Making a Murderer Part 2 - Oct 19th

['Orns]

4 minutes ago, Gazred said:

Finally got around to watching it. 2 eps in and i thought the legal team from the first series was good. This lady is tearing the case a new one.

Did he do it? Probably not. 100% sure his nephew is totally innocent though,

The only thing his nephew is guilty of is not being the smartest

That 'confession'....how that was ever used to nail the poor kid is beyond me

[Gazred]

2 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

The only thing his nephew is guilty of is not being the smartest

That 'confession'....how that was ever used to nail the poor kid is beyond me

Absolutely mate. It brought the Mrs to tears first series. So obvious what was going on. Such a simple kid it was easy pickings for the detective interviewing him.

[Red-Robbo]

5 hours ago, Up The City! said:

95% of me says he is innocent but there is that niggling feeling that he may have done it.

However I have done far far more research since watching the 1st series and there is just far too much dodgy evidence for me to believe he did it.

In this country a conviction wouldn't have been secured on that evidence.

My money is on Bobby and Scott.

It's certainly a shit police investigation and how some of the cops that bollocksed up Avery's 1990s wrongful conviction are still on the force is a mystery.

BUT I'm used to watching defence lawyers at work and how they function is by throwing up loads of dustclouds to try to hide the overwhelming evidence. And in this case, that evidence points to Avery.  Anything pointing at anyone else is as circumstantial as hell.

['Orns]

13 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

It's certainly a shit police investigation and how some of the cops that bollocksed up Avery's 1990s wrongful conviction are still on the force is a mystery.

BUT I'm used to watching defence lawyers at work and how they function is by throwing up loads of dustclouds to try to hide the overwhelming evidence. And in this case, that evidence points to Avery.  Anything pointing at anyone else is as circumstantial as hell.

I'm intrigued, Robbo. What points you in the direction of Avery here? There were so many holes in the first series, and I'm only about 4 into the second, but I just can't see anything than a massive cover up. All that land the Avery's own, I bet the County / State would love to get their hands on that.....

[Red-Robbo]

50 minutes ago, Woodsy said:

I'm intrigued, Robbo. What points you in the direction of Avery here? There were so many holes in the first series, and I'm only about 4 into the second, but I just can't see anything than a massive cover up. All that land the Avery's own, I bet the County / State would love to get their hands on that.....

Er. her car hidden on his land with his blood in it. Her bones in his firepit. The fact he has previous (before the rape false convicton) for violent and sexual offences.

He's GOT to be top suspect.

I can't see cops let alone anyone else endangering themselves just to save the state compensation money (and there is no mechanism for the state to seize land from miscreants there. It's still his land even though he's in the nick. That said, land values in upstate Michigan are diddly squat anyway).

 All the descriptions of how the car, blood etc got to where it was found are fanciful and/or rely on the hearsay evidence of the suspects themselves or there friends & family.

I love it how people can watch a documentary based entirely on the defence's case then think they've "tried" a case.

[Gazred]

23 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Er. her car hidden on his land with his blood in it. Her bones in his firepit. The fact he has previous (before the rape false convicton) for violent and sexual offences.

He's GOT to be top suspect.

I can't see cops let alone anyone else endangering themselves just to save the state compensation money (and there is no mechanism for the state to seize land from miscreants there. It's still his land even though he's in the nick. That said, land values in upstate Michigan are diddly squat anyway).

 All the descriptions of how the car, blood etc got to where it was found are fanciful and/or rely on the hearsay evidence of the suspects themselves or there friends & family.

I love it how people can watch a documentary based entirely on the defence's case then think they've "tried" a case.

It is of course all presented pro defence but far to many grey areas around the blood evidence for starters. It really looks planted, the patterns do not match the events and i'm yet to get a satisfactory explanation as to why his blood sample from the original conviction had been tampered with when it was fully sealed in a locked evidence room.

