Was her blood on the bullets?
Why didn't the cadaver dogs pick up her body in her car?
Television Making a Murderer (Netflix Documentary) - Spoilers from Page 2
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
Why didn't the cadaver dogs pick up her body in her car?
A bullet had her DNA, yes.
Not sure about the cadaver dogs, that's one thing I've never really read much about so can't answer if they did or not. Her blood was in the car, though. That is not in question, is it?
I like the idea he shot her, did an amazing job at cleaning the garage and the key, but then just forgot about the bullet and grabbed the key again, placing it in the worst hiding place in history 
I'd argue it's extremely naive to believe everything in the show, but even more naive to believe the police and prosecution got the whole story bang on.
I'd argue it's extremely naive to believe everything in the show, but even more naive to believe the police and prosecution got the whole story bang on.
At least we all must agree that Zellner is extremely formidable and has tremendous bollocks. I found her so impressive throughout the 2nd series.
She is an oppourtunist.
With huge fake noticeably rounded tits. But still impressive.
Yeah it's impressive how she wanted nothing to do with the case before the TV show as she thought there was no way she could overturn it with that amount of forensic evidence (yes, they approached her before the release of TV show and she said no), and was immediately on it two weeks after they released it on Netflix.
Honestly if you think he should be in prison based on that prosecution case then I just don’t get you, I’m sorry. Inflammatory I know but there is absolutely no way based on both this documentary and other readings you can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt Steven Avery committed this crime. Let’s not even start on Brendan which is even more absurd.
I know you said other readings as well but you still can't say based on that show also .
That show is as big a work of fiction as you could watch . They twisted and bent the facts to breaking point spent hours on absolute nonsense cast people they knew to be innocent in bad light and made them suspects for the viewers
The show and the makers are pure trash and should be called as such .
The only people deserving of a hero worshipping show here are the victim and her family .
Between Avery and the shows gloryfying Amanda Know and Co I despair of what we have become .
We seek to make heroes of scumbags and murderers while ignoring the innocent people who lost their lives through no fault of their own
That's a ridiculous reply. All your posts in this thread are 'your evidence is circumstantial, it's laughable that you consider circumstantial things evidence' before then replying with 'yeah but my circumstantial evidence is proof, because he's in jail'. At least hold yourself to the same standards you're holding other people to.
I don’t think I actually told anyone their evidence was circumstantial, I have told people their evidence wasn’t actually evidence at all though (basically 90% of what Zellner does for example does not prove shit).
And there’s physical evidence of his involvement.
I’ve relaxed with this one though. Trying to convince anybody that he’s a killer despite a nice TV show made about him is pointless. What’s important is that he is in jail and never getting out, having people on the Internet convinced that he deserves it isn’t really that important.
Last edited:
You made a statement that it can be proven that he killed her, because he's in jail. That's a complete fallacy. There is barely any actual hard evidence in this case, just circumstantial for people who think he's innocent and circumstantial for people who think he's guilty that when all is added up, means different things to different people. You've even at one point in this thread tried to lay a timeline out of what he did using the words 'he did this because he probably thought this' which isn't evidence based whatsoever, just a total guess on your part. You're guilty of doing what you're showing disbelief at other people for doing which isn't even a bad thing. Nobody knows here for sure, they're just going with what is more believable to them - including you.
There isn’t just circumstantial evidence of his guilt. There’s physical evidence.
Firstly, that's not what you said that I took issue with, if you want to move the goalposts that's fine but the evidence that you think incriminates him is open to discussion, as is the evidence that people think exonerated him. Hence the discussion. Also It's been so long since I watched this, but I'm not remembering any actual physical evidence. Which ones are you referring to? Because the only evidence that I can remember, is as circumstantial as 'the remains are on his property'. From what I remember which is admittedly shaky, it centered around bullshit where they searched his house and found nothing, and then the one guy who was buddies with the guy who called in the vehicle before it was even reported missing and asked to check on it, went into the house that he shouldn't have been in and miraculously found keys within minutes on the floor in plain view in a spot that had been checked multiple times already.
