MAKING A MURDERER | Season 2 on October 19th!

[gil23]

At taking anything that Brendan says as legit information.. His conviction is more sickening, the way the kid got played

 

[Mark Antony]

You keep saying what you've seen, not the content. Ie you read the court docs, share nothing from it. You said you watched the interview, shared nothing from it. You're not presenting your pov well at all. If you really want us to believe you sat through over 8 hours of video, I'm certain you can list key points. Though it's all irrelevant, cut or not, his answers were obviously coerced.

 

[mac2008]

You keep saying what you've seen, not the content. Ie you read the court docs, share nothing from it. You said you watched the interview, shared nothing from it. You're not presenting your pov well at all. If you really want us to believe you sat through over 8 hours of video, I'm certain you can list key points. Though it's all irrelevant, cut or not, his answers were obviously coerced.

Absolutely did not watch 8 hrs of video lol. I pointed out I watched the one that was named part 2. It was like hour and 47 min. To person laughing about Brendan confession being used for legal purposes, I don't disagree, I think he wasn't fit for that kind of interview. Again, doesn't mean I don't think he was involved. Leaning towards he probably was.

I have posted links to forums that are finding new info and doing a crazy amount of research. Like I have been saying, on the Reddit sub forum there are tons of ppl discussing this case. I am there mostly reading what they find, not digging it all up myself, that is a lot of time and commitment. That forum has the people who are that interested to do it. Also, most of them seem to think he was innocent btw, in case that was what is stopping people from reading it. I can post why I think he did it when thinking logically if that's what you are looking for ?


I think Avery probably did it because to think he didn't and it was some complete set up you babe to believe:

Things you have to think the police planned, or accounted for.
1. A woman who was last seen alive at Avery's property go missing.( or do you think police killed her or found her dead somewhere and just lucked into fact she was at averys?)
2. Being able to plant a key, burned bones from missing girl, her purse and contents, camera,the gun that was confirmed to have fired the bullet with th Dna, the bullet,the car and the blood dna inside it, plus the sweat Dna found under the hood latch.
3. Get lucky that Avery had a fire going that night to work with the burned body theory.
4. Get lucky that he cut his finger on the correct hand to leave blood in the car( or opportunity to plant)
5. Count on being able to make a completely innocent kid confess to things that fit your story how you wanted it to.
6. Have his little sister tell you she talked to him about things he saw that night which you have to get her to completely make up.


This all isn't accounting for:
1. Avery called the victim multiple times the day of murder, requested her specifically from auto trader. Calls used *67
2. Reported TH told autotrader she didn't like going to Avery's because he was creepy.
3. There being no EDTA in blood sample you plant


This is just off top of my head from reading stuff online / the doc. I just think it's most likely that Avery did it. I would not be surprised if key was planted at all. But like Averys own defense said, they think they wanted to frame a guilty man, not a innocent man. I think that it is possible they think he did it and added a thing or two to make sure they got him. AND he really did it.


Here is one article that talks about phone calls. Documentary decided to leave out. http://host.madison.com/news/local/...cle_e120a640-3769-5d22-b7b8-3bf2bdff3e7f.html

 

[gil23]

You keep saying what you've seen, not the content. Ie you read the court docs, share nothing from it. You said you watched the interview, shared nothing from it. You're not presenting your pov well at all. If you really want us to believe you sat through over 8 hours of video, I'm certain you can list key points. Though it's all irrelevant, cut or not, his answers were obviously coerced.

ive watched some of the interviews and they still leading him on so he can say what they want to hear. they fully took advantage of the kid and the fact that he didnt have an attorney present for whatever reason that was (most likely the police doing)

 

[Fozz]

Finally finished the documentary last night. Very sad how Brendan is still in jail and all their motion to re-open requests were denied. Idk how Steven can be strong like that. I would have lost my mind by now.

 

[mac2008]

ive watched some of the interviews and they still leading him on so he can say what they want to hear. they fully took advantage of the kid and the fact that he didnt have an attorney present for whatever reason that was (most likely the police doing)

I agree about the attorney. But disagree about being fed everything. But we could've watched different interviews.

