https://preview.redd.it/s41s94nvehyd1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=93d5a89497665062524b47d91bb83173476edc26

Almost done watching 2nd season (Part 2) I watched it when it first came out but didn't pay much attention or didn't finish it for some reason. I just watched the 1st part and am watching ep. 9 of part two right now and I'm just shocked at this point. It's so messed that Bobby and Brendan's stepped father Scott (I think) are getting away with this crap. It's obvious they are the real suspects but what was the agreement between them and the states prosecution and why? Crazy.

'Brendan provided an explanation for how the victim's blood got into the rear cargo area of her Toyota RAV4. After Steven Avery shot Teresa Halbach in the garage, he and Brendan wrapped her in bedding and tossed her in the back of her own SUV while they thought about how to dispose of Teresa's body. (According to Brendan, they were originally going to dump her in the pond, but decided the water level was too low.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4223438/Dassey-confession-omitted-Making-Murderer.html

In Brendan's first interview when he was asked what game he would have been playing when he got home from school, he said Blaine just bought American Chopper.

I thought that would be like a military helicopter game. When i was a kid I had a game based on the tv show Airwolf, remember that? But y'all probably know "a hit Discovery show American Chopper where a father and son build motorcycles and get angry at each other before throwing chairs around than building some really nice motorcycles."

I think the Dassey's had a PS2. By the date I think they must have had the first video game (not the sequel called Full Throttle). It seems to be mainly road racing, with cut scenes in their workshop garage https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uTfPZgpuAj4 Looks like you put your name in and it saved game progess to memory card.

So I'm not sure why Mike in 2007 said

It's easy to blame it on IQ scores, movies and video games," Mike Halbach said. "It's difficult to hold oneself accountable." https://eu.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/steven-avery/2016/01/08/dassey-sentencing-set-week/78504752/

I wonder if Mike will ever have to face the fact that the March 1 video was the unreliable result of misuse of Reid-type techniques and suggestions on an impaired juvenile. It's about holding interrogators to account, even by the minimal Reid Inc standards. Brendan's original statement was that he was asked to help push his grandpa's Suzukai Samurai jeep into Avery's garage around 7pm or 8pm. No fact has ever contradicted that. He can't help with what happened to Teresa because he doesn't know. He wasn't there when she arrived and he never saw her when he was walking from the school bus with Blaine. The only thing he could show remorse for is, after having been wrongly induced to imagine seeing Teresa, that he included that she left, which he didn't know either. But even that is in the context that all he knew was that sheriffs had previously got his uncle falsely convicted of a violent rape.

It was claimed Avery burned the mattress, somehow undetected, as an alternate theory to explain away why the bedroom, headboard, night stand, mattress all look like they haven't been cleaned in years.

Wouldn't investigators have found at least one item from a burned mattress somewhere if Avery indeed burned his mattress?

Just admit it. He didn't clean his trailer as deeply as the State insinuates he did to get rid of any signs of a crime in there. It's just easier to admit that than it is to come up with theories like "He burned the mattress ya'll!"

What are the theories on why TH’s body was put in the back of her vehicle. It’s always been something that bothers me about this case.

If you’re someone who believes he’s guilty, I’m guessing the theory would be he transported her body somewhere to dismember. But Brendan made no mention of that in his statement. You would think that would be something he would remember doing.

DCI Report 30 was long missing the first page on the foul play site. It is an interview with Bryan's ex gf. That page contains an interesting bit of information about Halloween afternoon. Marie says she was driving back from Florida with her grandparents and turned her phone on sometime between noon and 4pm on Halloween. At the time, they were driving through Tennessee. She saw Bryan had sent her a text message the day before, Sunday October 30th around 6 in the evening.

After turning her phone on between noon and 4pm on Halloween, she decided to call Bryan's cell phone about the text message. Steven Avery picked up the phone call and notified Marie that he was "borrowing" Bryan's cellular phone and had "no idea" where Bryan was. A short time later, Avery calls Marie again from Bryan's cell phone.

Avery, during the course of what is supposed to be a rape, murder and dismembering, is hanging out by Bryan to the point he is borrowing Bryan's cell phone and talking to Marie a couple of times. Now, no one knows if they were messing with Marie and Avery was lying when he said he didn't know where Bryan was at, but the point remains. Avery is not at home killing Teresa nor is he outside behind his garage tending to any fire.