His blood in the car, her car on his property, her remains buried on his property and some in his burn pit, her belongings burned in his barrel, bullet with her DNA in his garage. Nobody really reported the car before they found it on his property. Really don’t want to be going through all this again though, it’s proper toxic to.
Last edited:
Surely, after berating others for accepting circumstantial evidence and saying that these things just are not evidence, you would accept that the car being on his families scrap yard which can be accessed by anybody, is not evidence. Neither is the fact that the remains are buried on his property or in his burn pit. That's the definition of circumstantial. They prove only that they were on his property, they cannot be considered proof that he did the crime. You have to hold yourself to the same standard that you're trying to hold others to. I can bury a body in your back yard in the dead of night, it cannot be used as evidence against you that you murdered the victim. So you can surely see how you're just subscribing to circumstantial evidence that doesn't prove anything, but makes sense to you that he's guilty, the same way that others are doing the same for innocent.
Also if I remember correctly, one of the detectives called in a license plate that he was looking at 2 days before the car was discovered and then claimed not to remember why he did it in court.
Watch part 2 brew and you will see why he did it
So ‘I have to hold myself to standard’ but it’s fine for you to assume he was looking at the car when he called in because well, that’s what the show suggested and there is obviously no other explanation.
This is so pointless.Hey @Sarni I don't think you're coming across well in this thread. Maybe you think that's because you hold a different opinion, but that's not it. It might be best to leave it.
But Amanda Knox was declared innocent. She was an innocent person in jail, which is one of the greatest injustices we know of. It's not some kind of murderer fetish. She was portrayed as a hero, as you see it, because she triumphed over a tragedy. She is an innocent person who lost a part of her life through no fault of her own.
Putting that in the same bucket as Avery only makes sense if you think he too is innocent. In which case it doesn't seem like society has gone off track at all.
That's such an odd perspective to take. If you firmly believe in the legal system and believe, despite so many inconsistencies, that Avery is guilty...fair enough.
But Amanda Knox was declared innocent. She was an innocent person in jail, which is one of the greatest injustices we know of. It's not some kind of murderer fetish. She was portrayed as a hero, as you see it, because she triumphed over a tragedy. She is an innocent person who lost a part of her life through no fault of her own.
Putting that in the same bucket as Avery only makes sense if you think he too is innocent. In which case it doesn't seem like society has gone off track at all.
From everything iv seen and all the evidence they are both guilty . The fact only one is currently in prison is sad to me .
It's also why I blame the media for how they paint these people
I’ve been trying to for a moment but then someone comes up and challenges me with the bollocks from Netflix show and I keep coming back and getting drawn into these fruitless discussions where nobody’s going to convinced anybody about anything. Don’t really want to get frustrated anymore about trying to convince people a biased Netflix show is not indicative of Avery’s innocence and doesn’t tell half the story here. It doesn’t matter as long as he’s in jail, as I said.
Don’t really care if I’m coming across well either. Would rather not come off well than defend and glorify a murderer.
Last edited:
Would you mind explaining it here? I'm not going to watch season 2.
Only picking this up midway but I don't think folk are defending a murderer. I think people are rightly annoyed with the way Brendan was questioned as a minor without legal counsel present. I think any use of his testimony in any trial must be questioned. You then have the DA Kratz coming out and muddying the water and preventing any non biased trial occurring. The documentary raises some questions on the police case which are controversial and are certainly biased too but was it any worse than the DA and his announcement? The prosecutors must hold themselves to really high standards with the police but I think they have not done so in this instance.
No problem with any of this.
Brendan's sentence was definitely way, way over the top. I don't think he's an evil person at all and what he got for the likely extent of his involvement was a bit of a joke to be honest. I doubt he had anything to do with the murder itself and considering his intelligence and lack of social skills he probably wasn't even fully aware what was going on that day and how wrong it was.
