convince S.V.G., a domestic abuse crime victim and witness, to enter into a sexual relationship with him while he was prosecuting the perpetrator of the domestic crime. S.V.G. felt leveraged by Attorney Kratz's sexual entreaties; she feared that if she failed to respond to him, he might take action in her domestic abuse case that could potentially adversely affect her. This was exploitative behavior, harassing behavior, and a crass placement of his personal interests above those of his client, the State of Wisconsin. Attorney Kratz's comments to social worker S.S. while she served as a witness in one of his cases——that he "won't cum in [her] mouth" and looked forward to "big boobed women" serving him drinks in Las Vegas——crossed the line separating the unprofessional from the acutely offensive and harassing. Attorney Kratz's statement to social worker R.H. during a court proceeding, in which he voiced approval of a reporter's "big beautiful breasts," was sufficiently boorish as to constitute misconduct. In short, whatever his qualities and accomplishments as a lawyer, Attorney Kratz proved himself during the period in question to be sanctionably sophomoric.

---

¶ 64 In place of specificity Attorney Kratz resorts to hyperbole. He writes in his tardy objection to costs:

As this Court should by now have undeniably determined, there is nothing ORDINARY about this disciplinary case brought by the OLR against the Respondent, and the assessment of ANY costs against the Respondent, as a result of the OLR's insistence on a formal hearing, is unjust and borders on the intellectually insulting. t was the Respondent himself who has done everything, since well before any formal grievance was filed with the OLR, to resolve this entire matter with professional humility, having immediately and consistently taken full responsibility for any possible Supreme Court Rule violation . . . .

¶ 65 The record proves otherwise. In every stage of these proceedings, Attorney Kratz has employed a tooth-and-nail litigation approach. He denied all misconduct in his answer to the OLR's complaint and raised various constitutional, jurisdictional, and procedural defenses. He accused the OLR of operating under a conflict of interest and of unethically leaking information. He moved to dismiss the OLR's complaint on nine separate grounds; the referee later rejected the motion as "replete with bare assertions of fact" which were "not properly before the referee and may not be considered." He engaged in vigorous discovery practice, including propounding over 125 interrogatories, filing discovery motions, and attempting to compel the production of documents from third parties. He raised arguments that ranged from the incredible (e.g., disputing his text messages to S.V.G. contained sexual overtones); to the hyper-technical (claiming the OLR complaint was barred by the civil doctrines of issue and claim preclusion because an OLR investigator initially declined to forward S.V.G.'s grievance for formal investigation); to the inconsistent (denying any recollection of making inappropriate comments to S.S. but claiming credit for having recognized their inappropriateness and apologized); to the puzzling (arguing that he could not have told R.H. that a reporter had "big beautiful breasts" because the reporter in question was beautiful, but not large breasted).

¶ 66 It was, of course, Attorney Kratz's right to vigorously contest the misconduct charges. But SCR 22.24(1m) makes clear that when a lawyer whom this court ultimately finds guilty of misconduct imposes costs on the disciplinary system, he or she must expect to pay. And litigation, as every litigant knows, is not cheap. We refuse to transfer the litigation costs that Attorney Kratz has generated to the other attorneys of the state who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

¶ 67 In the end, there is nothing "extraordinary" here from a costs perspective. Our general rule is to impose full costs upon a finding of misconduct, and we do so here. See SCR 22.24(1m).

¶ 68 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Kenneth R. Kratz to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of four months, effective July 11, 2014.
Click to expand...
 
Daffy Duck

Daffy Duck

Member
Episode 9/10 left and this is just some bullshit.

I don't think Avery did it, I don't think police killed her either, but they sure as hell planted evidence and framed him for it.

The fact these guys do not think he was innocent of the original rape is mind blowing.

I don't trust the ex/room mate either, so he gives a camera to the one person he sends off the Avery yard in case she sees somethings and boom she finds the car, also why would he put the body in her car?

Just wtf.....this's certainty the strangest and most frustrating thing I've ever seen
 
D

Dalek

Member
Daffy Duck said:
Episode 9/10 left and this is just some bullshit.