Yet, we were told all of these years that Avery only hung out at home and "Looked like he had changed clothes" from Fabian's recollection of events he originally thought were on Wednesday November 2nd. It is clear why this page was always withheld from public view by CASO when they originally released the truncated version o these DCI reports. That's because it has information that supports Steven Avery being around family members instead of at home committing a crime.

You can conclude the phone call from Marie to Bryan's phone on Halloween happened after Bryan returned from work at 5pm... Since Avery had Bryan's cell phone on him and could only have that on him once Bryan returned from work.

https://preview.redd.it/ea1ppolpipxd1.png?width=1350&format=png&auto=webp&s=271d31e39e5cb2c65a7227fb3fcd8ec2a0e66f2b

https://preview.redd.it/0avrhkjuipxd1.png?width=1302&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca1c2fb30cfa4d34b02a8e0dd8589513e004a6a6

There is record of Dassey's lawyers not being aware of this interview and it's never brought up during his trial. It contains much information that directly contradicts what the police got him to "confess" to 4 months later.

After reading this there was some interesting things that stood out to me.

https://preview.redd.it/n6e07e543pxd1.png?width=1338&format=png&auto=webp&s=754c8208a46b23e65c9abb94a22872e861a5252b

The burn pit behind the Janda trailer

They first asked Dassey about the fire pit behind his mother's trailer. This fire pit is not mentioned very often throughout the investigation but it very well could be a relevant place considering there were two burn barrels right next to it containing human remains. As far as I know, they never soil tested this area or excavated it.

The "fight" between SA and Barb and the cancelled Fire

Dassey talked about a fight with Steven and his mother on October 29th, and two days later not having a bon fire -- which would be October 31st. Jail phone calls clear up the confusion here and show us the "fight" between Steven and Barb taking place on Thursday November 3rd. Also in the background of that jail call we hear Earl talking about the kids planning having go to the bon fire the next day on Friday November 4th. You can hear Avery's mother ask "With Barb not home?" That fire never happened. What Brendan is telling the investigators about here is the cancelled fire that was at the end of the week, not on Halloween. It's good to have audio from those days to prove Brendan correct or incorrect, like we can do here.

The fire midweek on November 2nd or 3rd

Dassey talks about going over to Avery's house mid week on Wednesday or Thursday to help him burn garbage. There is good record of many other people, like Bobby for example very early on in the investigation, saying they thought they recalled there was a fire by Avery mid week. We are aware that police were pushing for the fire to instead be on Halloween, because at the end of Brendan's interview from November 10th they told him they believed Avery burned Teresa on Halloween specifically. As of this time, they didn't have any corroboration from any witness, not even Brendan, for their theory of a Halloween fire in a burn pit. They only had the statement of Josh R. the quarry owner about what he thought was a burn barrel fire in the area behind the Avery/Janda trailers.

There is clear record of Avery being with Chuck at Menards on Thursday November 3rd, as well as going to Jodi's jail to drop off money after the Menard's visit. Avery was not home on that evening, so the fire could not have been November 3rd. On Wednesday November 2nd, Avery does not call Barb from his cell phone that evening, but does not talk to Jodi on the phone either, past 5:30pm. It's possible the fire could have happened that night since Avery is not documented to have gone anywhere off the property that evening.

Police walked away from this interview with Brendan without corroboration for their Halloween cremation/fire theory.

How Avery contacted Brendan

Dassey said Avery had called Brendan around 8pm one one of the mid-week days to come and help burn garbage in the burn pit.

In November of 2005, Avery is on a jail call telling his mother he "walked over" to get Brendan the evening he asked Brendan to help him.

By 2006 and by Brendan's trial this event turned into Avery calling Barb's house 2x (15 minutes apart) to get Brendan to come over. There aren't many records matching the sequence of calls that the State claim are for the cremation and the garage cleanup, but Sunday November 30th is the closest where Avery calls Barb's trailer two times past 8pm within a short timeframe, and later that same evening we hear Brendan and Steve in the garage together organizing various items.

Again, Brendan's memory is nowhere near matching the events of Halloween and what would end up being used during his trial.

Kept throwing items on top of the fire

When Dassey said he got to Avery's for the fire, it was already going with some branches and two black garbage bags which Dassey could tell contained general garbage. An interesting detail was Dassey said they kept getting items to throw "on top" of the already going fire. We know heat and fire tend to go up and don't burn things below it to the same degree, so the claim that throwing random items on top of a body would burn it to that degree is highly unlikely. The types of heat sources Dassey , in this interview, said they used like branches, garbage and tires are quick burning sources of fuel. The body being underneath all of these items poses a problem for the theory that this short outdoor fire was hot enough to cremate bones so badly.

