(Spoilers)Making a Murderer - for those who have watched all 10

[stew]

Stew, instead of ranting, how about you argue the evidence?

I am not ranting Muppet, I just wrote earlier on today why I think,he is guilty and why bother trying to talk to anyone on here about this when they are top lazy to research the frigging case, all you lot do is suck on the teat of two biased movie makers and voila, you are all subject matter experts and claim I know little about the case, that is downright arrogant and I cannot be arsed anymore, it is too frustrating because the sheep watched a show and know the facts! 

The problem Stew is that in court the niece admitted that she made it all up.

I know she recanted Muppet!

That does not mean it is not true however, the problem is that they are incapable of the truth.

Anyhow, Dassey needs to be freed, he has suffered enough.

Basically Stew you are saying that your evidenced based belief in Dassey's guilt is primarily based on a bit of hearsay, the weakest of evidence which ranks alongside tittle tattle and gossip. And even that tenuos hearsay was denied later by it's advocate.

No it is not, do not put words in my mouth!

You lot know nothing about this case other than that fanned documentary, I heard the evidence daily in the papers, on tv and online, not a one of you had ever heard of the case prior to hearing about the documentary, but of a difference in fairness.

The early TV and media coverage was appalling. They were simply a vehicle for the local police to publicly blame Avery. In fairness to them, they did start to turn their attention towards the investigation at the end.

But the most shocking part was the behaviour of Lenk and the local PD. Lenk searched Avery's trailer 5 times and his bedroom in particular 3 times, before he personally found the key to Halbach's car. Lenk shouldn't even have been there. Manitowoc County PD had claimed they had recused themselves due to their previous error in assuming he was guilty and jailing him for 18 years. And yet Lenk was all over the case.

Lenk lied about the timing of his arrival at the Avery property after the crime was reported. Then there was the radio call asking if they had arrested Avery yet, long before anyone knew any details of the crime.

They used Dassey's 'confession'  claiming that they (Avery & Dassey) had stabbed her to death in the bedroom, to convict Dassey, despite using evidence in Avery's trial that Avery had shot her somewhere else. The two stories are completely incompatible, but they convicted them both anyway.

I am not sure that Avery is 100% innocent. I am convinced Dassey is innocent. But I am also convinced that the Police skewed the investigation to get the result they wanted. Thus the 'investigative bias' completely undermines the convictions in my view.

How do you know the early media coverage was appalling? Source please!

We watched footage of it on the Making a murderer show.

As for the above.

The show did address the evidence found at the pit near Avery's trailer. It also found evidence that she had been burned somewhere else and they had testimony to show that 'someone' moved some of her burnt remains. This wasn't disputed by either side. What was disputed was where the burning took place. An expert testified that normally after the burning of a body, if the remains are moved, the majority end up in the new position, while small fragments remain at the original. The police argued the opposite, oddly (i.e. that whoever moved the remains only wanted to move a tiny part of them).

The DNA evidence was blood. The defence proved that someone had illegally taken some of Avery's blood from a police lab. They even showed the hole the needle had made in the sample that was being held. Who would steal DNA from a police lab and why?

So everything you know Muppet is from the tainted documentary, any chance they fed you the snippets that would get you to think the coverage was biased?

The coverage was fine, a lot of people initially were suspicious of the motives of the cops at the time, me included, his behaviour, actions, words, DNA etc convinced many people, especially those in Manitowoc, Two Rivers, Chilton, New Holstein and Green Bay.

It amazes there are so many people out there that think this animal is innocent, knock my knowledge on the subject matter even though I was there and lived through the thing and all any one of you have to go on is that fecking biase documentary!

Do yourselves a favour, youtube the reporting at the time of the trial, WBAY channel two and Fox 11 are the top two stations that covered the trial, check them out, educate yourselves and then give your opinion!

[muppet]

Stew you argued was that you believed the evidence of his niece. Evidence which was recanted and unusable in any reasonable court of law.

You then got annoyed when I pointed out that it was withdrawn, but then you said that you still believed it anyway.