I don't think Avery did it, I don't think police killed her either, but they sure as hell planted evidence and framed him for it.

The fact these guys do not think he was innocent of the original rape is mind blowing.

I don't trust the ex/room mate either, so he gives a camera to the one person he sends off the Avery yard in case she sees somethings and boom she finds the car, also why would he put the body in her car?

Just wtf.....this's certainty the strangest and most frustrating thing I've ever seen
Click to expand...

Mind you the car is on the further side of the lot from Avery's house-right next to the edge for everyone to see and "hidden" by twigs.
 
stufte

stufte

Member
Dalek said:
Here's the "Incriminating Evidence" That Making a Murderer DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT:

Leg Irons
Click to expand...

WTF, that's it? It looks like you could break loose from those with a minimal amount of struggling. Is it not more likely that he bought them to use in his relationship with his girlfriend as she was getting released soon?

Fucking wow.
 
D

Dalek

Member
Rolling Stone: 'Making a Murderer': 10 Questions We Still Have


1. Who the hell is the international recording artist who was released from the jury?
Richard Mahler, listed in the documentary as an "international recording artist," is actually just a local dude with a local band, according to TMZ. Mahler's outfit, the Rick Raybine Band, played the National Anthem at a NASCAR event once; as for how he got the label, Mahler told the site that a reporter described him that way once and it just stuck. Mahler was ultimately dismissed from the jury for a family emergency after he sat in deliberations for four hours.

2. What went on with the jury deliberations?
The much more interesting part about Mahler is his new allegation that two fellow jurors were related to officials in Manitowoc County, where Avery was initially wrongfully convicted. Once the trial was over, Mahler discovered, "[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy," and that "another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office," according to an interview he gave to People.

Maybe that's what defense attorney Jerry Buting was getting at in the final episode, when he made a comment about unanswered questions that he had about jury deliberations. After all, according to Mahler, the original count was that only three jurors were convinced Avery was guilty. In an interview with the Today show, filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos said a juror contacted them after the series aired and claimed his or her decision to vote guilty was made under duress. "The person lived in the county, feared for their safety, and also said, 'If they could frame Steven Avery, they could do it to me,'" Ricciardi said in a follow up interview with Time.

3. Why did the defense team for Brendan Dassey seek to further the State's case?
Len Kachinsky – the original defense attorney for Avery's nephew, Brendan Dassey – is arguably the most inscrutable element of Making a Murderer. His initial comments to the press that implied Dassey's guilt (and by extension, Avery's) were so unprofessional that, when later questioned about them on the stand at a hearing, Kachinsky purports to have forgotten he said what he said.

In one disturbing scene, the lawyer's investigator, Michael O'Kelly, appears to coerce Dassey into massaging his statement so that it aligns perfectly with what the prosecution needs. And in an email between O'Kelly and Kachinsky – remember, both technically working for Dassey – the former all but admits he's helping for the opposition. "I am not concerned with finding evidence to placing Brendan inside the crime scene, as Brendan will be State's primary witness," O'Kelly writes. "This will only serve to bolster the prosecution."

Dassey's post-conviction lawyer, Robert Dvorak, presses O'Kelley on this unbelievable admission. "So your goal is not only to get Brendan [Dassey] to confess, but also to help the State in its prosecution. Correct?" Dvorak asks.

"That's correct," O'Kelly replies.

Kachinsky isn't there for the meeting between O'Kelly and Dassey, nor is he there the following day when two officers interrogate his client in an attempt to replicate what O'Kelly extracted. As the film notes, this level of cooperation between a defense attorney and prosecutors is unheard of. And to take it one step further, it appears to go beyond bad representation and raises questions of backdoor collusion or a quid pro quo. What possible motive do Kachinsky and O'Kelly have to affirmatively advance the prosecution's case? We don't know, but even really bad lawyering (which Kachinsky has copped to) doesn't usually translate to sleeping with the enemy.