Also they threw away his confession from Avery's case and then convicted him based on this in his own case. Very inconsistent.
SA should be taking all blame for what happened. He just used Brendan who happened to be around and was not assertive enough to back away.
Last edited:
A man comes forward claiming that he had seen the car on the side of the road (near the quarry next to the Avery property) then saw it on a missing poster at a convenience store or gas station or something. There was a cop there and he told him where he'd seen the car then thought nothing of it. Then when watching making a murderer he recognised Colburn as the cop who he'd told.
Also interestingly he supposedely text the Step-dad a few times saying that he needs to talk to him about the car or the case (I forget) but he only gets a reply saying that he's sick and to talk about it another time. The stepdad and mama dassey also purchase the property next to the quarry in the meantime which is right where the car was spotted.
Actually there was one small problem with the story, he reported it on 4/11 and Colborn wasn’t on duty that day so it couldn’t have been him. It was another officer, confirmed (his name was Ryan).
He would remember Colborn though because he arrested him for drunk driving in 2006. They skipped that part from the ‘documentary’ though.
And before you say it could have still been Colborn off duty, not a single person other than this guy saw him in uniform that day. Not a single other report than the guy he arrested a couple of months later.
The vehicle he mentioned was reported by another person too and confirmed to not belong to Teresa though. This part was omitted too.
It’s kind of what they do in the show though. They plant an idea like this in viewer’s head but don’t care to explain that it has been proven false. All you remember is that a guy reported something Colborn, remembered it after 13 years. You don’t really get the information that it wasn’t Colborn and that the vehicle was reported and confirmed to not have been hers.
And actually by all accounts Colborn is a very fair cop and did not deserve the criticism he got in the show. When I read full story about the call he supposedly ignored he actually did not do any wrong there either, he did report that call to his supervisors which he was required to do at the time and it was their fault that nothing had been made of it. He’s also a victim of this show, unfortunately.
Last edited:
Avery is innocent. Accept it.
Yeah I'm having a hard time not believing that new witness. It just makes that phone call make sense.
Also the diary, for those that have watched the second season. Does Zellners claims add up about her journey and how that guy ended up with her diary? I've always had a hunch that her ex had something to do with it. He was by far the most uncomfortable person in the court room and some of his actions around the time of her killing were very questionable.
By who? Because if you're willing to believe that the police are involved in this, then that's just common sense that they would deny it was her car.
And regarding Colburn, I'm willing to trust the show and the explanations of how the US justice system works, and they said that a written report should have been made. Unless he did actually make that report?
Remains were found buried? The burn pit is questionable also. I've just finished the second series and the expert talks about how only 10% of her bones were found in total. There should have been a hell of a lot more if that was the burn pit seemingly. If we can take the experts at face value then there's a whole lot off about the evidence.
You have hard time not believing the new witness despite it being proven that it can’t have been Colborn and the fact that the guy had a grudge against Colborn in the first place? And also the fact that he somehow remembered it all only after 13 years after seeing it on TV and that the car he mentioned had been reported more than once and was confirmed in the report as not belonging to her.
And also one day discrepancy between his report and Colburn’s phone call about license plates. He reports the car on 4th I believe and Colburn calls on 3rd. So he would have seen the car in plain sight a day after Colburn apparently already found it. Again, makes no sense but can probably be explained by conspiracy theories.
Literally nothing about this witness new statement makes sense yet it’s ‘hard to not believe it’ because it works with the big conspiracy and only this matters. He basically saw a car, reported it to another officer and it was confirmed as not belonging to her. After the TV show he changes his story and puts blame on Colburn but it is easy to dismiss it based on the facts from that day so there was nothing more made out of it aside from a piece of TV show. This is the problem with this case, they put some skewed scenario in the show and people believe it immediately and it’s not possible to dispute it because no explanation works.