How about you point to some of the evidence. Reading the thread, you don't seem to know that much about the trial at all. But you know he was guilty. On what grounds?

[stew]

Stew you argued was that you believed the evidence of his niece. Evidence which was recanted and unusable in any reasonable court of law.

You then got annoyed when I pointed out that it was withdrawn, but then you said that you still believed it anyway.

How about you point to some of the evidence. Reading the thread, you don't seem to know that much about the trial at all. But you know he was guilty. On what grounds?

I have given you my reasons muppet, if you cannot comprehend that is on you, I believe Kayla was coerced into retracting her statement and I will always, always know more than any one of you lazy hacks about this particular subject matter, how arrogant are you and your ilk, that you can do nothing but watch a 10 part mini series and decide you know more than those who were actually there at the time, that lived though the biggest trial in Wisconsin for decades if not ever!

This is not the first thread you have comprehension issues on, wont be the last, I have no respect for your opinion on this matter because your opinion is based on the whims of money driven hacks in whose best interests lie in casting doubt, same goes for everyone else who bases their opinion on that f**king slanted documentary!

[muppet]

Stew you argued was that you believed the evidence of his niece. Evidence which was recanted and unusable in any reasonable court of law.

You then got annoyed when I pointed out that it was withdrawn, but then you said that you still believed it anyway.

How about you point to some of the evidence. Reading the thread, you don't seem to know that much about the trial at all. But you know he was guilty. On what grounds?

I have given you my reasons muppet, if you cannot comprehend that is on you, I believe Kayla was coerced into retracting her statement and I will always, always know more than any one of you lazy hacks about this particular subject matter, how arrogant are you and your ilk, that you can do nothing but watch a 10 part mini series and decide you know more than those who were actually there at the time, that lived though the biggest trial in Wisconsin for decades if not ever!

This is not the first thread you have comprehension issues on, wont be the last, I have no respect for your opinion on this matter because your opinion is based on the whims of money driven hacks in whose best interests lie in casting doubt, same goes for everyone else who bases their opinion on that f**king slanted documentary!

Stew, do you understand that the jury could not convict him based on the evidence that wasn't given?

The rest of your post is just a rant about the media, but not the media that you believe of course.

[stew]

Stew you argued was that you believed the evidence of his niece. Evidence which was recanted and unusable in any reasonable court of law.

You then got annoyed when I pointed out that it was withdrawn, but then you said that you still believed it anyway.

How about you point to some of the evidence. Reading the thread, you don't seem to know that much about the trial at all. But you know he was guilty. On what grounds?

I have given you my reasons muppet, if you cannot comprehend that is on you, I believe Kayla was coerced into retracting her statement and I will always, always know more than any one of you lazy hacks about this particular subject matter, how arrogant are you and your ilk, that you can do nothing but watch a 10 part mini series and decide you know more than those who were actually there at the time, that lived though the biggest trial in Wisconsin for decades if not ever!

This is not the first thread you have comprehension issues on, wont be the last, I have no respect for your opinion on this matter because your opinion is based on the whims of money driven hacks in whose best interests lie in casting doubt, same goes for everyone else who bases their opinion on that f**king slanted documentary!

Stew, do you understand that the jury could not convict him based on the evidence that wasn't given?

The rest of your post is just a rant about the media, but not the media that you believe of course.

He WAS convicted Muppet, he is doing time as we speak.

Kayla either lied to get her uncle off or lied initially, which one do you think is more likely?

I am not ranting, I gave you most of my reasons for coming to the conclusion the man was guilty, I gave all of you documentary experts an opportunity to educate yourselves further, you chose not to and I am done arguing with ignorant people that are too lazy to educate themselves on the subject matter at hand, I will leave you experts to your own devices, That way everyone can have the same opinion because they were indoctrinated by the same propaganda!

Muppet I have a bridge I think you might be interested in buying!

[muppet]

"He WAS convicted Muppet, he is doing time as we speak."

He was not convicted on Kayla's evidence. She didn't give any in court and thus it couldn't be used. Do you understand this or not?

After that, each of your posts degenerates into a long insult about your superior knowledge and education on the subject. Let's see some of this superior knowledge. Tell us something we don't know about the case.