There are a lot of items of information from this interview, even just the first page that was recently released, that go against everything the State used against Brendan. They cherry picked days, events, times, etc to put together such a disjointed theory that was unsupported by physical evidence.

From the now officially released DCI case file, reports by Wisconsin Dept of Justice special agent Mr Kim Skorlinski.

Nov 5th 2005. Report from page 77

Allan again came out of the residence and walked onto

and banged his hand on the hood of S/A Skorlinski’s state vehicle. S/A Skorlinski exited his vehicle and told Allan not to do that again.

**Allan told S/A Skorlinski that he and the other

officers should exit his property or else he is going to go back into the house and get a gun and come back and start shooting the officers**. Allan also said he is member of the NRA. S/A Skorlinski advised Allan not to do that and that officers were not going to leave until they heard from the officers in Manitowoc County.

S/A Skorlinski also informed Allan that the officers

were not on his property. At this time, two sheriff's deputies exited their squad car and walked over to S/A Skorlinski's state vehicle.

Shortly after that, two Avery family members, believed to be Steven and Charles, came out of the

residence and escorted Allan back into the residence. It appeared that Allan was intoxicated, therefore for the safety of all the officers, S/A Skorlinski suggested that all the officers move their vehicles away from the end of the driveway to the end of [redacted]

Nov 10th 2005. Report from page 155

Skorlinski advised Allan that he had a search warrant issued from Marinette County for his

DNA and fingerprints and palm prints.

...

Skorlinski said unlike the other Avery family members who had these samples obtained at a

hospital, S/A Skorlinski would like to have Allan give the samples at his residence. Allan said that would be ok. He also asked when is this going to end and when is law enforcement going to leave his son, Steven Avery alone.

**S/A Skorlinski then told Allan since he is in custody and not free to leave, S/A Skorlinski would

be reading him his Constitutional Rights**, in the event that S/A Skorlinski wanted to ask him questions afterwards. ... The reading of the rights form started at approximately 11:58 a.m. and completed at approximately 12:00 p.m

**While S/A Schallhorn and C.O. Haupt

remained in the kitchen with Allan to obtain the samples, S/A Skorlinski and Inv. Baldwin went outside to speak with Allan's grandson, Brendan Dassey.**

At approximately 12:25 p.m., S/A Skorlinski and Inv. Baldwin re-entered the residence to see

how the search warrant execution was progressing. S/A Schallhorn advised the DNA sample had been obtained and C.O. Haupt was working on obtaining the fingerprints. S/A Skorlinski then exited the residence to speak with Brendan one more time.

At approximately 12:30 p.m., S/A Skorlinski went back inside the residence and remained there

until the search warrant was concluded.

Same time period, Interview of Brendan. Report from Page 166.

On Thursday, November 10, 2005, at approximately 12:05 p.m., S/A Kim J. Skorlinski and

Investigator Todd Baldwin, of the Marinette County Sheriff's Department, interviewed Brendan R. Dassey, DOB outside his grandfather’s residence, at Town of Stephenson (Crivitz), Marinette County

[covers new stuff about an alleged Wednesday or Tuesday bonfire, mirroring what Bobby had just started saying, though the report doesn't mention that]

Dassey was asked if Steven had a fire on Monday, October 31, 2005, and he said he did not see a

fire on Monday.

...

Dassey was asked if he had ever gone back inside of Steven’s garage since Monday night,

October 31, 2005, when he helped push the gray Suzuki into Steven’s garage, and he said no.

...

Dassey was asked who put the items on top of the hood of the Suzuki. He said he did not know,

because he did not do that. Dassey said after he pushed the Suzuki into Steven’s garage, he went back home. Dassey was asked what was located next to the Suzuki in the garage, and he said there were tools and a snowmobile. Dassey was asked if another vehicle was parked in the garage, and he said no.

[covers new stuff about an alleged Wednesday or Tuesday bonfire, mirroring what Bobby had just started saying, though the report doesn't mention that]

**S/A Skorlinski and Inv. Baldwin left Dassey and went inside the residence to check on the status

of the search warrant execution.**

A couple minutes later, S/A Skorlinski returned to Dassey and told him that the investigators

believed that on Monday, October 31, 2005, Steven killed Halbach and burned her body in his fire pit. S/A Skorlinski told Dassey that investigators found pieces of female bone and teeth. Dassey was asked if he helped Steven burn Halbach’s body, and he said no. Dassey was asked if he saw anything in the fire pit that resembled a human body or human bone, and he said no. S/A Skorlinski told him that this is not the time to be lying to protect Steven. Dassey said he did not know anything about Steven burning Halbach. The interview was terminated at approximately 12:30 p.m.