4. Is there any innocent explanation for the pinprick hole in the vial that held Avery's blood?
No, really: Is there any convincing, non-nefarious explanation for why a box of evidence was opened, a blood vial apparently punctured with a syringe, and then the box taped back up? Is there any scenario in which that's standard operating procedure for re-examining evidence? Even if you think it's far-fetched that one or two cops would plant blood in the RAV 4, what other account is there that makes any sense?

5. Has testing for EDTA advanced?
Initially it looked like the blood vial is going to be a huge win for the defense. An FBI expert determined, however, that three swabs he ran in his lab didn't contain the chemical EDTA, an additive that would have been in the blood vial — but not in blood itself — that came from a living body. That finding ended up being a major blow.

In the final episode, all of Avery's former defense attorneys sit together discussing how their ex-client could get a new trial. Jerry Buting floats one idea that, as another attorney notes, bears a striking parallel to Avery's first case. "If we could do a test today that was scientifically acceptable and valid, that actually proved there was EDTA in those blood stains, that would be newly discovered evidence," Buting said. If that kind of test is possible, and shows what Buting hopes, it would be the second time new technology exonerated Avery of a crime he didn't commit.

6. Is it common for defendants to be barred from arguing that someone else did it?
When we learn in the film that Avery's team won't be able to advance alternate theories to who killed Halbach, we were stunned. What was going on there?

The short answer is that Wisconsin has a third-party liability law that prevents a defendant from pointing the finger at somebody else without giving the court 30 days notice prior to trial, and having good reason to believe the third party had "motive, opportunity, and a direct connection to the crime." Avery's defense team wasn't allowed to suggest anyone else could have been the culprit, which he later appealed. It's not entirely clear how often defendants in other states are prohibited from advancing alternate theories for whodunit, but in this case it seems to have had a detrimental effect on Avery's ability to defend himself.

7. What's the story behind the deleted voicemails?
Halbach's ex-boyfriend Ryan Hillegas testified on the stand that he was able to guest Teresa's username and password and listen to several voicemail messages left on her phone. Avery's defense lawyers argue that since the mailbox was full, and then some messages were deleted after her death, that someone knows more than they're letting on.

When defense attorney Jerry Buting attempts to pursue this line of inquiry, though, the judge stops him on ground it will violate the third-party liability prohibition. If the State argued that Avery had already destroyed the phone, why didn't the police follow up on any and all people who might have had a motive to delete Halbach's voicemails?

8. Why was Halbach's pelvic bone discovered in the quarry?
At trial, defense attorney Dean Strang cross-examined forensic anthropologist Dr Leslie Eisenberg about whether Halbach's remains had been moved or not. Dr Eisenberg testified that she believed the primary burn site was the burn pit 20 feet from Avery's bedroom, but acknowledges remains were found in a separate barrel, as well as a quarry that's far away from the other two sites.

The State argued that the burn pit was the primary burn location, while the defense argued it could have been elsewhere – implying, possibly, the quarry. If the State's theory is correct, what accounts for Halbach's pelvic bone being discovered in the quarry?

9. What's going on when Sgt Andrew Colborn called in the read the license plate for Halbach's RAV 4?
In Episode Five, defense attorney Dean Strang asks Sgt Colborn about a phone call he made to his dispatcher prior the discovery of Halbach's vehicle on Avery's property. In the recording of the call, Colborn asks dispatch to run a license plate number, and gets a hit for Teresa Halbach, who at that point was listed as a missing person. Colborn then immediately says "Ninety-Nine Toyota?"

To Strang – and likely to many viewers – it sounds like Colborn is looking at the very SUV that wouldn't be discovered for another two days. "I shouldn't have been and I was not looking at the license plate," Colborn responded on the stand.

Maybe. But what was he looking at?

10. Who killed Teresa Halbach?
This remains the most important unanswered question in the case. Redditors have been floating alternate theories about who killed Halbach since the show premiered in late December. Since Avery himself wasn't able to pursue this question at trial, and the filmmakers have said it wasn't their job to investigate the case independently, we're left with little more than speculation. If it was Avery, then it seems clear it didn't go down the way Dassey described it. Could Avery have sterilized two crime scenes to eliminate virtually all traces of Halbach's presence? It seems unlikely.