I think they also explained in the first series that the remains found on his property had been placed there but burnt elsewhere (quarry). That struck me as an odd thing to do, why not just burn her there in the first place?

It's intriguing stuff and facsinating to watch.

[Red-Robbo]

9 minutes ago, Gazred said:

It is of course all presented pro defence but far to many grey areas around the blood evidence for starters. It really looks planted, the patterns do not match the events and i'm yet to get a satisfactory explanation as to why his blood sample from the original conviction had been tampered with when it was fully sealed in a locked evidence room.

I think they also explained in the first series that the remains found on his property had been placed there but burnt elsewhere (quarry). That struck me as an odd thing to do, why not just burn her there in the first place?

It's intriguing stuff and facsinating to watch.

Why not burn her there? Um, because most murderers do not want to leave evidence right outside their homes. Probably moved most of the body to that location.

As for the blood, I agree the state investigation was incompetent - quite clearly that county's sheriff's office is useless, but there was more blood in the car then would have been accounted for by a DNA sample. And the idea that he cut himself, left a huge pool of blood in a sink, then - on the off chance- someone breaks into his home and says: "Aye, aye, a huge reservoir of the suspect's blood! Stroke of luck! Lucky I have a handy pipette on me! And one that doesn't leave any latex residue on the blood like normal ones do!" is rather unlikely IMO.

 

[Gazred]

11 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Why not burn her there? Um, because most murderers do not want to leave evidence right outside their homes. Probably moved most of the body to that location. This is my point, the body was shown to have been burnt at another location, most likely the quarry, then moved to his fire pit on his property - as you say, you wouldn't want evidence outside your home, so why move the remains back there?

As for the blood, I agree the state investigation was incompetent - quite clearly that county's sheriff's office is useless, but there was more blood in the car then would have been accounted for by a DNA sample. And the idea that he cut himself, left a huge pool of blood in a sink, then - on the off chance- someone breaks into his home and says: "Aye, aye, a huge reservoir of the suspect's blood! Stroke of luck! Lucky I have a handy pipette on me! And one that doesn't leave any latex residue on the blood like normal ones do!" is rather unlikely IMO. I just cant get past that tampered blood sample from the prior case. The whole thing reeks of a stich up. He may well of done it and not covered his tracks enough but the powers that be made damn sure he got convicted for it by any means necessary.

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

3 minutes ago, Gazred said:

 

 

Possible explanation. A dismembered body can be burned in more than one location, or alternatively it was burnt in his pit and he moved the bones to the quarry site, possible starting another blaze there. He's hardly the brightest spark, hence some remains were left behind.

As I stated, I'd convict.

The likelihood of more than one person driving past his home and then spending a reasonable amount of time, in the pitch black, hiding her van, walking back again past his home to drive off or be collected, is minimal. He's an armed redneck and isn't exactly going to shrug off intruders on his land. Have you seen the security at scrapyards? If you could drive up to his yard at night, he'd have no business left. It would all be nicked.

[Tommytank1897]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Why not burn her there? Um, because most murderers do not want to leave evidence right outside their homes. Probably moved most of the body to that location.

As for the blood, I agree the state investigation was incompetent - quite clearly that county's sheriff's office is useless, but there was more blood in the car then would have been accounted for by a DNA sample. And the idea that he cut himself, left a huge pool of blood in a sink, then - on the off chance- someone breaks into his home and says: "Aye, aye, a huge reservoir of the suspect's blood! Stroke of luck! Lucky I have a handy pipette on me! And one that doesn't leave any latex residue on the blood like normal ones do!" is rather unlikely IMO.

 

If he’s not a bright spark how do you explain him passing that brain test thing? Have u even watched the second series? You could answer all your questions if you have. You telling me he supposedly slit her throat in the trailer and shot her in the garage yet not a trace of blood was found? Yet there was a smudge on a cd case in her car ffs . 

[Tommytank1897]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

Possible explanation. A dismembered body can be burned in more than one location, or alternatively it was burnt in his pit and he moved the bones to the quarry site, possible starting another blaze there. He's hardly the brightest spark, hence some remains were left behind.