[stew]

"He WAS convicted Muppet, he is doing time as we speak."

He was not convicted on Kayla's evidence. She didn't give any in court and thus it couldn't be used. Do you understand this or not?

After that, each of your posts degenerates into a long insult about your superior knowledge and education on the subject. Let's see some of this superior knowledge. Tell us something we don't know about the case.

Of course I know he was not convicted on her evidence and still he is doing time.

For fucks sake I was there Muppet, wise up, you know nothing more than what the documentary told you happened,if course I know more than you, I was in the city as it unfolded, I have hundreds of hours reading about the case, watching the reporting on the case and there would be something wrong if I didn't know more than the rest of you since all you got is the stupid documentary.

I already told you some things you did know, you know, pertinent details the directors left out.

I gave you the names of a couple of media outlets you could research on the case, you were too lazy to check them out, I took the time to watch that documentary, I fought it but I did because at least I can say that after living with this trial day after day for years that I thought the programme had a definite bias, not one thing do you know that did not come from that shit show you get your information from.

I am sick of your ignorance here Muppet, later!

[screenexile]

[stew]

I see what you did there, pardon the pun, its gas duuude, gas I tell ya!

[muppet]

"He WAS convicted Muppet, he is doing time as we speak."

He was not convicted on Kayla's evidence. She didn't give any in court and thus it couldn't be used. Do you understand this or not?

After that, each of your posts degenerates into a long insult about your superior knowledge and education on the subject. Let's see some of this superior knowledge. Tell us something we don't know about the case.

Of course I know he was not convicted on her evidence and still he is doing time.

For f**ks sake I was there Muppet, wise up, you know nothing more than what the documentary told you happened,if course I know more than you, I was in the city as it unfolded, I have hundreds of hours reading about the case, watching the reporting on the case and there would be something wrong if I didn't know more than the rest of you since all you got is the stupid documentary.

I already told you some things you did know, you know, pertinent details the directors left out.

I gave you the names of a couple of media outlets you could research on the case, you were too lazy to check them out, I took the time to watch that documentary, I fought it but I did because at least I can say that after living with this trial day after day for years that I thought the programme had a definite bias, not one thing do you know that did not come from that shit show you get your information from.

I am sick of your ignorance here Muppet, later!

You are calling me arrogant. 

Your problem isn't that I am claiming to know everything, because I am not. Your problem is that I claim to know anything about it, when clearly we should just accept it when you pronounce them both guilty.

Stew if you have read so much about it, why can't you debate any of it in a civilised manner? Why can't you make a solid argument that any neutral here would find persuasive?

And why are you always ranting and shouting abuse?

You ASSUME that we have only seen the documentary. Most people will dig deeper when they find a subject or topic interesting.

[stew]

"He WAS convicted Muppet, he is doing time as we speak."

He was not convicted on Kayla's evidence. She didn't give any in court and thus it couldn't be used. Do you understand this or not?

After that, each of your posts degenerates into a long insult about your superior knowledge and education on the subject. Let's see some of this superior knowledge. Tell us something we don't know about the case.

Of course I know he was not convicted on her evidence and still he is doing time.

For f**ks sake I was there Muppet, wise up, you know nothing more than what the documentary told you happened,if course I know more than you, I was in the city as it unfolded, I have hundreds of hours reading about the case, watching the reporting on the case and there would be something wrong if I didn't know more than the rest of you since all you got is the stupid documentary.

I already told you some things you did know, you know, pertinent details the directors left out.

I gave you the names of a couple of media outlets you could research on the case, you were too lazy to check them out, I took the time to watch that documentary, I fought it but I did because at least I can say that after living with this trial day after day for years that I thought the programme had a definite bias, not one thing do you know that did not come from that shit show you get your information from.

I am sick of your ignorance here Muppet, later!

You are calling me arrogant. 

Your problem isn't that I am claiming to know everything, because I am not. Your problem is that I claim to know anything about it, when clearly we should just accept it when you pronounce them both guilty.

