‘Making a Murderer’ D.A. Claims Netflix Left Out These 9 Key Evidence of Guilt

0
158
ADVERTISEMENT

I am not sure how many of you are as caught up in the Netflix Docuseries, Making A Murderer, as I am, but I have to admit, I’ve been pretty enthralled. My emotions over whether or not Steve Avery committed the murder of Teresa Halbach have been nothing short of a roller-coaster experience. But through it all, my grave distrust of the “system,” as we shall call it, has shined through like a halogen deck light pointed directly at my bedroom window on a nightly basis. If you read my site, then you know I’m not one to trust the powers that be and this docuseries has only increased my feelings over those in power being ultimately corrupt.

But that doesn’t mean Avery didn’t commit the second crime (hey, if you haven’t seen this series, I’d stop now). The gross excuse of an investigation and ridiculous, tainted interrogations only really serve to prove that the trial itself may well be a sham. But they don’t prove that Avery didn’t do the crime. And those of us have watched the series know well and good that it is that confluence of complexities which make it an impossible show to turn away from.

So you can imagine my exaltation, or curiosity, or intrigue, when I saw where the lead prosecutor in the Avery trial, Ken Kratz, emailed TheWrap a list of 10 reasons which he claims Netflix left out that prove Steve Avery is guilty (and in some cases just an awful person). He claims Netflix left out “key evidence,” so he provided it to the wrap.

ADVERTISEMENT

Here is his list of “examples to consider.”

1. Avery’s past incident with a cat was not “goofing around”.  He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.

I am going to be honest here, this detail always felt extremely glossed over. Animal cruelty is a huge warning sign that something is wrong with a person. It isn’t causation, but I am certainly not surprised to see more details released over this matter. In addition, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear of more similar incidence.

2.  Avery targeted Teresa.  On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.”  On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel.  She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously).  Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.

How could they possibly leave this out of the series? This is huge, persuasive evidence. It shows the potential for premeditation.

3. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel.  Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?

4.  While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a “torture chamber” so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.  He even drew a diagram.  Another  inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to “burn it”…heat destroys DNA.

Not sure if I trust another inmate’s anecdotes over a highly famous former prisoner.

5. The victim’s bones in the firepit were “intertwined” with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey.  That WAS where her bones were burned!  Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa’s) were from this murder was NEVER established.

6.  Also found in the fire pit was Teresa’s tooth (ID’d through dental records), a rivet from the “Daisy Fuentes” jeans she was wearing that day, and the tools used by Avery to chop up her bones during the fire.

7.  Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct 31.  One at 2:24, and one at 2:35–both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives.  Then one last call at4:35 pm, without the *67 feature.  Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call.  She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.

Again, if true, withholding this from the series is extraordinarily irresponsible on the part of the Netflix production team. Disguising his phone number is, again, evidence which could be used to establish premeditation.

8. Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch (under her hood in her hidden SUV).  The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5…how did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car?  Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to “plant” under the hood?

9. Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since 11/6…if the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from HIS gun?  This rifle, hanging over Aver’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it.  The bullet had to be fired BEFORE 11/5—did the cops borrow his gun, fire a bullet, recover the bullet before planting the SUV, then hang on to the bullet for 4 months in case they need to plant it 4 months later???

There is more here on TheWrap. This isn’t me completely buying into the prosecutors tale, we’ve seen NO proof that any of this exists of course. But if any of it is true, it is mindblowing how irresponsibly Netflix shaped this story for the sake of creating a victim. Avery certainly did not do the initial crime, that’s been well established and of course, in that case, he most certainly is the victim. But is he the victim in the murder of Teresa Halbach? I guess it matters only who you choose to believe. And in this case, it seems unlikely we will ever be able to get a 100 percent consensus either way.


Comments

comments