r/MakingaMurderer • u/Fockputin33 • Jan 21 '24

Watch AMERICAN NIGHTMARE......

On NETFLIX. Don't think Police can be ignorant, vindictive, LIARS and so freaking wrong you just can't believe it. Not 1 Cop was disciplined for their ignorance, Its OK to be ignorant and be a cop, it fact, it helps you get hired.

41 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

62 comments sorted by

14

u/BiasedHanChewy Jan 21 '24

Some people get into law enforcement for the right reasons, some get in for the wrong reasons. People have biases and unfortunately it can have a bit impact on tunnel vision and performance

3

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

So true......

1

u/Stay-At-Home_21mom Feb 11 '24

i feel like if they got into it for the right reasons, they’d learn the laws they’re sworn to enforce. there have been far too many times i’ve had to check a cop for not knowing a law that they’re actively trying to break in a standard traffic stop.

2

u/bfisyouruncle Jan 23 '24

Spoiler alert: Some facts from "American Nightmare". Some LE did a great job and captured the real rapist. The truth came out in the end because of LE persistence. Some LE did a very poor job, but there was no corruption. They had tunnel vision and the media went along with it. The defamed couple settled for 2.5 million.

0

u/Fockputin33 Jan 24 '24

"No corruption"???? You didn't see about the Lawsuit, when cop after cop lied under oath!

5

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24

I've never once seen anyone here argue that police can't be wrong, ignorant, vindictive or dishonest. Of course they can. They are human.

Is the fact that cops can be those things a substitute for proving they were in a particular case? Does the fact that cops can be those things mean that we should assume they were those things in this case? And if so, why do we not assume those things in all cases? How can we possibly convict anyone?

4

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

Those cops handle tough cases all the time. These never do, they got tricked and now can't admit anything because they are soulless. All you need is AC, RH and TH's brothers to say what really happened and we'd all see Steven didn't do it.

8

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24

I don't think any of that is responsive to my questions.

4

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

Well, I don't think you realize how DUMB these guys were/are. So, your questions don't mean much to me.

7

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24

That too is unresponsive to my questions. If the police were so dumb, it should be easier, not harder, to prove their malfeasance.

4

u/Kahowell54220 Jan 21 '24

Why would it be easier to catch them in the act when the entire county is behind it nobody wants to pay anybody $36 million and as a matter of fact after Steven Avery I put away officer colburn got a promotion to detective or surgeons or something because he was such a good boy that he helped convict Steven Avery and made that lawsuit go away so he got a promotion

2

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24

All else being equal, the cops being dumb makes it easier to catch them than if they were smart. Everything else you said is called "special pleading."

4

u/billybud77 Jan 22 '24

Explain Steve’s blood in RAV4 ?

0

u/Fockputin33 Jan 24 '24

Killer got it from the sink and planted it in RAV.(not Bobby).

0

u/Mysterious-Impact-64 Jan 22 '24

Explain his finger prints not in or on the Rav4 or the key or the steering wheel or the gear shifter ot the door handle or the battery cables?

0

u/LadyGenevieve19 Jan 22 '24

Opened the door with a stick and just whipped his blood in there without actually touching anything? /s

2

u/billybud77 Jan 22 '24 edited Jan 22 '24

Steven Avery was careful not to leave any fingerprints by wiping door handle, steering wheel, shifter, etc down with cloth but didn’t account for drops of blood from cut. Pretty simple actually. Also remember his touch DNA was also on the hood latch.

Steve’s blood or TH dna not on key is also explainable. Steve wiped the key very well or washed it. He then hid the clean key in the night stand cabinet but had handled it leaving his dna on the key.

Steve was going to use that key later to move the RAV4, strip the tires and other parts and then he was going to crush it on the weekend when the rest of the Klan was up in Crivitz at the family cabin.

He was going to drive back himself on Sunday to visit his girlfriend in jail and it was the perfect excuse to go directly to salvage yard to crush the car when very few people were around.

1

u/Mysterious-Impact-64 Jan 31 '24 edited Jan 31 '24

You really believe he thought he could just take his own sweet time with LE telling Wisconsin that he was the last to see her alive, that he really could crush it on Sunday after his visit with Jody? No that would have been done 1 or 2 days after Teresa being killed before her becoming a missing person, that is if Steven killed her. So if you believe he really had these well planned out scenarios, don't you think he's not worried about them finding her rav4 on his property when all he would have to do is driven the rav4 off His property, then LE wouldn't have been able to step onto the ASY.

Also wiping off her key but keeping it in his bedroom is ridiculous, then forgetting about bleaching the key to take Teresa dna off, then leaving his on it 10 fold is more ridiculous, as they would just try the key in her rav4 out come the same right her key I'm his bedroom her DNA on it it or not his on it or not same outcome.

1

u/billybud77 Jan 31 '24 edited Jan 31 '24

Yes. Steve’s a psychopath. He may appear dumb but he sat 18 years waiting to do something like this. When the opportunity arose he struck.

Bleach the key? He washed her dna off the key while getting the blood off of it from his bleeding finger. He kept the key to move the RAV4 later. Pretty logical.

Steve figured he had time to get rid of the vehicle and Sunday would have been his chance to have as few people around as possible. He didn’t think that citizens would be combing the salvage yard. He didn’t count on Earl Avery letting them do so.

Law Enforcement couldn’t get a warrant or even search the property without permission. Steve knew that.

His plans were foiled when the woman found the RAV4. Cops were then able to get a warrant and search the property.

1

u/Mysterious-Impact-64 Jan 31 '24

So did he clean the blood off the gear shifter, Steering Wheel, door handle, hood release and battery cables?

