Making A Murderer (Spoilers)
I saw that and kinda laughed. Not sure what that proved other than to show how much of a Douche he is.
The more I think about it, it's a complete railroad job by the police for a guy they've had it out for.
ctennen
New member
If you look at the top of the purple tube used in the Avery case (photo below), it looks as though it may not be the same self-healing rubber though it's difficult to tell from this image. Did they previously use simple twist tops with no rubber associated?
rallo
#FYF
I can't see the picture but iirc the tube in the documentary had a purple stopper (instead of the black stopper shown in my pictures) in addition to the purple hard plastic band. I asked an anesthesiologist about it yesterday and he claimed the appearance of the tube has changed somewhat but the technology of the tube hasn't really changed in 40 or 50 years. The one major change is that they went from glass tubes to plastic for obvious reasons. The tube always had a stopper that sealed initially... AND after the sample has been transferred to the vial to maintain integrity (something as simple as air can alter a blood's CO2, pH, and etc.)
He did bring up an interesting point about how their could have been multiple vials in said box, but he would think that would be written on a log of some sort. He agreed with me that a hole in the top of the tube doesn't prove anything for either side of the case, and is not a sign that the vial had been tampered with.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
He did bring up an interesting point about how their could have been multiple vials in said box, but he would think that would be written on a log of some sort. He agreed with me that a hole in the top of the tube doesn't prove anything for either side of the case, and is not a sign that the vial had been tampered with.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Very interesting stuff.. The wife and I just finished the last episode last night. All I can say is "wow." Based on the facts of the documentary and a few outside articles I read, I see a clear motive for the county/state against Avery, but cant seem to find a motive for him to do anything to her? Or I don't get how his nephew got charged with a count of sexual assault with absolutely zero evidence to support anything!
I haven't read through this entire thread but have watched the documentary. I don't think we have enough evidence to determine guilt or innocence based on the doc but given the information continuing to come out since the release of the doc, it is safe to say the prosecution and police department are corrupt.
Several jurors came out publicly yesterday stating they felt threatened by the DA's office and local law enforcement if they didn't convict. Avery may very well be guilty but based on the evidence we have from the doc, law enforcement are guilty of a lot themselves.
http://time.com/4167915/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-juror/
It's safe to say, I'm not taking my family to Wisconsin any time soon!
Several jurors came out publicly yesterday stating they felt threatened by the DA's office and local law enforcement if they didn't convict. Avery may very well be guilty but based on the evidence we have from the doc, law enforcement are guilty of a lot themselves.
http://time.com/4167915/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-juror/
It's safe to say, I'm not taking my family to Wisconsin any time soon!
rallo
#FYF
I realized I may be confusing people by calling it a "purple topped tube". This type of tube is a vacutainer and here is a little be about it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacutainer
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
I'm calling some BS on the film makers in this interview. They paint themselves as mere observers, totally impartial. But they are human and they know their project has a much greater chance of success if there is drama and intrigue.
Man. There is a lot of sympathy for a man who threw his oil drenched cat in a fire, was an illegal firearm owner, with a history of threatening behavior towards women.
I haven't seen the documentary yet. My read on the reaction of people in this thread is they acknowledge he's a bad person, that he maybe/probably killed her AND that the system was corrupt.
I keep seeing the word "documentary" used. I don't think this is a documentary. It is far from unbiased and intentionally left out facts, presented at trial, to further the narrative it was aiming for.
Welcome to the genre, post Michael Moore.
I don't disagree with you and believe Avery to be guilty in some form or fashion. However, planting evidence, lying under oath and tampering with jurors to ensure a conviction goes against everything we are taught to believe about our judicial system!
Do you believe this is the first time a man (or woman) has been convicted of murder (or any other crime) has made claims of judicial failings? 99% of convicts alert wrongly convicted, if you ask them.
There is no evidence of jury tampering whatsoever, except some whining jurors 8 years later.... If you watch closely, that juror that got excused for the 'medical emergency' can be seen outside the courthouse in one shot as Dassey is walking by.... Like he supported him or something? That's not impartial either...
in the documentarians' response to kratz, they said they left out some facts and arguments to focus 1) on what they felt was the most compelling from both sides, and 2) what kratz and others from his office peddled to the media through press conferences and the like.
Probably a few of them who are then shown video evidence of their crime caught on tape.
And they did that bc they hoped the appellate courts would see how split they were and grant a retrial or another hearing. When the same judge that convicted you is your appeals judge that is not good.
There is far more to this than Avery's claims. It's not my opinion the DA's office was corrupt. He was fired for misconduct among other reasons.
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...ay-have-met-their-match-manitowoc-county-.php
Like I said, there is far more to this than some are willing to believe!
Like I said, there is far more to this than some are willing to believe!
Wake
Active member
I haven't gotten to that point yet, but if I'm not mistaken it was for sexting and sexual harassment, not for framing people or anything of the like. Not defending his actions at all, but it hardly brings into question a trial that occurred years earlier.
Ken Kratz was being investigated during the Avery trial so it wasn't "years earlier". It isn't a giant leap for a person to be corrupt in one area lead to further corruption in another.
I am intrigued by the Anonymous angle. If they have indeed found inflammatory emails between DA and sheriff's office personnel, the media blitz has only just begun.
So Kratz's transgressions unrelated to this case are to be scrutinized but not Avery's?
Avery had a history of violence, inappropriate and threatening actions towards women and Teresa Halbach, but that gets overlooked?