Edit. This is one I watched in full

 

[PatRiley]

Mac,

I combed through the links you posted but still don't see any court documents. Maybe I'm missing them but all I see is email correspondence between that guy and Kratz. It looks real but there is no way to verify they are legit emails. That can easily be photoshopped. while emails may be legally binding, Kratz has no current involvement in he case and he's battling sexual predation charges so it makes sense he is trying to do things to clear his name. He has no repercussions of his actions and that makes it very convenient for him to come out now and say these things without official documentation for references.
I have a difficult time believing the doc would just casually omit some of the "missing" evidence that you have gathered off the internet. Yes the doc is slanted to make Avery seem innocent, but they know damn well that leaving out crucial info like that would void all of the work they put into the doc and any justice that might come from it. I explained in a earlier post scientifically what might have happened to make the EDTA not appear in the sample they took, but that is just my theory. Whether he truly did it or not, he did not get a fair trial and was clearly targeted. The stuff he did in the past is irrelevant and you can't use those instances to say "if he did those things he is definitely capable of this." That mentality should never hold up in the court of law but that seems to be acceptable in Manitowoc county. You don't find it strange at all that Brendans first attorney hired someone to get a confession out of him? And the methods used to get that confession out of him? Not to mention he allowed his client to be interviewed without him present. That is one of several obvious red flags.

People can't be this dense man I swear

 

[mac2008]

Mac,

I combed through the links you posted but still don't see any court documents. Maybe I'm missing them but all I see is email correspondence between that guy and Kratz. It looks real but there is no way to verify they are legit emails. That can easily be photoshopped. while emails may be legally binding, Kratz has no current involvement in he case and he's battling sexual predation charges so it makes sense he is trying to do things to clear his name. He has no repercussions of his actions and that makes it very convenient for him to come out now and say these things without official documentation for references.
I have a difficult time believing the doc would just casually omit some of the "missing" evidence that you have gathered off the internet. Yes the doc is slanted to make Avery seem innocent, but they know damn well that leaving out crucial info like that would void all of the work they put into the doc and any justice that might come from it. I explained in a earlier post scientifically what might have happened to make the EDTA not appear in the sample they took, but that is just my theory. Whether he truly did it or not, he did not get a fair trial and was clearly targeted. The stuff he did in the past is irrelevant and you can't use those instances to say "if he did those things he is definitely capable of this." That mentality should never hold up in the court of law but that seems to be acceptable in Manitowoc county. You don't find it strange at all that Brendans first attorney hired someone to get a confession out of him? And the methods used to get that confession out of him? Not to mention he allowed his client to be interviewed without him present. That is one of several obvious red flags.

People can't be this dense man I swear

I agree with you. When I bring up why I think he did it, I'm doing it on a forum, not in a court of law. Thanks for your opinion. I'll add some more links I'm here for you if you want to read more.

Trial transcripts

Interview transcripts and video

Transcript from a phone interview. Interesting Brendan talks about Avery's sexual abuse. Not mentioned in doc.

 

[clarkchaz1988]

Im still confused by what his motive woould be. He was on the verge of getting some bread from a settlement.

 

[Mark Antony]

Man you are dense.

 

[mac2008]

Im still confused by what his motive woould be. He was on the verge of getting some bread from a settlement.

This is a good point. Motive would just be his sexual deviant behavior combined with his wife being put in jail the day before. Crazy that someone would risk their millions though.

 

[mac2008]

Man you are dense.

One of us believe everything because of what they seen in a documentary. The other has looked at everything he could find objectively and has formed his own opinion. Yet I am "dense". We can disagree but don't question my intelligence or open mindedness because I am not convinced of something you are.

 

[gil23]

How in the hell you shoot someone multiple times (head too) and arent able to find any DNA? no blood splatter no nothing?

Did the prosecution ever explained that ?


so they say he cleaned it up that well but how is that even possible to be able to get rid of every trace.... damn he didnt even cleaned up the car? why was her blood in the car to begin with?

unless he decided at the last moment that he had a change of plans

 

[mac2008]

How in the hell you shoot someone multiple times (head too) and arent able to find any DNA? no blood splatter no nothing?

Did the prosecution ever explained that ?


so you said he cleaned it up that well but how is that even possible not get rid of every trace.... damn he didnt even cleaned up the car? why was her blood on the car to begin with?

The lack of blood found is interesting. But Brendan has said they cleaned up with bleach after and burned sheets and blankets. This is biggest thing Avery has for his innocence. I just think given the days he had to clean up, it can explain it. Not finding traceable blood does not mean none was ever there. Also, you do not have to be some mastermind to clean up a scene with bleach. It's common knowledge it eliminates Dna. With that being said, it is a good point for his defense.