The diary thing is quite simple to explain too.
Last edited:
It’s in the files, there was report that they found a car which was reported (by two different people I think) and it wasn’t hers. There were multiple reports like this too, people thinking they saw her car only to then confirm it wasn’t hers.
Of course if you decide to basically throw away everything everyone bar show creators ever said about this case then the picture is completely different. You may even choose to believe the car was seen 100 times.
Last edited:
Virtually a piece of almost every bone of her body was found there. The reason why the volume of it was less than full body (Zellner’s famous 10-15% which was never submitted to court either I think but worked perfectly for the purpose of a TV show) was that a lot of it was turned into ash and it was hard to separate which ash was from her body and which from other burned items. They were able to identify vast majority of bones from her body as I said.
Worth mentioning that the bones found at the quarry were never confirmed as hers. They could merely not rule out they were human. The defense tried to imply they were Teresa’s but never provided any proof.
Last edited:
Most of what I'm arguing comes literally 10 minutes after finishing the series. Generally I look things up after finishing to see if they've been disputed or not. Instead I've asked the questions here because you seem to be the man with all the answers. Though, the question now is can I trust your facts?
I'll read more tonight when I get chance.What bothers me with this case is that nothing the police report, but cannot prove, is to be taken with a pinch of salt. So to say the car wasnt the correct one, well I'd want to see proof. Again I'll look later and see what there is. A written report is refutable. In the absence of proof then you have to consider that there may be something to it and that this could be part of a cover up.
I'm off to work soon so can't comment much more for now, but from what they showed of the recorded police evidence, a lot of the bones found in the quarry were confirmed human. Your attempt to downplay this makes me think you've made up your mind and you're just as willing to twist things to suit your narrative.
They may have been human bones. They weren't confirmed as hers and I'm not saying they weren't, just pointing out it has not been confirmed. There are multiple ways her bones could have found their way into the quarry too, he may have missed some when he was burying them and decide to put them at the quarry which was easily accessible and where they would have mixed with animal bones which there had been plenty of. This is probably also why they never bothered to test it, prosecution (it wouldn't have added anything to their argument) or defense (would not have helped their case at all). I think there's definitely more made of it than there should have been.
Nah, I don't know 'all the answers' at all. To be fair in terms of how the actual crime went I have basically no idea.Most of what I'm arguing comes literally 10 minutes after finishing the series. Generally I look things up after finishing to see if they've been disputed or not. Instead I've asked the questions here because you seem to be the man with all the answers. Though, the question now is can I trust your facts?
What bothers me with this case is that nothing the police report, but cannot prove, is to be taken with a pinch of salt. So to say the car wasnt the correct one, well I'd want to see proof. Again I'll look later and see what there is. A written report is refutable. In the absence of proof then you have to consider that there may be something to it and that this could be part of a cover up.
Would not like you to trust my facts either to be honest. I'm probably wrong about a lot of things in this thread, there's just too much information. I think in this case it's very important to question everything you are told though, from both sides.
As far as the documentary goes, I think the first season was fun to watch despite being biased. They basically had a narrative about Avery to begin with, then this story happened and they made something out of it and questioned the prosecution. They were biased but in parts they presented the bits of the story that worked against him and it wasn't that bad. Although still it beggars belief that they put so much attention to the hole in the blood vial and it was indicative of what their goal was.
I think second season is an abomination though, they've basically gone full mental and decided to make it a Zellner show and all about her showing dozens of unreliable experiments and paid experts who plant a doubt but cannot really disprove the story. It's scripted and edited to make a huge show, that's all. It was done masterfully as a conspiracy theory show but the fact that Zellner has basically not taken vast majority of 'evidence' she presented in the show in front of the court because it held no value is pretty telling. I think it would have worked much better if they just selected a few elements of the story that did not make sense (there were plenty of it) and built a season around it.
Last edited: