Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Where are you getting that info from? I've only heard it said that prosecutors claim he was making the calls to lure her to his house.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Making A Murderer - Netflix 10-part documentary series - S1 now streaming on Netflix
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
Where are you getting that info from? I've only heard it said that prosecutors claim he was making the calls to lure her to his house.
eeeeehhnn I dunno Kathleen. I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. We already know the brother and ex-boyfriend had access. Could have easily been a mispress to cycle through the messages.
Why is this possibility handwaved away, however any ludicrous coincidence that may have involve Steven automatically makes him look guilty and to be a murderer?
RustyNails
Member
Didn't he say in the news report he talked to Teresa, did the business with the van and she went on her way? Like the first news reporter that talks to him during the deposition hearings.The *67 angle is relevant because he was trying to set up an alibi of sorts, he called her twice with his number blocked at 2:24 and 2:35, he then called her one final time without blocking and there was no answer, that was at 4:35pm. This is important because his original story was that she never showed up and he called to find out why. But at least 3 different witnesses saw her on the property, so that went out the window.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
My only passion is clarity of thought.
As for what you linked. Wonderful. A rehashing of the garbage Pajiba article.
Hey, I just found out about the series yesterday and haven't been following this thread religiously, as you apparently have. If the article has been debunked, you could be a real swell person and point me to the debunking. Instead, you chose to be one of the absolute worst kinds of Internet commenters: The know-it-all with an attitude.
Seriously. I'm just looking for information to answer lingering questions. If you can't provide that, fine. Leave me in peace. I didn't attack you or denigrate you and would appreciate the same courtesy.
Where are you getting that info from? I've only heard it said that prosecutors claim he was making the calls to lure her to his house.
she was going to the Avery scrapyard on Avery road. like, who did you think would be there? It's such a dumb claim.
ReignofSparrows
Member
See, I'd agree if not for the fact that Steven had supposedly been harassing her a lot at her job by calling, and had once answered the door wearing just a towel.
Awful, awful source.
The statement you can find about him wearing a towel doesn't in any way indicate that she wasn't willing to visit his property anymore. Look at the statement itself, not some dolt's repackaging of it. It's pulling that narrative from thin air because the statement doesn't support it.
There has also never been any evidence that he was harassing her. The statement about her receiving unwanted phone calls has never been linked to anyone.
I should also note that her visiting the property to take pictures - one of the few valuable pieces of information we actually do know - weighs against the narrative you think 'supposedly' exists.
This is important because his original story was that she never showed up and he called to find out why.
Please source this. I've never seen this claimed, and inconsistency that salient would be better than any evidence I've seen trotted out thus far.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
she was going to the Avery scrapyard on Avery road. like, who did you think would be there? It's such a dumb claim.
Oh I totally agree. But he's saying Steven originally claimed she had never come over and tried to use the three phone calls as an alibi. Which I hadn't heard until now. So I'm wondering where he's getting that info.
Awful, awful source.
The statement you can find about him wearing a towel doesn't in any way indicate that she wasn't willing to visit his property anymore. Look at the statement itself, not some dolt's repackaging of it. It's pulling that narrative from thin air because the statement doesn't support it.
There has also never been any evidence that he was harassing her. The statement about her receiving unwanted phone calls has never been linked to anyone.
I should also note that her visiting the property to take pictures - one of the few valuable pieces of information we actually do know - weighs against the narrative you think 'supposedly' exists.
But didn't her boss say she had requested to not go out to the Avery place anymore? That he creeped her out?
I'm honestly asking because I don't know. All my searches turn up is that claim, and nothing debunking it.
But didn't her boss say she had requested to not go out to the Avery place anymore? That he creeped her out?
I'm honestly asking because I don't know. All my searches turn up is that claim, and nothing debunking it.
None of this was covered in the documentary so where are you getting this garbage?
In a post above, you pretend to be offended and oh so innocent (omg, I'm so sorry I hurt your feel gland!) yet you spew nonsense without backing it up and expect the people here to disprove what you have posted even though you present no evidence to support what you have posted in the first place.
First time I hear about this. Do you have a link or something?his original story was that she never showed up and he called to find out why. But at least 3 different witnesses saw her on the property, so that went out the window.