Oh yeah. Brendan explains blood in car. Basically they put her in there and was going to dump the body, then Avery changed his mind to burn her. And no he was not fed this, it is in the interview I posted. Please don't comment on this not being reliable unless you have watched it.

 

[Mark Antony]

Man you are dense.

One of us believe everything because of what they seen in a documentary. The other has looked at everything he could find objectively and has formed his own opinion. Yet I am "dense". We can disagree but don't question my intelligence or open mindedness because I am not convinced of something you are.

Where are you getting that assumption from in that first sentence? We're all seeing the same thing yet most sensible folks can deduce something rational, but not you. Look at the questions you're asking, geesh. Completely unproductive and easily explained. Just dense. One of those contrarians that thinks simply being contrarian means you're right, but you're so far off. I've long accepted that majority of folks are just incapable of seeing things properly. Good luck in life man, hope you become less thick as you go along.

Like look at your last post. He was so precise to clean up all the victims blood, not a trace but left soooooo much of his own? If they had found a little bit sure, but c'mon. This is a fool's errand here anyways, not wasting my time any further.

 

[mac2008]

How in the hell you shoot someone multiple times (head too) and arent able to find any DNA? no blood splatter no nothing?

Did the prosecution ever explained that ?


so you said he cleaned it up that well but how is that even possible not get rid of every trace.... damn he didnt even cleaned up the car? why was her blood on the car to begin with?

Where are you getting that assumption from in that first sentence? We're all seeing the same thing yet most sensible folks can deduce something rational, but not you. Look at the questions you're asking, geesh. Completely unproductive and easily explained. Just dense. One of those contrarians that thinks simply being contrarian means you're right, but you're so far off. I've long accepted that majority of folks are just incapable of seeing things properly. Good luck in life man, hope you become less thick as you go along.

Lol ok man.

 

[thehealthinspector]

this county must have been really poor to be fooled by bleach and not be able to afford luminol

 

[mac2008]

this county must have been really poor to be fooled by bleach and not be able to afford luminol

Luminol chemiluminescence can also be triggered by a number of substances such as copper or copper-containing chemical compounds,[13] and certain bleaches. As a result, if someone cleans a crime scene thoroughly with a bleach solution, residual cleaner makes the entire crime scene produce the typical blue glow, which effectively camouflages organic evidence such as blood.


Cmon guys.

 

[thehealthinspector]

i dont know what youre suggesting, are you suggesting that they found large traces of bleach?

 

[mac2008]

i dont know what youre suggesting, are you suggesting that they found large traces of bleach?

I'm suggesting you came in here and just saying things, that you haven't looked into at all.

But yes bleach was on Brendan's clothes that night, according to his mother.

 

[thehealthinspector]

did they find any at the supposed crime scene?

who finds bleach on clothing unusual?

 

[Benny Hinn]

ive watched some of the interviews and they still leading him on so he can say what they want to hear. they fully took advantage of the kid and the fact that he didnt have an attorney present for whatever reason that was (most likely the police doing)

I agree about the attorney. But disagree about being fed everything. But we could've watched different interviews.

Edit. This is one I watched in full

That's the 3rd interview he did and 2hrs of hours of interviews he did. Each time his versions changed. Even the drawings he did for his attorneys looked like he made them up on the fly. It was comical

Fassbender was just fishing for confession from the kid, not the truth.

 

[mac2008]

did they find any at the supposed crime scene?

who finds bleach on clothing unusual?

The night some one was murdered and you're a suspect ? Idk but I'd assume everyone.

I don't know of any test to detect bleach at the crime scene. Bleach comes from interviews and his moms report he had it on his clothes.
No blood found in garage is interesting for sure. But all this " there is no way they could've cleaned it, because the doc told me so". Is just silly.

 

[tennhouse2]

did they find any at the supposed crime scene?

who finds bleach on clothing unusual?

If i came home with bleach on my clothes tonight that would be unusual

 

[mac2008]

That's the 3rd interview he did and 2hrs of hours of interviews he did. Each time his versions changed. Even the drawings he did for his attorneys looked like he made them up on the fly. It was comical

Fassbender was just fishing for confession from the kid, not the truth.

These are valid points. I still think the fact a lot of the info came from his mouth first is also valid. Do you agree ? ( not that he should've been interviewed like this in the first place )