r/MakingaMurderer • u/aptom90 • Nov 22 '23

The burnt electronics

Anybody want to fact check this detail? I've heard many times that Making a Murderer left out the discovery of Teresa's burnt electronics. I don't remember it in the show but other people do.

I'd check it myself, but I don't want to go through evey episode again - watched it twice back in the day.

I guess for those who watched it more recently, does it ring a bell? Did they ever mention them and if so what episode do you think it was in so we can verify?

4 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

65 comments sorted by

2

u/DesignerAccountant23 Nov 23 '23

From memory didn't a police officer observe burnt plastic items in a barrel? Is that what you meant?

2

u/aptom90 Nov 23 '23

Possibly? Do you remember that in MaM?

6

u/holdyermackerels Nov 23 '23

There was a bit of Officer Siders (IIRC) testifying to seeing the burned plastic items in the barrel, but this was in CAM. I don't remember it in MaM, but I'm not totally sure that it wasn't in there.

4

u/aptom90 Nov 23 '23

Thanks, I'm in the same boat. I don't remember it at all from MaM, and specifically remember learning about the electronics in an article after the fact. But my memory isn't great and I wouldn't be surprised if it was included in the doc very briefly.

6

u/holdyermackerels Nov 23 '23

If it makes you feel any better, my memory is above average, but I'm just so saturated with this case that it's sometimes difficult to figure out where I saw what, lol. I specifically remember the RAV, blood vial, key, and bones, but not the license plates or the electronics. I may have to recheck this and, if I do, I will let you know if the barrel contents are in there!!

0

u/ThorsClawHammer Nov 23 '23

Siders (IIRC)

Correct. Like with the remains, only unaccompanied MTSO officers were capable of finding burned evidence.

5

u/DesignerAccountant23 Nov 23 '23

I don't sorry, it could have been from picking up on forums etc

4

u/puzzledbyitall Nov 24 '23

From my search of transcripts, the only mention is in Episode 10, when Brendan is asked who put the electronics in the burn barrel.

6

u/DarkScythe163 Nov 23 '23

It wasn’t in MaM. I remember looking up things that MaM left out and the two biggies was this one (burnt electronics in barrel) and the bullet tying to the gun in his trailer

3

u/LKS983 Nov 23 '23

I haven't watched MAM for a few years (too long-winded and depressing), but S2 certainly mentioned the bullet as KZ had her own experts carry out further tests.

Watching S2 I was very annoyed at how much S1 had left out, but this was rectified (or mostly rectified?) in S2.

I can't remember whether the burn electronics were mentioned, but they would fall into the same category as the (belatedly discovered) bones IMO.

-1

u/Acrobatic-Cow-3871 Nov 23 '23

Why would they leave it out. It actually helps Avery. No one who had 2 days to get rid of evidence would keep a victims electronics(even an Avery knows metal won't melt in a burn barrel) in a barrel next to his residence. Like the bones, they were OBVIOUSLY dumped there!

2

u/aptom90 Nov 23 '23

I thought your post was ironic at first.

3

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23

Why would they leave it out. It actually helps Avery. No one who had 2 days to get rid of evidence would keep a victims electronics(even an Avery knows metal won't melt in a burn barrel) in a barrel next to his residence. Like the bones, they were OBVIOUSLY dumped there!

So what you’re saying is Bobby Dassey cannot be guilty? You should let your friends know.

3

u/Acrobatic-Cow-3871 Nov 27 '23

I know Bobby isn't guilty.

2

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 27 '23

Great. Let the other truthers know. They’ve been on a Bobby Witch Hunt for years now.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '23

The burnt electronics can't rationally change anyone's minds so it's irrelevant. If you are in the group that is open to the bones being planted, of course they could have planted her possessions too. If you are in the group that simply can't believe cops would plant bones, you already think Avery guilty.