As I stated, I'd convict.

The likelihood of more than one person driving past his home and then spending a reasonable amount of time, in the pitch black, hiding her van, walking back again past his home to drive off or be collected, is minimal. He's an armed redneck and isn't exactly going to shrug off intruders on his land. Have you seen the security at scrapyards? If you could drive up to his yard at night, he'd have no business left. It would all be nicked.

They didn’t go past his home. If you watch it they enter through a gap in the hedge when conviently the car was found 

[Red-Robbo]

4 minutes ago, tommytank1985 said:

If he’s not a bright spark how do you explain him passing that brain test thing? Have u even watched the second series? You could answer all your questions if you have. You telling me he supposedly slit her throat in the trailer and shot her in the garage yet not a trace of blood was found? Yet there was a smudge on a cd case in her ffs . 

They had a week to get rid of any evidence, and anyone who forces their own cousin off the road with a gun and assaults her isn't that bright. That was his last conviction. He also burnt his own cat alive - classic psycho behaviour.

2 minutes ago, tommytank1985 said:

They didn’t go past his home. If you watch it they enter through a gap in the hedge when conviently the car was found 

Nonetheless, Avery "saw headlights" but couldn't find men hiding and camouflaging a substantial vehicle at a location they won't have known well. According to him of course. No independent verification.

[Up The City!]

7 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

It's certainly a shit police investigation and how some of the cops that bollocksed up Avery's 1990s wrongful conviction are still on the force is a mystery.

BUT I'm used to watching defence lawyers at work and how they function is by throwing up loads of dustclouds to try to hide the overwhelming evidence. And in this case, that evidence points to Avery.  Anything pointing at anyone else is as circumstantial as hell.

It doesn't sit comfortably with me that those same officers found all the evidence, the same officers Steven was suing, the same officers that were told they were not to be apart of the investigation. That Colburn is as a nasty piece of work imo. Calling in the plates before the car was found? But using his mobile to do so rather than his radio?

My theory is either Bobby and Scott hid the car there, I think Ryan and the Brother found the car at the salvage yard and called Colburn, Colburn realised he was illegally on the property so set it up that that women would find the car, this is how Colburn got the key that was then found on the 7th search of the trailer.

 

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Er. her car hidden on his land with his blood in it. Her bones in his firepit. The fact he has previous (before the rape false convicton) for violent and sexual offences.

He's GOT to be top suspect.

I can't see cops let alone anyone else endangering themselves just to save the state compensation money (and there is no mechanism for the state to seize land from miscreants there. It's still his land even though he's in the nick. That said, land values in upstate Michigan are diddly squat anyway).

 All the descriptions of how the car, blood etc got to where it was found are fanciful and/or rely on the hearsay evidence of the suspects themselves or there friends & family.

I love it how people can watch a documentary based entirely on the defence's case then think they've "tried" a case.

So if a car and bones were found on your land that immediately means you commited the murder does it? Of course you would be prime suspect but in this country a proper investigation would follow, it simply didn't over there. The ex BF wasn't even asked for a alibi. 

I think you are insulting my intelligence a little, I've not only watched the documentary but I've watched millions of YouTube videos, read countless court documents etc. 

For me there is just far too much dodgy stuff that went on in the investigation.

You have to remember, Steven was convicted on the evidence that was presented to the jury, if any of that evidence was incorrect then Steven should be granted a new trial.

[Up The City!]

3 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

He's GOT to be top suspect.

No, the top suspect has to be Bobby due to the stuff found on his computer, the fact he also acted as the states key witness by saying he saw her leave doesn't sit comfortably with me.

He had child porn on that computer but wasn't convicted for it, funny that hey? 

I also think Brendans mum knows the truth, you can kind of just tell by looking at her.