Edit: This interview has been described by prosecutor Fallon as more "confrontational" than ones in 2006

P.s. Todd Baldwin had interviewed Brendan on Nov 6, where fellow deputy Anthony O'Neil had taken the lead and falsely told Brendan he should have seen Teresa. Baldwin seems to have been misled by the resulting confabulation. Skorlinski had also got in their squad car toward the end, asking about the Suzuki. Skorlinski had just exited the vehicle before this exchange about Brendan's school grades: "DET. BALDWIN: 3 F’s? BRENDAN: Yeah. DET. BALDWIN: Well that aint too bad."

Book about how “making a murderer” completely misrepresented the case and did so willfully and deliberately. Steven Avery murdered Teresa. He and the cousin are where they belong.

I'm just rewatching MAM and I'm not a smart or critical thinker, so I'm taking the series at face value and it makes me side towards SA being innocent. Looking through this group it doesn't seem like that's the case at all!

Can anyone put in layman's terms please some reasons why he may be guilty? Debunking some of the arguments e.g. Zellner testing the blood splatters?

Is there any element of planting evidence or foul play against the Avery's?

Genuinely interested, I'm not very good at questioning things and obvs there will be loads of things not included in the series!

EDIT: Appreciate the comments of everyone's thoughts and counter-points and questioning things and recommendations to watch CAM! I'm in the UK so I'm not sure if in the US there are just generally much stronger feelings either way on the case. But it's interesting to read all your thoughts for either side or uncertainty. Ty all 🙂

In 2006 when Fassbender first interrogated Brendan, Brendan had never said he was at a fire on Monday (edit, at least to police on the record). But Fassbender started out framing it as

Brendan, we know that, that Halloween and stuff, you were with him and, and helped him tend to a fire and stuff like that behind the garage and stuff

Fassbender didn't know that. He had some dodgy altered memory claims.

It's not until page 29 of the high school interview, after a break, that Wiegert asks Brendan

I just had a quick question, Brendan. Everything you told us prior to this about Steve and the body and the car. What day was that?

Do you remember?

October 31st.

Note from AI: According to search results, Halloween is always celebrated on October 31st...Therefore, in Wisconsin

In Brendan's first interview Nov 6 2005 he was quite clear (and apparently uninfluenced by the interviewers on this question) that he recalled Steven coming round at about 7pm or 8pm and he helped push the grey Silver Suzuki from beside Steven's garage to inside Steven's garage, then went home.

That means his Nov 10 2005 interview is crucial, as the intermediate step to the assumed Monday fire. Yet that audio/transcript is the only one that hasn't been released? And wasn't used at his trial afaik. Even in his postconviction hearings i think it's only been mentioned in passing as having been another "confrontational" interview.

Edit: It's the same Marinette (Crivitz area) deputy - Todd Baldwin (not Wendy). Now with DCI Kim Skorlinski (he had met Brendan on Nov 6th but he interviewed Bryan) rather than fellow deputy O'Neill.

Dassey was asked when was the last time his uncle, Steven Avery, had a fire in the pit behind his

residence, or more specifically, behind his garage.

So they don't report suggesting or telling Brendan anything about what Bobby had started saying under pressure the day prior. Even though these are the same deputies who had told him what his bus driver had said and urged him to conform his memory to fit that which they believed at that time.

Dassey said it was either last Tuesday night,

November 1, 2005; or Wednesday night, November 2, 2005; but he thinks it was Wednesday night.

There's no mention of the officers asking him if he'd heard what Bobby had started saying, even though it mirrors it.

Dassey said he was hoping to have a fire with Steven on Monday night, October 31, 2005,

but his mom got in a fight with Steven on Saturday, October 29, 2005, and told him that he can not have a fire with Steven on Monday

Were the deputies pressuring him to say Monday so he confabulated that? In fact it was planned for Thursday, as Brendan originally said in his first interview. According to one of the school kids who'd been invited (DCI case file pg 527), Blaine told her the day before, Wednesday, that it was not going to happen. She reportedly doesn't recall him giving a reason. She thought the bonfire was going to be at Blaine's house. Maybe she'd just assumed that. But the Dassey's did have a "fire ring" at theirs. Reportedly used in Spring in celebrating Bobby graduating high school.

Hi,

I’m rewatching Making a Murderer.

On Season 1 Episode 3, Barbara claims that she did not give police permission to interrogate her son

But the full recording shows Barbara walking into the room after the interrogation. She does not say

Why did you interview my son? I didn’t give you permission!

If the police interrogate a minor without parental consent, that is illegal in some cases; and almost universally frowned upon by courts. The evidence gathered from such an interrogation is often invalid before the court; just like evidence found during an illegal search

In all of Brandon’s appeals, I don’t believe this issue was litigated.

I’m sure Brendan’s legal team from Northwestern would have brought this issue up; interrogation without parental consent can present a serious constitutional violation. Bc if Brendan’s parents did not give permission to the police to interrogate their son, his confession can be ruled inadmissible in court. Any halfway decent lawyer would pounce on this

As someone who is supposed to be guilty why didn't Avery panic or start acting strange when he was informed by police that the girl he supposedly killed was reported missing and the family is worried? Like, he still went to Menards right after and then to drop off money for Jody... Then the next day he's gone with earl all day at a vehicle auction... And finally he even goes up north for the entire weekend instead of staying behind and finalizing the grand plan!

He doesn't change anything about his routine, why not?

https://preview.redd.it/d35lw6nk6hwd1.jpg?width=819&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72a630d56bcb57bbe51a1e3928cd9f884473c942

In Scott's first interview, Nov 10, he says that after finishing hunting around 5pm and driving to Barb's, he saw Barb, Steven and a younger Dassey outside (edit: at Barb's). His time of arrival, per his next interview Nov 29, was between 5:15pm and 5:30pm (here I'm disregarding his changes to what he witnessed).

In Barb's first interview, Nov 6th, she can't recall seeing Steven at all, so that's no help. She does recall making fish sticks and fries for Brendan between arriving home from work by 4:50pm and leaving for the hospital with Scott shortly after 5pm. She got mixed up with Tuesday at times though (saying dumplings, taken to her parents, but they phoned her ma Delores who said that was Tuesday).

In Steven's recorded call that Monday with Jodi around 5:40pm, just after the above time frame, he doesn't mention anything about going over there or Brendan. Only in his call from around 9pm, does he say he went there, when Barb was wanting Brendan to wash the dishes from dinner. So that could have been immediately after dinner, between about 5pm and 5:30pm, or possibly when Barb returned between 7:30pm and 8pm and saw they still hadn't been washed. Steven then tells Jodi he went back with Brendan when Barb was there and the dishes had been washed. Again that could just about fit into the narrow time between 5pm and 5:30pm, or could be after Barb returned. Barb did recall cleaning when she got back. In Steven's interviews he recalls going to Barb's in the evening but seems to misremember it as about Bobby's deer.

Brendan in his first interview Nov 6, apparently uninfluenced by the interrogators, simply said Steven came by about 7pm or 8pm to get help pushing the silver Suzuki Samurai into the garage, then he went home. So not necessarily out for long. Unfortunately they don't ask him what time he had dinner. And unfortunately they contaminate his memory about what happened when he got home, then in later interviews about fires etc. Still need transcript/audio of his Nov 10 interview. In 2006, when he does refer to dinner, he puts it at 8pm which does fit with when Barb returned from the hospital.

I'm just trying to sum it up accurately, in the hope there might be anything else reliable to decide between the different possibilities.

Dinner made: either between 4:50pm and 5:30pm (first Barb time) or after returning 7:30pm to 8pm (second Barb time, until around 9pm).

Wanting Brendan to wash the dishes: Same

Barb washing the dishes: Same

What seems to tip it toward the first Steven visit being in the first time period that Barb was home, is if Scott was accurate in his first interview that he saw Steven by there when he first arrived to pick up Barb. Unless that was suggested to him by the interrogators or the family. Need audio/transcript.

If a guy who has been fondling himself when you drive by and who apparently is upset by you speaking to his girlfriend about him in a negative way in a bar for behavior that he confirms he engaged in, while his wife and young children are at home, and he then rams your car with his, points a gun in your face, and demands you come with him...why might you think he would do that, and what kind of experience might you fear in that moment?

The WI DOJ has recently started publishing records for the Teresa Halbach Case, in response to multiple record requests. in their words:

Responses to Public Records Requests

In the interest of transparency and efficiency, the Office of Open Government posts specific responses to public-records requests that may be of particular public interest, or may be the subject of multiple requests for the same records. For records released related to Officer Involved Critical Incidents, please follow this link

Especially once the FCI case investigation reports dropped. There you will see.