EDIT: Crap, there was another page, and others had already posted the same question...
None of this was covered in the documentary so where are you getting this garbage?
all this information came from Ken Kratz after the documentary came out
http://www.people.com/article/steve...kratz-says-netflix-series-forgot-key-evidence
it's all very subjective but people have taken it and cobbled together a story which is I'm sure what he wanted.
Mackenzie 92
Member
Please source this. I've never seen this claimed, and inconsistency that salient would be better than any evidence I've seen trotted out thus far.
It's from the Kratz email he sent out, not sure who originally posted it, but it's all over the web now.
http://www.people.com/article/steve...kratz-says-netflix-series-forgot-key-evidence
Pretty much the same thing everywhere. He just says it "was his original defense" so not sure how credible it is.
Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send that same girl who was here last time. On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sisters) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming ... Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresas cell phone on Oct 31. One at 2:24, and one at 2:35both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesnt know it him both placed before she arrives. Then one last call at 4:35 pm, without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after shes already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesnt need the *67 feature for that last call.
Oh I totally agree. But he's saying Steven originally claimed she had never come over and tried to use the three phone calls as an alibi. Which I hadn't heard until now. So I'm wondering where he's getting that info.
But didn't her boss say she had requested to not go out to the Avery place anymore? That he creeped her out?
I'm honestly asking because I don't know. All my searches turn up is that claim, and nothing debunking it.
Her boss never said that. This was conjecture made by a blogger after the doc aired.
From the court testimony, Halbech never complained about going to the property. She knew she was going, and even called Avery to tell him she was going to be late. That is why Avery was calling her back.
And Avery always said she showed up. He never once said she was never there. I have no idea where you got that one from.
Edit: and in response to Kratz letter in the post above, the part about her being scared and tricked is demonstrably false from the court testimony. They even have a recording of her calling to say she was going to be late.
It's absolutely crazy that Kratz would be claiming otherwise when it's literally in the court transcripts. He must be off his rocker completely to think he can just outright lie about it.
ReignofSparrows
Member
But didn't her boss say she had requested to not go out to the Avery place anymore? That he creeped her out?
I'm honestly asking because I don't know. All my searches turn up is that claim, and nothing debunking it.
If you're that genuinely concerned to fact check, the only valid way of debunking a claim that arises from a supposed statement is to locate that statement. However, you can't disprove a negative. So, if you spend a sufficient amount of time looking for the statement and can't locate it, that's your evidence that it does not exist.
With regard to Teresa telling her boss she did not want to go back to his property, all I've ever seen is an out-of-court statement by her secretary. Needless to say, it's not her boss, and there is no indication she was hesitant to go back to his property.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
None of this was covered in the documentary so where are you getting this garbage?
In a post above, you pretend to be offended and oh so innocent (omg, I'm so sorry I hurt your feel gland!) yet you spew nonsense without backing it up and expect the people here to disprove what you have posted even though you present no evidence to support what you have posted in the first place.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213
It's from witness statements.
I'm only asking if anyone has explanations for this stuff because after watching the documentary, I really felt Avery was railroaded. But as I've read about things that didn't make it into the documentary, I'm now left wondering.
I honestly don't give two wet shits if you believe me or not, and I'd honestly rather you just ignored me so I could maybe get into a mature conversation with someone whose ego isn't obviously riding on being correct about everything. But I'm legitimately curious about these other allegations. I want Avery to be innocent, but shit just looks fishy.
Her boss never said that. This was conjecture made by a blogger after the doc aired.
From the court testimony, Halbech never complained about going to the property. She knew she was going, and even called Avery to tell him she was going to be late. That is why Avery was calling her back.
And Avery always said she showed up. He never once said she was never there. I have no idea where you got that one from.
If you're that genuinely concerned to fact check, the only valid way of debunking a claim that arises from a supposed statement is to locate that statement. However, you can't disprove a negative. So, if you spend a sufficient amount of time looking for the statement and can't locate it, that's your evidence that it does not exist.
With regard to Teresa telling her boss she did not want to go back to his property, all I've ever seen is an out-of-court statement by her secretary. Needless to say, it's not her boss, and there is no indication she was hesitant to go back to his property.
Okay, thank you.
See, this is all I was looking for. Level-headed answers. And I really do appreciate them, guys/gals.
figadapaura
Member
I'd sooner believe that I'm the murderer than believe another word that comes out of Ken Kratz' mouth. Self-aggrandising piece of shit.
ReignofSparrows
Member
Pretty much the same thing everywhere. He just says it "was his original defense" so not sure how credible it is.
It's worded pretty poorly, but I believe he is just saying this was Avery's hypothetical first defense. Either way, I've never seen any indication that he gave inconsistent statements in this regard, and Kratz would be a pretty shitty lawyer if Avery changed his story and Kratz didn't use it at evidence in the trial. It would be the type of evidence that is highly indicative of guilt, so I'd be very skeptical that this exists other than in a fanciful hypothetical in Kratz's mind.
I realize you guys are knee deep into this conversation but I just had to drop by. I just finished episode 5 and I'm so damned tense and frustrated by the whole thing. Ugh. These cops and state prosecutors are so slimy it's sickening. I also already know the outcome so I'm even more upset.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I realize you guys are knee deep into this conversation but I just had to drop by. I just finished episode 5 and I'm so damned tense and frustrated by the whole thing. Ugh. These cops and state prosecutors are so slimy it's sickening. I also already know the outcome so I'm even more upset.
I didn't know the outcome. After Episode 4
where they discover the blood vials from Avery's previous trial were tampered with
Little did I know...
I realize you guys are knee deep into this conversation but I just had to drop by. I just finished episode 5 and I'm so damned tense and frustrated by the whole thing. Ugh. These cops and state prosecutors are so slimy it's sickening. I also already know the outcome so I'm even more upset.
Don't worry-I still like seeing posts like yours because we were all there and felt the same frustration.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213
It's from witness statements.
I'm only asking if anyone has explanations for this stuff because after watching the documentary, I really felt Avery was railroaded. But as I've read about things that didn't make it into the documentary, I'm now left wondering.
I honestly don't give two wet shits if you believe me or not, and I'd honestly rather you just ignored me so I could maybe get into a mature conversation with someone whose ego isn't obviously riding on being correct about everything. But I'm legitimately curious about these other allegations. I want Avery to be innocent, but shit just looks fishy.
Okay, thank you.
See, this is all I was looking for. Level-headed answers. And I really do appreciate them, guys/gals.
I actually can understand why you are confused about what the boss said and how Halbech was "tricked" into going to the property. Kratz HIMSELF wrote that in response to the documentary.
What an absolute shit bag that guy is.
Actually, I wonder if that is what Kratz presented as his theory in court. Then when the defense disproved it through witness testimony and a recording of the victim herself, Kratz still thought he was right.
Thus why he keeps putting his disproven theory forward as fact even to this day.
Thus why he keeps putting his disproven theory forward as fact even to this day.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I actually can understand why you are confused about what the boss said and how Halbech was "tricked" into going to the property. Kratz HIMSELF wrote that in response to the documentary.
What an absolute shit bag that guy is.
Seriously. What an absolute asshole. If he still has a job that doesn't involve double bagging my groceries when all is said and done, there is no justice.
figadapaura
Member
I'd never heard of the case before watching the documentary, so I'd almost convinced myself that it must be fictional because of just how crazy it is. Wish it was.
I'd never heard of the case before watching the documentary, so I'd almost convinced myself that it must be fictional because of just how crazy it is. Wish it was.
After the fifth episode I was actually convinced this was a brilliantly made faux-documentary. I stopped watching to go online just to see if it was real.
BronsonLee
Member
I'd sooner believe that I'm the murderer than believe another word that comes out of Ken Kratz' mouth. Self-aggrandising piece of shit.
I'M CALLING MANITOWOC COUNTY POLICE
figadapaura
Member
After the fifth episode I was actually convinced this was a brilliantly made faux-documentary. I stopped watching to go online just to see if it was real.
Almost exactly the same for me, but I didn't want to google it in case of spoilers....
I'M CALLING MANITOWOC COUNTY POLICE
How did this Rav4 get in my bedroom?