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

It doesn't sit comfortably with me that those same officers found all the evidence, the same officers Steven was suing, the same officers that were told they were not to be apart of the investigation. That Colburn is as a nasty piece of work imo. Calling in the plates before the car was found? But using his mobile to do so rather than his radio?

My theory is either Bobby and Scott hid the car there, I think Ryan and the Brother found the car at the salvage yard and called Colburn, Colburn realised he was illegally on the property so set it up that that women would find the car, this is how Colburn got the key that was then found on the 7th search of the trailer.

He wasn't suing the individual officers. The rape conviction had been quashed - 5 years before the murder - and he was in the process of settling a wrongful imprisonment suit: Wisconsin had already admitted liability. The amount hadn't been settled. Avery was seeking $35m - which is more than he'd have earned in 100 lifetimes. The police department didn't have anything individually to lose. The state taxpayer would settle the tab.

As for your theory. interesting, but not one shred of evidence to put any of them there and who killed Halbach?

 

So if a car and bones were found on your land that immediately means you commited the murder does it? Of course you would be prime suspect but in this country a proper investigation would follow, it simply didn't over there. The ex BF wasn't even asked for a alibi. 

I think you are insulting my intelligence a little, I've not only watched the documentary but I've watched millions of YouTube videos, read countless court documents etc. 

For me there is just far too much dodgy stuff that went on in the investigation.

You have to remember, Steven was convicted on the evidence that was presented to the jury, if any of that evidence was incorrect then Steven should be granted a new trial. 

It's a case which appeals to conspiracy theorists and of course, you are only get a one-sided view. Kathleen Zeller is very apt to say "We know X happened" when actually all she knows is someone SAID X happened. And it's never an impartial witness. What we can say is her evidence was put before Wisconsin's Supreme Court and they said it is not solid enough to merit a retrial.

 

[Red-Robbo]

11 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

No, the top suspect has to be Bobby due to the stuff found on his computer, the fact he also acted as the states key witness by saying he saw her leave doesn't sit comfortably with me.

He had child porn on that computer but wasn't convicted for it, funny that hey? 

I also think Brendans mum knows the truth, you can kind of just tell by looking at her.

The fact that the brother had violent (not child) porn is not proof of anything. I wouldn't say Avery did it based entirely on the fact that he threatened people with guns, masturbated in public and burnt his own cat alive. That's supporting evidence, but you need more than that.

He was the last name in Halbach's appointment diary she visited. When she got to his, she got no further. If she was murdered elsewhere, she'd have had to be stopped somehow on a public road between her last client and Avery's yard. Zero evidence that hapened.

As for your last line, I'd hope that no one ever judged guilt by just looking st someone.

[Up The City!]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

The fact that the brother had violent (not child) porn is not proof of anything. I wouldn't say Avery did it based entirely on the fact that he threatened people with guns, masturbated in public and burnt his own cat alive. That's supporting evidence, but you need more than that.

He was the last name in Halbach's appointment diary she visited. When she got to his, she got no further. If she was murdered elsewhere, she'd have had to be stopped somehow on a public road between her last client and Avery's yard. Zero evidence that hapened.

As for your last line, I'd hope that no one ever judged guilt by just looking st someone.

There was child porn, I saw the list of searches and there is certainly searches for child porn.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/9rotvw/bobby_dassey_search_history/

The worrying thing about those searches are that they relate a lot to how the prosecution say she was killed, coincidence? 

How did the ex bf get hold of her appointment diary? You would imagine that would have been with her at the time she was killed. 

The cell tower did ping but I'm unsure how reliable that is, also there is a few witnesses saying she left, even Bobby told his mum she left (although he denies this) 

My personal feelings is she knows Bobby killed her, she has split loyalties because they are both her son's. What is a mother to do in a situation like that?

 

['Orns]

I think other people have pointed out the same reasons that I was going to point out in terms of why I think it's sketchy

As someone else pointed out, this is purely from the Defense point of view, I'd love to see the other side of the story to balance it out. Which also makes me wonder why no one has done that side of the story?