• Allen had already been convicted for an attack with the exact MO at the exact same beach

• The detective that would have worked it was kept off the case. The case was also walled off from an assistant DA. The victim liason was also kept from normal duties.

• Photo array protocols were ignored entirely and Avery's photo was in the sheriff's back pocket prior to talking to the victim

• Avery's name was also given to the victim prior to any identification.

• A sketch never done before or after by MTSO was used for no other apparent purpose than to influence her later identification

• Both the sheriff and the DA falsely claimed Allen had an alibi.

• In reality, Allen had slipped LE surveillance immediately prior to the attack.

• LE immediately talked to ASY witnesses, all of whom cleared Avery. A physical receipt also cleared him.

• The victim was told to change her story to better describe Avery and to say she was a 100% sure after saying she wasn't.

• Avery's wife was threaded to be charged as a conspirator if she terrified that she washed Avery's clothes (why they didn't have concrete on them).

• One of the arresting officers was told he would be fired if he testified to seeing concrete dust on Avery's bare back and shoulders.

• After the guilty verdict, the DA who was warned by the sheriff that he better not "fuck up" this case quit and fled the county.

• When years later Allen confessed to this crime in jail, the sheriff told his underlings to bury it.

How does anyone see this stuff and conclude "oops"?

Two years apart, both around Halloween, killing a young lady.

Both with misuse of police interrogation on juveniles who weren't there, resulting in false confessions-accusations released to the public in a sensationalist way, confusing everything. In Knox's case the police wanted her to be at the scene so she could witness her bar employer there, who the police wrongly suspected before knowing of Guede. The unnecessary confusion resulted in Guede only being imprisoned for 13 years for a violent murder rape. Meanwhile both Meredith Kercher's parents died during the pandemic. Guede's new girlfriend has now got a restraining order against him. While Brendan continues in prison, still confused probably.

Confessions and the Right to a Fair Trial: A Comparative Case Study (2017) https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127945?v=pdf By Megan Annitto, edit,a prof at Idaho school of law, "received her law degree and a Master of Social Work from the Catholic University of America... was appointed by the Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court to serve on a state commission"

immediate public airing and bolstering of Knox and Dassey’s statements by the prosecution ... Efforts to curtail and control

prosecutor speech have been ineffectual in both countries, even when they seek to address confessions very specifically ... evidence that knowledge of statements influences witness testimony, potentially corrupts evaluation of DNA evidence, and creates tunnel vision on the part of investigators.

Both the Knox and Dassey cases are lessons

in the deficits of the laws that currently exist in both countries. One essential purpose of comparative law is to enhance awareness of one system of justice and its systemic successes and failures, allowing us to escape the “conceptual cage of our own tradition."

at a time when American commentary fixated on an international spectacle

overseas, a teenager whose conviction raises serious questions about due process and his right to a fair trial in the United States quietly began his life sentence in a state prison in Wisconsin

(Btw that author, who thanks Drizin for feedback, misrepresents Dassey's first interviews in 2005. He didn't say he was at a fire on Mon 31st. But did say he saw Halbach after being falsely told others definitely had, so he should imagine the scene and try. And she omits a crucial finding of Europe's highest court, that the Italian police's translator told Knox it was ok if she had no witness memory because that could be trauma and she should try to help the police anyway.)

Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (2014) By Prof Peter Gill, leading forensic DNA expert, British, based in Denmark

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497316300333

Rudy Guede was (and remains) convicted of the murder of Kercher by overwhelming evidence.

A murder weapon had not been discovered at or near the crime scene, therefore the weapon must have been removed. A large knife (item 36) was later retrieved remote from the crime-scene in a cutlery drawer in Sollecito’s apartment. ... The knife was tested for DNA and a profile matching Amanda Knox was found on the handle and a low-level profile matching Meredith Kercher was found on the blade. The prosecution alleged that the DNA was transferred to the handle when Knox stabbed Kercher with the knife

The knife was found in a kitchen drawer with other cutlery. It is not clear who handled the knife at the apartment, or whether the officers changed gloves between the handling of different pieces of evidence. Officers testified that the knife was put in an envelope, which had been used to store new gloves for the officers, for transfer to the police station. One officer who handled the knife at police headquarters had been in Kercher’s apartment, and specifically in Knox’s room, earlier in the day. Police officers did not remove other knives or test them to control for background contamination.

one officer testified that, at the police station, he had noticed that the knife packaging was not properly sealed and that he closed two gaps in the envelope with tape. Another officer testified that, wearing gloves, he later removed the knife from the envelope and put it in a non-sterile box that he closed with tape.