Stew if you have read so much about it, why can't you debate any of it in a civilised manner? Why can't you make a solid argument that any neutral here would find persuasive?

And why are you always ranting and shouting abuse?

You ASSUME that we have only seen the documentary. Most people will dig deeper when they find a subject or topic interesting.

I am not ranting and raving, you think I am, not once have you ever cited any information that did not come from that show?

It does not matter you lot have beaten me down, Avery is innocent, give him millions and let him roam free, maybe he will not, not kill again.

Now how about that bridge?

[muppet]

"He WAS convicted Muppet, he is doing time as we speak."

He was not convicted on Kayla's evidence. She didn't give any in court and thus it couldn't be used. Do you understand this or not?

After that, each of your posts degenerates into a long insult about your superior knowledge and education on the subject. Let's see some of this superior knowledge. Tell us something we don't know about the case.

Of course I know he was not convicted on her evidence and still he is doing time.

For f**ks sake I was there Muppet, wise up, you know nothing more than what the documentary told you happened,if course I know more than you, I was in the city as it unfolded, I have hundreds of hours reading about the case, watching the reporting on the case and there would be something wrong if I didn't know more than the rest of you since all you got is the stupid documentary.

I already told you some things you did know, you know, pertinent details the directors left out.

I gave you the names of a couple of media outlets you could research on the case, you were too lazy to check them out, I took the time to watch that documentary, I fought it but I did because at least I can say that after living with this trial day after day for years that I thought the programme had a definite bias, not one thing do you know that did not come from that shit show you get your information from.

I am sick of your ignorance here Muppet, later!

You are calling me arrogant. 

Your problem isn't that I am claiming to know everything, because I am not. Your problem is that I claim to know anything about it, when clearly we should just accept it when you pronounce them both guilty.

Stew if you have read so much about it, why can't you debate any of it in a civilised manner? Why can't you make a solid argument that any neutral here would find persuasive?

And why are you always ranting and shouting abuse?

You ASSUME that we have only seen the documentary. Most people will dig deeper when they find a subject or topic interesting.

I am not ranting and raving, you think I am, not once have you ever cited any information that did not come from that show?

It does not matter you lot have beaten me down, Avery is innocent, give him millions and let him roam free, maybe he will not, not kill again.

Now how about that bridge?

'That show' cited the key evidence. There was other evidence not included in the show, such as Avery's previous with Halbach and his mobile phone contact with her. Anyone can look this up online as there are countless websites and articles discussing the matter.

As I have said numerous times, I believe Dassey is innocent, but I am not so sure about Avery. This is based on the arguments produced by Avery's defence team. The Manitowoc Sheriff's Office are obviously in it up to their necks, including, planting evidence and influencing the jury. Not to mention seeking to arrest Avery before they even knew anything.

Why has there been no investigation into the alleged theft of Avery's blood from the vial? Why did the police continue to hold the blood, for evidence, of a man who had been cleared of any wrongdoing? The prosecution claimed Avery's blood came from a finger wound, but that there were no fingerprints (harder to steal from a lab).

Like I said above I am not sure about Avery, but I am absolutely certain the Manitowoc officials carried out a truly shocking investigation in terms of supposedly recusing themselves, standard of searches and treatment of evidence, and not bothering to consider any possibility other than Steven Avery's guilt, again.

[stew]

The best way to research this is is the way I,laid out for you all.

It is time the Manitowoc police dept was investigated by partial detectives from either Illinois, Minneasota or Michigan, a2nd I,mean from top to bottom.

If they have nothing to,hide hey should welcome it, if they do they should get ready for so.e serious jail time.

[muppet]

The best way to research this is is the way I,laid out for you all.

It is time the Manitowoc police dept was investigated by partial detectives from either Illinois, Minneasota or Michigan, a2nd I,mean from top to bottom.

If they have nothing to,hide hey should welcome it, if they do they should get ready for so.e serious jail time.

I completely agree.

[stew]

Not once on here has anyone offered anything other than something from that damn tv show, I might be wrong but Muppet, can you tell me the extent of your knowledge of this case outside if the documentary, I am all ears buddy, )