[Red-Robbo]

18 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

There was child porn, I saw the list of searches and there is certainly searches for child porn.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/9rotvw/bobby_dassey_search_history/

The worrying thing about those searches are that they relate a lot to how the prosecution say she was killed, coincidence? 

How did the ex bf get hold of her appointment diary? You would imagine that would have been with her at the time she was killed. 

The cell tower did ping but I'm unsure how reliable that is, also there is a few witnesses saying she left, even Bobby told his mum she left (although he denies this) 

My personal feelings is she knows Bobby killed her, she has split loyalties because they are both her son's. What is a mother to do in a situation like that?

 

It isn't evidence though. There is no evidence he killed her at all. And if there was evidence he downloaded illegal material he'd be charged. If he hasn't,  then there is no evidence of downloads, or he'll be charged when the computer is released from evidence in this other case.

All circumstantial.  You cannot go on "feelings". 

As for the appointment diary, again circumstancial. Someone told the defence investigator he had the appointment diary. Not proof, and maybe she had more than one and photocopied it.

Can you see what I mean about throwing up loads of dustclouds?

Unless the ex-boyfriend, the main suspect's other nephew, the second suspect's stepfather, virtually the entire county police department, the state prosecutor and the state medical examiner are all in a gigantic conspiracy, most, if not all, Ms Zeller's 'what ifs' are meaningless.

 

[Gazred]

Great debate chaps, fascinating stuff. Think i need to press on and watch a few more eps from season 2 before commenting again.

[Tommytank1897]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

It isn't evidence though. There is no evidence he killed her at all. And if there was evidence he downloaded illegal material he'd be charged. If he hasn't,  then there is no evidence of downloads, or he'll be charged when the computer is released from evidence in this other case.

All circumstantial.  You cannot go on "feelings". 

As for the appointment diary, again circumstancial. Someone told the defence investigator he had the appointment diary. Not proof, and maybe she had more than one and photocopied it.

Can you see what I mean about throwing up loads of dustclouds?

Unless the ex-boyfriend, the main suspect's other nephew, the second suspect's stepfather, virtually the entire county police department, the state prosecutor and the state medical examiner are all in a gigantic conspiracy, most, if not all, Ms Zeller's 'what ifs' are meaningless.

 

Neither is your ‘he burnt a cat’ alive evidence. 

[Tommytank1897]

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

The fact that the brother had violent (not child) porn is not proof of anything. I wouldn't say Avery did it based entirely on the fact that he threatened people with guns, masturbated in public and burnt his own cat alive. That's supporting evidence, but you need more than that.

He was the last name in Halbach's appointment diary she visited. When she got to his, she got no further. If she was murdered elsewhere, she'd have had to be stopped somehow on a public road between her last client and Avery's yard. Zero evidence that hapened.

As for your last line, I'd hope that no one ever judged guilt by just looking st someone.

Apart from the trucker bloke that reported seeing her car on the side of the road? Yet the bent copper didn’t even report it. Nore did Scott even reply to his messages???. 

[Tommytank1897]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

It isn't evidence though. There is no evidence he killed her at all. And if there was evidence he downloaded illegal material he'd be charged. If he hasn't,  then there is no evidence of downloads, or he'll be charged when the computer is released from evidence in this other case.

All circumstantial.  You cannot go on "feelings". 

As for the appointment diary, again circumstancial. Someone told the defence investigator he had the appointment diary. Not proof, and maybe she had more than one and photocopied it.

Can you see what I mean about throwing up loads of dustclouds?

Unless the ex-boyfriend, the main suspect's other nephew, the second suspect's stepfather, virtually the entire county police department, the state prosecutor and the state medical examiner are all in a gigantic conspiracy, most, if not all, Ms Zeller's 'what ifs' are meaningless.

