Making a Murderer Documentary on Netflix

Status
Not open for further replies.

dublinbluenose said:
But the call makes no sense unless he had either seen a similar car, then he would call in the plates of that car to rule it out, or he was identifying her car as he had seen it/was looking at it. Maybe there is another explanation, but the look on his face was priceless.
Click to expand...


I agree that there is no reason for it. I firmly believe he found the car with the body in it and thought he struck gold as far as getting rid of Avery.
 

caught said:
Very interesting and frustrating documentary. The Dassey case, for me, is even more compelling and, well, astonishing that Avery's.
Click to expand...

yep, they had no evidence on him except for the dodgy confession. His lawyer Len was a pure slimeball
 
the brendan dassey story is the saddest one

so many things wrong with his conviction and the way his case was handled

given an attorney that was against him from the beginning - his lawyer allowing him to be interviewed by the police alone without anyone there - using the phone call to his mother against him that was only induced as a result of that interview and then cutting the phone call to make their case look good. They also cut the interview at the police station, i believe the video was around just over 4 hours long and they only showed the jury just over 3 hours of the footage, they cut the footage when brendan tells his mother that he just made it up and he doesn't know why he said it.
 

If you don't believe Steven Avery is innocent maybe you will now when I till you the story of Cara Knott.

Cara Knott was murdered by a California Highway Patrol Officer in 1986. The officer denied the murder, and still does to this date.

As you know Steven Avery was eventually exonerated of the sexual assault and rape charge against him in 1985 when DNA analysis 18 years later was able to link the crime to another man.

On Cara Knott's shoe there was a spec of blood. Conclusive DNA testing was not available back in 1986, all they could do was obtain the blood type of the person that the blood belonged to. The blood belonged to somebody with the blood type AB negative, the rarest blood type. Coincidentally the patrol officer had that blood type.

In 2004, the officer was asked whether he would like to provide his DNA to help prove that the blood on the shoe was not his blood and to hopefully try and prove his innocence using DNA technology. He refused to provide his DNA. He also refused to answer why he would not provide his DNA. As a result he is still in jail and won't be eligible for parole until 2026 i believe.

This shows you the lengths that somebody (especially a police officer) is willing to go, to deny that they committed murder.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top