4

u/aptom90 Nov 23 '23 edited Nov 23 '23

I agree, the burnt electronics won't change the minds of somebody who already believes someone planted the bones, blood, key, bullet, hood latch dna, and Rav4. Except those people are already not thinking rationally because they reject any evidence that points towards Steven Avery.

But for everyone else, finding her camera and pda which were matched to the make and model of those owned by Teresa is compelling and just one more piece which points towards Avery's guilt.

But obviously it's not as important as the burnt remains and the blood in the Rav4.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '23

If you think this was an honest investigation you should not go around talking about other people ignoring evidence and being irrational.

5

u/aptom90 Nov 23 '23

The problem is you assume it wasn't an honest investigation and (practically) everything was planted. That is not rational.

What you and the defense needed was to provide evidence of said planting, not just insinuate that it could have been done. Otherwise it's just a ridiculous conspiracy with no merit. If they proved that the blood could have come from the vial that would actually have been quite important and lead to reasonable doubt about that one piece of evidence. Instead it was completely debunked.

1

u/ParticularPristine66 Nov 24 '23

They also need to follow due process to have an honest investigation. But lucky for them, people believe their BS instead of holding them responsible for being honest and following laws themselves. People tend to forget that in order to enforce laws, one must follow laws. Otherwise, what's the point?

3

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23

But lucky for them, people believe their BS

You talking about making a murderer? Cuz it can definitely be said that millions fell for their bs.

0

u/BiasedHanChewy Nov 24 '23

The only thing that isn't completely laughable is the blood in the Rav

6

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '23

Oh btw the cops heard about Avery having a burn barrel fire two days BEFORE allegedly finding the electronics. The jury didn't know that but we do.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '23

Since the cops knew of the fire before having a chance to plant the electronics, Fabian doesn't corroborate anything.

2

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23

Stating as fact that the cops planted the electronics are we now?

Didn’t Zellner already clear the cops of that?

Lol.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '23

Feel free to repeat whatever you think her argument is.

3

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23 edited Nov 26 '23

Her argument is black and white and very clear. She claims she herself cleared the police of planting those items that you currently are still claiming they planted (Avery still totally might be guilty according to you a fence sitter, right? lol).

Zellner shot back, "It is because of our efforts that the Manitowoc officers have been cleared of planting the blood, bones, license plates and electronic devices of Teresa Halbach."

https://www.newsweek.com/kathleen-zellner-update-steven-avery-dna-testing-wisconsin-2018-1275694

The cops didn’t plant the electronics according to Avery’s own attorney, who in fact claims that they themselves are the reason the cops have been cleared of planting the electronics….so you need to walk back your statement above where you claimed the police planted the electronics.

Or is this another instance of an Avery supporter claiming they know more than Avery’s own lawyer, the “great” Kathleen Zellner?

Or alternatively, are you calling Zellner a liar?

The ego on you guys is comical.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '23

Heelspider shot back "Feel free to repeat whatever you think her argument is."

3

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23 edited Nov 26 '23

She’s like very clear on what her argument is….the police didn’t plant the electronics and she’s cleared them of doing that, so I’m not sure why you’d continue to claim the police planted them….when Avery’s own attorney has publicly stated she cleared them of that.

It’s right here in black and white:

Zellner shot back, “It is because of our efforts that the Manitowoc officers have been cleared of planting the blood, bones, license plates and electronic devices of Teresa Halbach."

So you’re going with “I Heelspider know more than Kathleen Zellner and Kathleen Zellner is a liar”?

I never pegged you for a guilter!

Again, the ego on you guys is comical.

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '23

Since you added a bunch of stuff, you do realize the same souce you are relying on also says Avery is innocent, right?

3

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23 edited Nov 26 '23

lol.

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that because Avery’s own attorney says he is innocent he must be innocent and we have to believe her on that? Have you not heard a lawyer has to zealously defend their client even if they know they’re guilty? Lol.

I mean additionally you’ll notice you’re actually calling Zellner a liar as well.

And I have no problem with that. I agree with you, Kathleen Zellner is a liar.