 

The diary had ‘new appointments’ on didn’t it not that she had made the same day? And wouldn’t of had time to go home to leave it there and more to the point she had no reason to go home in between meetings? Enjoying the debate here btw

[Up The City!]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

It isn't evidence though. There is no evidence he killed her at all. And if there was evidence he downloaded illegal material he'd be charged. If he hasn't,  then there is no evidence of downloads, or he'll be charged when the computer is released from evidence in this other case.

All circumstantial.  You cannot go on "feelings". 

As for the appointment diary, again circumstancial. Someone told the defence investigator he had the appointment diary. Not proof, and maybe she had more than one and photocopied it.

Can you see what I mean about throwing up loads of dustclouds?

Unless the ex-boyfriend, the main suspect's other nephew, the second suspect's stepfather, virtually the entire county police department, the state prosecutor and the state medical examiner are all in a gigantic conspiracy, most, if not all, Ms Zeller's 'what ifs' are meaningless.

 

So someone that made searches such as RAV4, gun shot etc isn't evidence? 

The idea is that at trial the defence were unable to produce a Denney suspect to the jury, Bobby would have fit the Denney suspect criteria had they had the defence done their job properly and looked at the CD, although there was metigating circumstances as for why they didn't. 

There was downloads, I saw the pictures of corpses etc. Are you trying to say searching for child porn isn't illegal? So as he wasn't charged that rings alarm bells for me, it shows just how corrupt  that police force is. He now has his own child sooo...

The computer was released years ago, barbs had it, a few months ago she handed it over to KZ for her experts to analyse it, that's where all these searches etc have come from. Lo and behold tho the computer had been formatted.

I appreciate what you are saying about circumstantial evidence but surely you can't ignore the fact that circumstantial evidence was used by the prosecution? Such as they found some hand cuffs in the bedroom so that must have ment she was tied up, gagged etc despite their being absolutely zero evidence of that happening.

My theory is there was a few people trying to stitch Steven up without realising the others were trying to also stitch him up and it all combined to produce a perfect storm. I don't believe the police killed her, but I do believe they planted evidence to frame Steven.

In this country every single person such as Bobby, the ex, the person harassing her etc would be investigated until they were eliminated from their enquiries, just like in 1985 this didn't happen, it was decided Steven was guilty and that was that.

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, tommytank1985 said:

Apart from the trucker bloke that reported seeing her car on the side of the road? Yet the bent copper didn’t even report it. Nore did Scott even reply to his messages???. 

The trucker who just happens to be a friend of the Fassey family! And why didn't any other motorists notice this large prominent vehicle in a lay-by for two days (minimum)? There was a poster of it in the nearest petrol station.

4 minutes ago, tommytank1985 said:

The diary had ‘new appointments’ on didn’t it not that she had made the same day? And wouldn’t of had time to go home to leave it there and more to the point she had no reason to go home in between meetings? Enjoying the debate here btw

Not sure there is any evidence that this ex-bf had the diary ever. Only "someone said so". It's how Zeller's "evidence" often is when you look into it: hearsay.

[Up The City!]

My thoughts are, Steven could well have killed her, I'm 95% sure he didn't tho. However the investigation was botched, it's clear evidence was planted and on that basis he should never have been convicted.

I think the car was found on his property so they decided he was guilty from that moment on however I believe they couldn't find any evidence to support their conclusions that he did it so planted evidence to ensure he was convicted.

This was why getting a false confession out of Brendan was so vital, what's interesting is that Brendan's confession was not used in Stevens trial, but the prosecution made sure that the jury would hear it by giving a press conference with all those gory details, that just wouldn't happen over here.

[Up The City!]

3 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

The trucker who just happens to be a friend of the Fassey family! And why didn't any other motorists notice this large prominent vehicle in a lay-by for two days (minimum)? There was a poster of it in the nearest petrol station.

Not sure there is any evidence that this ex-bf had the diary ever. Only "someone said so". It's how Zeller's "evidence" often is when you look into it: hearsay.

I'm going to have to do some research into the diary and get back to you. I've heard about it alot but not sure where it's come from so I'll look into it.