The knife was transferred to the laboratory, where the item was examined. The laboratory reports showed that seven samples were taken from the knife: four from the blade and three from the handle. The knife was tested as one item in the middle of a course of 50 or 60 samples attributed to the victim; it was allegedly tested approximately seven days after the last testing of a sample belonging to Kercher. Anti-contamination procedures were not documented (or disclosed); it is unknown if or how surfaces were sterilized; what protective equipment was used; whether equipment was cleaned after each run; or how often technicians changed gloves. This was contrary to the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) guidelines on contamination prevention ...

Even if all protocols had been scrupulously applied – a conclusion that was not supported by any disclosed document – there still remained the possibility that cross-transfer of DNA may have occurred. Specifically, this may involve transfer from a sample containing the victim’s DNA to a laboratory surface, and thence to the knife. This was a possibility even if there are seven or more intervening days between examinations. Consequently it would have been prudent to test any evidence in separate laboratory facilities. At a minimum, samples of a potential murder weapon should be run prior to any known sample of the victim being analysed.

A report at the time claimed "no contamination or pollution has been proven or could be concretely possible. This assertion is also confirmed by the negative and positive controls... which show that there was no contamination of said evidentiary items.”

However, this was also a serious error of interpretation. The negative control is simply a blank or empty tube run concurrently with the samples in the laboratory beginning at the extraction stage of the analytical process. Consequently, it can only be used as a control for potential reagent contamination. It cannot be used to discount possible contamination, either at the crime scene or in the examination room.

The knife tested negative for blood. They also performed cytocentrifugation tests to detect cellular material, which revealed starch particles on the blade and handle of the knife, consistent with it being used to prepare food. If the knife had been used in the crime, the starch particles would have been expected to absorb blood. In addition, if the knife had been subsequently bleach cleaned, the starch particles would also have been removed in addition to any blood or DNA i.e. there was no evidence to suggest that the knife had been treated in this way.

Surprisingly, the Massei report stated that the distribution of DNA on the knife handle supported the contention that it was used in an upward stabbing motion by Amanda Knox, rather than a cutting motion (e.g., to cut bread). ... However, it is clear that this conclusion in the Massei motivation was pure speculation without any grounding in scientific analysis. There is not a single reported publication in the world that would support the notion that DNA analysis could reveal how a knife was used

To summarise, the assumption that the DNA had originated from blood was contrary to the scientific evidence. There was no dispute that the tests on the samples were negative. There was also no scientific evidence that the blood-proteins could have been selectively removed with bleach while leaving the DNA on the blade. Bleach destroys DNA, and is used in laboratories for precisely that purpose. If bleach had been used to clean all of the blood from the knife, it is highly probable that it would have also destroyed any DNA on the knife. There is no accepted method that can be used to indicate whether the distribution of DNA on the knife indicated its use to stab the victim vs. to cut food.

https://preview.redd.it/0o7hydwgowvd1.jpg?width=819&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc515102e6c974f7da8e95b35584fb78bd16a1b0

There’s been a lot of debate surrounding Steven Avery’s past actions, particularly the infamous incident involving the burning of a cat. Some argue that Avery didn't directly burn the cat, but the available information and testimony makes it clear that that's a lie. Here's a factual rundown of what happened, including Avery's own words from Making a Murderer and witness statements from the time.

Oh, and before somebody says "but that doesn't mean he murdered Teresa Halbach." That's true -- all the evidence of his actually murdering Teresa Halbach means he murdered Teresa Halbach. But that also doesn't mean we have to downplay the evidence that he's an animal abuser to feel better about him as a defendant, right?

So let's take a gruesome ride, shall we? Here's a sampling of the evidence -- I actually can't find all the legal documents from the trial any more, but there's more. Perhaps in the Wayback Machine?