Ultimately, the responsibility for answering this question shouldn't be that of Internet detectives. And although disgraced prosecutor Ken Kratz is waging his own media blitz to assure the public justice was done, that seems to be a lonely battle at this point.
Click to expand...
 
B

BronsonLee

Member
Kratz is stupid as hell if he thinks he's getting out of this with anything resembling a career, I think. He's pretty much done. Who knows about the other ones, though. Going public didn't help him whatsoever.
 
D

Dalek

Member
BronsonLee said:
Kratz is stupid as hell if he thinks he's getting out of this with anything resembling a career, I think. He's pretty much done. Who knows about the other ones, though. Going public didn't help him whatsoever.
Click to expand...

He's an opportunist-anything to get on TV.
 
Sniper McBlaze

Sniper McBlaze

Member
4. Is there any innocent explanation for the pinprick hole in the vial that held Avery's blood?
No, really: Is there any convincing, non-nefarious explanation for why a box of evidence was opened, a blood vial apparently punctured with a syringe, and then the box taped back up? Is there any scenario in which that's standard operating procedure for re-examining evidence? Even if you think it's far-fetched that one or two cops would plant blood in the RAV 4, what other account is there that makes any sense?
Click to expand...

Blood vials always get punctured by a syringe. That's how you get the blood, haha. If you keep blood in a vial for ~30 years the puncture hole will look more distinct.

I can't believe this is used as an argument that someone took blood from the vial. How was this not mentioned in the documentary?

Edit:

By the way, can someone explain the garage DNA thing? They said they couldn't find any DNA from Halbach, but a lot of DNA from Avery. They make this sound like an argument that he is innocent. Why? Of course he is going to get this fucking DNA there after even if he swiped the whole place from her DNA if he uses it.
 
U

UFO

Banned
DirtyCase said:
I'm on episode 8 with my girlfriend. Aside from the botched investigation and most likely tampered with evidence, what seems the most suspicious for me is Bobby's testimony.

He said he saw Talbach walk towards Stevens trailer at 2:40 pm but he wasnt dropped off from school till about 3:30-3:40. It seems that Bobby and that other man both lied about when they saw each other based on this fact and are seemingly colluding together to provide false testimony. Both had access to the property, they both could've viewed Steven as a VERY easy scapegoat considering his past, and Bobby could have easily coached Brendan about what to say during the confessions (hard for Brendan, to get this right).

Brendan seems very conflicted throughout this documentary. Of course this is just speculation, but does anyone think it's possible that Bobby could have said "either you tell the police this story about Steven and you, or I go to jail" or something of that nature. Just some random thoughts.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych last night and something stuck out to me. The red van Teresa was photographing belonged to Barb, Scott's wife. So likely Scott had a hand in arranging the meeting, or at the very least know about it. And during the trial he says he took the day off work to visit his mother in the hospital, then go hunting. And his son was going out hunting, separately, but at the exact same time. So much so that they passed each other on the road. That whole thing seems... odd.
 
P

psynergylover

Member
just finished ep 2: some pure "A" bullshit goin on.....all those cops/attorneys are crooked as fuck!!! right when they were about to go to court on the shady shit they did during his first conviction all of a sudden they find incrminating evidence of the murder after barring Steven and his family off the property for 8 days

some bullshit right there!
 
D

Dalek

Member
Sniper McBlaze said:
Blood vials always get punctured by a syringe. That's how you get the blood, haha. If you keep blood in a vial for ~30 years the puncture hole will look more distinct.

I can't believe this is used as an argument that someone took blood from the vial. How was this not mentioned in the documentary?

Edit:

By the way, can someone explain the garage DNA thing? They said they couldn't find any DNA from Halbach, but a lot of DNA from Avery. They make this sound like an argument that he is innocent. Why? Of course he is going to get this fucking DNA there after even if he swiped the whole place from her DNA if he uses it.
Click to expand...

He's a criminal mastermind. He scrubbed only HER DNA from the floor and surface areas, yet kept his and deer blood DNA all over the place.