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

So someone that made searches such as RAV4, gun shot etc isn't evidence? 

The idea is that at trial the defence were unable to produce a Denney suspect to the jury, Bobby would have fit the Denney suspect criteria had they had the defence done their job properly and looked at the CD, although there was metigating circumstances as for why they didn't. 

There was downloads, I saw the pictures of corpses etc. Are you trying to say searching for child porn isn't illegal? So as he wasn't charged that rings alarm bells for me, it shows just how corrupt  that police force is. He now has his own child sooo...

The computer was released years ago, barbs had it, a few months ago she handed it over to KZ for her experts to analyse it, that's where all these searches etc have come from. Lo and behold tho the computer had been formatted.

I appreciate what you are saying about circumstantial evidence but surely you can't ignore the fact that circumstantial evidence was used by the prosecution? Such as they found some hand cuffs in the bedroom so that must have ment she was tied up, gagged etc despite their being absolutely zero evidence of that happening.

My theory is there was a few people trying to stitch Steven up without realising the others were trying to also stitch him up and it all combined to produce a perfect storm. I don't believe the police killed her, but I do believe they planted evidence to frame Steven.

In this country every single person such as Bobby, the ex, the person harassing her etc would be investigated until they were eliminated from their enquiries, just like in 1985 this didn't happen, it was decided Steven was guilty and that was that.

It was pictures of either real or playacting dead women, I thought. Not child porn. There was some sort of suggestion made in the programme that the sort of extreme porn on the computer was illegal in Wisconsin, but I don't know if that is true.

As I say, I'm not disputing that the police were incompetent, and probably had decided straight away that Avery was the perpetrator. The fact that he'd been a violent weirdo and local undesirable was why they picked him up for the rape in the first place. I don't know why officers who ignored a phoned in confesion still are in their job. 

BUT, that doesn't mean he didn't do it. the strongest evidence points out him and Brendan, not any of the diverse and often contradictory theories advanced by Ms Zeller.

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, Up The City! said:

My thoughts are, Steven could well have killed her, I'm 95% sure he didn't tho. However the investigation was botched, it's clear evidence was planted and on that basis he should never have been convicted.

I think the car was found on his property so they decided he was guilty from that moment on however I believe they couldn't find any evidence to support their conclusions that he did it so planted evidence to ensure he was convicted.

This was why getting a false confession out of Brendan was so vital, what's interesting is that Brendan's confession was not used in Stevens trial, but the prosecution made sure that the jury would hear it by giving a press conference with all those gory details, that just wouldn't happen over here.

 

Agreed. And he wouldn't be interrogated without an adult.

That said, the whole thing was taped and other lawmakers who heard it the thing on appeal have said it did not contravenr state law.

Much is made of Fassey's IQ, but 81 is not what they used to call retarded.  He wouldn't be head of his class by a long shot, but he's not in special school territory. Still perfectly capable of distinguishing fact from fuiction and understanding the rights read to him, that if he made a astatement, it could be used against him.

[Tommytank1897]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

It was pictures of either real or playacting dead women, I thought. Not child porn. There was some sort of suggestion made in the programme that the sort of extreme porn on the computer was illegal in Wisconsin, but I don't know if that is true.

As I say, I'm not disputing that the police were incompetent, and probably had decided straight away that Avery was the perpetrator. The fact that he'd been a violent weirdo and local undesirable was why they picked him up for the rape in the first place. I don't know why officers who ignored a phoned in confesion still are in their job. 

BUT, that doesn't mean he didn't do it. the strongest evidence points out him and Brendan, not any of the diverse and often contradictory theories advanced by Ms Zeller.

You say evidence but it’s all clearly faked in my opinion. You honestly think they cleaned the trailer and garage without a trace of blood yet left a few smudges all round her car? Single key? Who has one key? ‘Shakes the bookcase and it fell out?’ Yet everything else managed to stay put?