Nappuccino
Member
I'd never heard of the case before watching the documentary, so I'd almost convinced myself that it must be fictional because of just how crazy it is. Wish it was.
Take my word as a writer--no fictional story could get away with the insanity that is this case. No one would believe it.
BronsonLee
Member
How did this Rav4 get in my bedroom?
Puhuhuhuhuhu
Take my word as a writer--no fictional story could get away with the insanity that is this case. No one would believe it.
If you told me Serial and/or Making a Murderer were just crime dramas, I'd totally believe you because what the fuck
I checked right after watching that episodeI didn't know the outcome. After Episode 4, I jumped up like "FUCK YEAH! THE TRUTH SHALL SET HIM FREE!"where they discover the blood vials from Avery's previous trial were tampered with
Little did I know...
since I felt like he was home free. I was so bummed/shocked I skipped watching yesterday.
Thanks. I wish I had watched this sooner.Don't worry-I still like seeing posts like yours because we were all there and felt the same frustration.
Nappuccino
Member
Puhuhuhuhuhu
If you told me Serial and/or Making a Murderer were just crime dramas, I'd totally believe you because what the fuck
Maybe . . . but check out the story of Audie Murphy. He starred in a movie based on his own life, and events were toned down to keep the movie believeable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
I'd sooner believe that I'm the murderer than believe another word that comes out of Ken Kratz' mouth. Self-aggrandising piece of shit.
i just cant trust a guy that sounds the way he does.
Nappuccino
Member
i just cant trust a guy that sounds the way he does.
It's less the way he sounds (though, hearing about his sexual assault charges make his voicing much creepier), and more that he clearly only sounds like that as an act. He looks so pissed when he isn't infront of a camera.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Just finished the series, it definitely slowed down during the last 3 episodes. The post-trial for Brendan was interesting, though.
Also, how do we know that EDTA is in the blood vial? Was that also tested?
Also, how do we know that EDTA is in the blood vial? Was that also tested?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Just finished the series, it definitely slowed down during the last 3 episodes. The post-trial for Brendan was interesting, though.
Also, how do we know that EDTA is in the blood vial? Was that also tested?
It's what keeps the blood from clotting in the tube. It would have to be there.
But from what I've heard, the tests for it are notoriously unreliable. So take the finding with a grain of salt.
SyenceLabb
Member
They probably could've squeezed all of the episodes down to 5, but still ultimately enjoyed the ride. No doubt in my mind Brendan is innocent from what I could gather from the series. With Steven, I'm torn. One hand still believes he is innocent, and the other hand believes he could be a murdering sociopath.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
What I can't get over is no blood in the bedroom or trailer at all. If they really cut her throat, she would have bleed all over the place. That's the story they went with, right? I mean its possible they cut her throat elsewhere.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
What I can't get over is no blood in the bedroom or trailer at all. If they really cut her throat, she would have bleed all over the place. That's the story they went with, right? I mean its possible they cut her throat elsewhere.
Plus a gunshot in the garage would have sprayed blood all over all the shit in there, yet they never found a drop.
Strange, that.
BronsonLee
Member
The prosecution's narrative for both cases makes no fucking sense. They directly contradict one another and yet both were found guilty. What the hell.
SyenceLabb
Member
Plus a gunshot in the garage would have sprayed blood all over all the shit in there, yet they never found a drop.
Strange, that.
This. The bullet fragment they found seemed more suspicious than the key in the bedroom. You almost have had to come across some blood spatter around the area it was found, or at least noticed evidence of a massive clean up job.
ProfessorLobo
Banned
I think I did the exact same thing on the exact same episode. It was something about the journalists that felt like acting.After the fifth episode I was actually convinced this was a brilliantly made faux-documentary. I stopped watching to go online just to see if it was real.
I think I did the exact same thing on the exact same episode. It was something about the journalists that felt like acting.
That's exactly what made me do it as well! I was like who are these model looking people asking these questions. That's not how journalists look.
Then after looking it up I reslized that they were TV news anchors for surrounding cities- that model/journalist combo look.
None of this was covered in the documentary so where are you getting this garbage?
In a post above, you pretend to be offended and oh so innocent (omg, I'm so sorry I hurt your feel gland!) yet you spew nonsense without backing it up and expect the people here to disprove what you have posted even though you present no evidence to support what you have posted in the first place.