Also in regards to the blood vial-are we certain that the syringe mark would be there? After all, wouldn't that "plug" have been stuck in there AFTER his blood was drawn? I admit I don't know anything about this-however this still doesn't explain how the evidence was clearly cut open, and then tracks were covered with mere scotch tape. And the blood vial was the only thing in the box. Are we to believe someone cut open the evidence and sealed it back up but did nothing with the actual evidence inside?
 
Sniper McBlaze

Sniper McBlaze

Member
Dalek said:
He's a criminal mastermind. He scrubbed only HER DNA from the floor and surface areas, yet kept his and deer blood DNA all over the place.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. How about if he scrubbed that place clean of her DNA and used the garage for other shit afterwards? Clean place + fat, naked guy using it = his new DNA all over it.
 
D

Dalek

Member
Sniper McBlaze said:
You misunderstand me. How about if he scrubbed that place clean of her DNA and used the garage for other shit afterwards? Clean place + fat, naked guy using it = his new DNA all over it.
Click to expand...

Have you seen that garage? Do you think thats a likely scenario including all the deer blood?
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
Crazy how big this show is. Every morning show is talking about it. Opie been talking about it for the past two days. Same with the z100 crew.
 
D

Dalek

Member
smokeymicpot said:
Crazy how big this show is. Every morning show is talking about it. Opie been talking about it for the past two days. Same with the z100 crew.
Click to expand...

It's really struck a nerve. It's really easy to get into, get emotionally involved and there's lots of ponder over.
 
F

FlyinJ

Douchebag. Yes, me.
Dalek said:
He's a criminal mastermind. He scrubbed only HER DNA from the floor and surface areas, yet kept his and deer blood DNA all over the place.

Also in regards to the blood vial-are we certain that the syringe mark would be there? After all, wouldn't that "plug" have been stuck in there AFTER his blood was drawn? I admit I don't know anything about this-however this still doesn't explain how the evidence was clearly cut open, and then tracks were covered with mere scotch tape. And the blood vial was the only thing in the box. Are we to believe someone cut open the evidence and sealed it back up but did nothing with the actual evidence inside?
Click to expand...

I always assumed you would stick the needle through the rubber stopper and squirt the blood in.

Otherwise, you squirt the blood into an open vial, then stick a stopper on it? Seems like there would be a good chance of blood spilling a lot during that process.

I figured they were designed to be punctured initially. I was scratching my head about that during the documentary as well.
 
S

SneakersSO

Member
Sniper McBlaze said:
Blood vials always get punctured by a syringe. That's how you get the blood, haha. If you keep blood in a vial for ~30 years the puncture hole will look more distinct.

I can't believe this is used as an argument that someone took blood from the vial. How was this not mentioned in the documentary?

Edit:

By the way, can someone explain the garage DNA thing? They said they couldn't find any DNA from Halbach, but a lot of DNA from Avery. They make this sound like an argument that he is innocent. Why? Of course he is going to get this fucking DNA there after even if he swiped the whole place from her DNA if he uses it.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing sniper - they called the DNA testing center that ran the tests & handled the evidence originally, and they told them they do not poke holes into the testing tube, that it is not a part of their procedure.

Not only that, but all of the evidence seals on the evidence box were all broken and then resealed with tape. There was clearly some tampering going on.
 
A

Ayt

Banned
Sniper McBlaze said:
No, I just thought it was weird how the focused on that they only found his DNA like it wasn't suppose to be there.
Click to expand...

Well, it wouldn't have been all over everything if he had actually done a super duper Dexter style clean down of everything to remove absolutely all traces of the victim of a brutal murder that supposedly took place there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
21K
Elysium44 replied
I Am A Killer (Netflix Original Documentary Series)
18
2K
DeepEnigma replied
The Confession Tapes | Netflix True-Crime Documentary Series - Out Now
25
6K
Clyde Donovan replied
The story about how a Missouri man was wrongfully convicted of killing his wife is such an infuriating miscariage of justice
35
6K
SpoopySpeedster replied
'Making a Murderer' subject Steven Avery denied new trial
3 4 5 6 7
308
35K
BronsonLee replied
Top Bottom