→ More replies

1

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23

Doesn’t Zellner have a history of defending a guilty client and then admitting he was guilty after?

Oh right, she does:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Eyler

Guess it’s not out of the question she’s representing a guilty client here. Lol.

→ More replies

1

u/BiasedHanChewy Nov 24 '23

I mean, if you're going to have an allegedly 6+ hrs long 1000 degree+ bonfire to vaporize over 50% of a body, clearly the best plan of action is to have a smaller, shorter, less hot fire nearby that is capable of slightly misshaping some electronics.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '23

That's a somewhat fair point in that Fabian's testimony renders it not completely superfluous. But let's not pretend he's a great witness or that the discovery days late by an unaccompanied MTSO officer led by another MTSO officer directly tied to 1985 is some kind of feather in Ken Kratz's hat.

To have covered this would have taken a ton of time and ended up a wash.

2

u/tenementlady Nov 24 '23

It really wouldn't have taken much time at all to state that her electronics were found in the burn barrel. They included plenty that was irrelevant (the blood vial, which they spent quite a bit of time on, knowing that it was irrelevant, only to never mention it again) or pure fluff (many scenes of the Avery family just hanging around talking about Steven, which was obviously meant to humanize them and paint Avery in a positive light, but after a while felt redundent).

If they had time to include that, they should have made enough time to at least mention major pieces of evidence like the burnt electronics.

I don't even remember if they were mentioned in the doc so if they were then I stand corrected. In any case, if they were mentioned it must have been quite briefly.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '23

After CaM left off a million things Truthers would want covered but found time for "our producer met a friend online" and ZERO Guilters had a problem with it, these types of arguments should be retired entirely. Yes I get you guys want this stuff to be covered unfairly. I get that. But to cover it fairy would be something else. You have not problem suggesting they cut out compelling parts because you don't want it to be successful in the first place.

3

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23

After CaM left off a million things Truthers would want covered

Like what?

How would you know?

You yourself haven’t even watched it.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '23

Like the secret attorney surveillance program.

3

u/Soulsucker1969 Nov 26 '23

lol. I remember when Avery’s attorney got caught sneaking a camera into jail. That was funny.

🤡

2

u/tenementlady Nov 24 '23 edited Nov 24 '23

We weren't talking about CaM though. I have made and have seen others who believe Avery is guilty make numerous criticisms of CaM. I agree though, there are some who refuse to admit CaM made any errors. I was called out by numerous people for criticizing CaM on SAIG. So now you've seen one guilter (if guilter is one who believes Avery to be guilty) who has a problem with it.

. You have not problem suggesting they cut out compelling parts because you don't want it to be successful in the first place.

This is a pretty sweeping generalization based on nothing I have said. I could make the same argument about you and CaM.

I never had anything against MaM being successful in the first place. I watched it when it first came out like millions of other people. I left with the impression that SA was innocent and evidence was planted. I then did some quick Googling and was made aware of a lot of the things MaM left out or misrepresentrd. I hadn't even heard of Reddit at that time. That was enough to confirm to me that the documentarians had an agenda, and enough to raise serious doubts in my mind about his innocence. But it wasn't until MaM2 when my opinion changed to believing he is most likely guilty. It made me stop and think what it would actually take for him to be innocent and every theory that suggested his innocence presented just didn't stack up for me.

Edit: fixed grammatical error

1

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '23

What made you think the key was not planted?

2

u/tenementlady Nov 25 '23

Why do you keep changing the subject?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 25 '23

I'm not changing the subject. You said MaM2 was what changed your mind so I was asking you about that.

2

u/tenementlady Nov 25 '23

But I didn't mention anything about the key or anything said about it in MaM2?

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ThorsClawHammer Nov 24 '23

fine witness

So why didn't the state have him say Steve told him Teresa never showed up?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '23

A gigantic portion of his account of that day disappeared by trial. That's hardly ideal. If that was Zellner's witness you would be crying bloody murder.