If it wasn't covered in the documentary, it's garbage? So 99.99 percent of the trial is garbage then? That purposely biased documentary sure worked its magic on some people.
If it wasn't covered in the documentary, it's garbage? So 99.99 percent of the trial is garbage then? That purposely biased documentary sure worked its magic on some people.
Are you ever going to address the questions and rebuttals people have asked you in this thread? Because all you're doing is threadshitting. That doesn't fly around here.
BranVan3000
Banned
I didn't 100% believe Steven but the complete lack of DNA around the supposed kill site - both garage and bed - was a big red flag in surprised the defence didn't seem to focus on it much
And did they ever clarify why they found seperate charred remains ( I think from the hip) miles away?
Felt Brendan really got screwed over. Clearly in way over his head from the beginning and the prosecution managed to destroy him with totally contradicting arguments across two cases
And did they ever clarify why they found seperate charred remains ( I think from the hip) miles away?
Felt Brendan really got screwed over. Clearly in way over his head from the beginning and the prosecution managed to destroy him with totally contradicting arguments across two cases
If it wasn't covered in the documentary, it's garbage? So 99.99 percent of the trial is garbage then? That purposely biased documentary sure worked its magic on some people.
I don't get why you are so mad. It was a great documentary whether you think he did it or not.
Killing_Joke
Member
It's from the Kratz email he sent out, not sure who originally posted it, but it's all over the web now.
http://www.people.com/article/steve...kratz-says-netflix-series-forgot-key-evidence
Pretty much the same thing everywhere. He just says it "was his original defense" so not sure how credible it is.
This makes no logical sense. If Steve was creating his own alibi then *67 wouldn't do shit. Yeah it won't show up on her phone but it will still show on his. Which is how they found it in the first place. I love how Steve is a complete idiot leaving major evidence to be found but then also a criminal mastermind apparently.
Again, why is blocked phone calls and burned personal items BIG evidence the documentary left out?
Her body was found at the damn site so no shit her items would there, her damn car was there too. Her cell phone and purse doesn't add shit. The only difference is these items were burned at a different spot. Doesn't prove who did it, it's just more evidence she was there.
The blocked calls, which has already been explained doesn't make a lick of sense. Even if he was creating an alibi, it still doesn't prove a thing. All it shows is that either 1. He was just trying to reach out to her or 2. Yeah, maybe he was trying to do something fishy. But you can't prove it so it doesn't really matter. Again with ALL the evidence shown in the documentary, how in the world are these "gotcha!" moments?
The film makers literally spent 10 years researching this case and recording 700 hours of footage. I'm pretty sure they know a lot fucking more then us especially the people who find them biased. But it's funny watching people knock their years of work because they googled transcripts and read interviews from the same corrupt assholes.
SyenceLabb
Member
Not a single fingerprint on the vehicle from Steven, right? If so, I just find it interesting that Steven (if he did this) did such a great job not leaving a single print on the inside or outside of the car, but forgets all about the blood stain right next to the car ignition.
Holy fucking shit this show is so unbelievably upsetting. Just finished watching; I'm going to read more before I crucify anyone. But based on the show, holy fucking shit...Some of the actions are just unbelievably deplorable. My fiance who is attorney could barely watch some of the flat out illegal and unconscionable things the prosecution team did during this. Sadly it's all discretionary for a judge to determine a lot of these things.
NotoriousPUG
Member
I honestly have no idea how they could convinct the kid beyond a reasonable doubt. No DNA, fingerprints, or other evidence. A story that didn't match the evidence in Avery's case.
I mean why not test the mattress and sheets for DNA? If there's DNA, his story is true. If not, at least the rape was made up.
How could anyone say they believe without a reasonable doubt that this kid raped, stabbed, choked, and shot a woman and left no evidence behind because this below average kid had 5 days to clean up.
I mean why not test the mattress and sheets for DNA? If there's DNA, his story is true. If not, at least the rape was made up.
How could anyone say they believe without a reasonable doubt that this kid raped, stabbed, choked, and shot a woman and left no evidence behind because this below average kid had 5 days to clean up.