• Avery’s Own Admissions: In Making a Murderer, Avery briefly addresses the incident, saying: "We were horsing around with the cat, and I tossed him over the fire... and he lit up." He also tries to downplay the incident by framing it as "just messing around," but his own words confirm that he tossed the cat toward the fire, which directly led to its death. So, maybe he wasn't the first person to burn the cat. But he decided to burn the cat, invited people over to do so, soaked the cat in petrol, and then threw it back in the fire after it escaped. He freakin' burned the cat.
• Avery has discussed the incident on other occasions, such as laughing about it with his mother, Dolores, and one of his prison girlfriends.
• Lori Dassey’s Account: In Lori Dassey’s account, she confirms Avery's involvement in the incident. Lori stated that Avery admitted to her that he soaked the cat in gasoline and laughed about how it "lit up" when it was thrown into the fire.
• Witness Statements: Beyond Avery’s own admissions, witness statements from 1982 provide further damning evidence:
  • Jerry Yanda's Written Statement (September 2, 1982): "I was at Steve Avery's house on Monday afternoon 8-31-82. We decided to build a bonfire. Steve built the bonfire. Steve then said 'let's burn the cat.' Steve then chased the cat around the yard until he caught it. Steve then poured gas and oil on it. I then picked the cat up when Steve told me to. I then threw it on the fire. The cat then jumped out of the fire and ran around until it ran out of power and died. I think it is still out there. I came looking for the police because the incident made me feel bad." (Signed "Jerry Yanda")
  • Peter Dassey’s Written Statement (September 1, 1982): "Steve said 'let's burn the cat.' He started a fire first. They got the cat. Steve poured gas and oil on it. Jerry threw the cat into the fire. It burned up." (Signed "Peter Dassey")

The defense that Avery didn’t burn the cat often hinges on the argument that someone else physically threw the cat into the fire. However, BULLSHIT. Avery initiated the incident by building the bonfire and suggesting they burn the cat. He soaked the cat in gasoline and oil and instructed Jerry Yanda to throw it into the fire.

And this wasn’t the end of Avery’s involvement. When the cat tried to escape the fire, Avery himself threw the suffering animal back into the flames, ensuring its death. Witnesses reported that they were laughing during the incident. Hilarious, right? Burning animals to death. Ha ha ha.

The Defense of Avery: Those defending Avery often claim that since he didn’t throw the cat into the fire the first time, he wasn’t responsible. But the witness statements from Yanda and Peter Dassey, combined with Avery’s own admissions and Lori Dassey’s account, make it clear that he orchestrated the event. His role in soaking the cat in gasoline, directing others to throw it into the fire, and then throwing it back in when it tried to escape show his central involvement.

Why Defend This? It’s troubling to see people willing to overlook or downplay such a cruel act. Whether due to sympathy for Avery because of his wrongful conviction in the earlier rape case or the way Making a Murderer framed the narrative, defending or excusing animal abuse is unjustifiable. Avery's involvement is clear, and his own words, along with witness accounts and court records, make it indisputable that he was responsible for the cat’s suffering and death. Let's not lie to one another about this -- there’s no room for defending animal abuse here.

There's been a lot of commentary recently on how manipulative MAM is in relation to CAM. 1. Obviously they both have points of view, but 2. I think people tend to downplay WHY MAM is manipulative and the evidence that exists to make it clear that it is not at all neutral in how it depicts the Avery family (specifically the portion that is neutral or aligned with Steven's legal defense).

Some facts that matter:

• In Ricciardi's first interview with Avery on January 28, 2006, he states his desire for people to know he's innocent. Ricciardi responds, “I believe you,” establishing trust and alignment that likely facilitated ongoing access to Avery and his family.
• In the same call, Ricciardi expresses hope that her work will positively impact the situation, indicating her deep investment in the narrative she was creating.
• Apparently Ricciardi/Demos downplayed their relationship to the Averies, probably because they're not a terrifically progressive bunch of they neither wanted to subjected to discriminatory behavior nor have any kind of lost favor due to it.
• Let's talk about sweet, lovable, cunt and cabbage-loving Ma and Pa Avery. MAM makes them look awfully cuddly, yes? But they raised three sons with a documented history of violence. They also were amused by animal torture and dead ladies' nether regions. And the filmmakers knew this by trial time, if not before, because the family histroy and their roles in it were amply documented in the CASO. If Ricciardi and Demos had suggested that one of Avery's relatives* might be responsible for Teresa Halbach's murder, the family might have withdrawn from the project, leaving the filmmakers without a central subject.
• Penny Beerntsen notd that Ricciardi and Demos approached her with a clear intention to explore Avery's innocence from the outset.

I read an interview with Ricciardi and Demos early on where they said that they had several interpretations of the name, including a version that explored whether wrongful imprisonment made SA a murderer. But the final product very clearly is an advocacy for Steven Avery, and it argues for the case that really is the less sympathetic and arguably meritorious of the two.