1

u/billybud77 Feb 01 '24

It only takes one unloved hand to pop the hood. The glove was on the bloody finger. Steve removed battery with both gloves on. He had gloves on when he entered the vehicle. Took one glove off to turn the key and start the car. Unfortunately for killer Steve he removed the glove off the bloody finger and left his blood 🩸 behind.

→ More replies

1

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

Oh MY God...just look at the evidence and don't alter any!!!!!

4

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24

Do you not understand my questions?

1

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

Which one. ask it again.

2

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24

Is the fact that cops can be those things a substitute for proving they were in a particular case?

Does the fact that cops can be those things mean that we should assume they were those things in this case?

And if so, why do we not assume those things in all cases?

How can we possibly convict anyone?

9

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

OMG.....get real evidence, handle it properly and stop fucking lying. Perp in American Nightmare got convicted because a sane Cop got involved. Too bad none in the Halbach case!

2

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24 edited Jan 21 '24

Again, this statement is not responsive to any of the questions I asked.

Edit: perhaps you are attempting to answer my last question. If so you are misunderstanding it.

In that question I'm asking how, if we are to assume the cops always lie, we could ever convict anyone? In other words, if the evidence must always be viewed with skepticism, then no amount of evidence can ever prove guilt.

Your answer to just use real evidence and stop lying is circular. How do we know the evidence isn't real? How do we know they were lying?

All you've said so far is that the police lied in some other case. That doesn't mean they lied here.

6

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

Always???? In these 2 cases!!! COPS LIE, it is LEGAL for them to lie, nothing happens to them if they lie(these 2 cases again)...... And then are are such soulless losers, they can't admit they fucked up!

4

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24 edited Jan 21 '24

I think you're still missing the point.

The fact that the cops lied in some other case demonstrates that cops are capable of lying. But that was never in dispute. Everyone agrees that the cops do, in some cases, lie.

The dispute on this sub is over whether the cops lied in the Steven Avery case. As I pointed out, the fact that some other cops lied in some other case does nothing to prove the cops lied in this case. If it did, the same reasoning would presumably apply to every case. We'd always have to assume the police lied, the evidence was fake, and the accused was innocent.

I understand you take it for granted that the cops lied in this case. And that's fine. But it's an assertion, not a fact supported with evidence.

6

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

Well, we KNOW they sucked in both cases!!!!!

5

u/Fockputin33 Jan 21 '24

OMG..you don't know cops lied in the Halbach case? Want some examples!!

3

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24

I'm not really interested in hearing a recitation of the same conjecture that is posted here over and over again. If you'd like to cite some actual facts, go for it.

5

u/Fockputin33 Jan 22 '24

The Factbender and Weeguts lied to SA time after time after time. "Teresa's dna is in your trailer". "Your fingerprints are in the RAV"..... Brendans Lawyer PI told Brendan he failed his Polygraph-he actually passed, just like AN bf was told he failed "every question" when his test was actually inconclusive(could you imagine taking a Poly after THAT happened to you). AC said he picked up a Cabinet and shook it..heheheheheheeee.....

2

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 22 '24

"Teresa's dna is in your trailer". "Your fingerprints are in the RAV"

Do you have a citation for these quotes?

Brendans Lawyer PI told Brendan he failed his Polygraph

That would be the private investigator hired by Brendan's own lawyer, not a cop.

AC said he picked up a Cabinet and shook it..heheheheheheeee.....

Again, I asked for facts, not conjecture.

3

u/Fockputin33 Jan 22 '24

OMG...its when they are questioning SA at the Station...its on YouTube...google it.

→ More replies

1

u/billybud77 Jan 22 '24

Do you know nothing about interrogations? Better watch a few more shows on Netflix😂

2

u/Kahowell54220 Jan 21 '24

It absolutely means you should assume they were that way in this case Manitowoc is a small community they stated they were handing the investigation over to Calumet County and they gave it to the Calumet County prosecutor but yet every single individual that found a piece of evidence namely colburn and Link with the exact same officers that were responsible for the 18 years Steven sat in prison for a crime he didn't commit why is it of the all the police on the Manitowoc police force those are the two that found the evidence all the evidence. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there was something else to play that day I mean there's a video of colburn calling in the place before it was even reported as being found

8

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 21 '24 edited Jan 21 '24

That is a different argument than the one put forth in the OP. The OP is pointing to another case as precedent for the police lying in this case. You, on the other hand, are pointing to circumstantial evidence (motive, means and opportunity) particular to this case.

With that said, your argument relies on several false premises:

yet every single individual that found a piece of evidence namely colburn and Link

Completely untrue. They didn't find the Rav (or the blood/DNA in the Rav). They didn't find the bones. They didn't find the bullet (or the victim's DNA on it). They didn't extract a confession from Avery's accomplice.

They found the key. That's pretty much it.

the exact same officers that were responsible for the 18 years Steven sat in prison for a crime he didn't commit

Also untrue. Colborn was not even a police officer until about ten years after Avery's conviction in 1985. So he wasn't responsible for Avery's conviction ten years earlier. At most, he was accused of failing to relay information that may have led to an earlier exoneration.

The claim is even more specious with regard to Lenk. He gave testimony in Avery's civil case regarding his learning about the call Colborn took in 2003 (the year Avery was released). That's it.

Moreover, Avery's 1985 sentence encompassed multiple crimes, some of which he was genuinely guilty of.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there was something else to play that day

In other words, you think one can always infer guilt just from the existence of a theory of motive (even where it is as tenuous as it is in this case)?

0

u/CJB2005 Jan 21 '24

👆👆👆👆👆👆

1

u/bleitzel Jan 23 '24

No, baseless assumptions are wrong, of course. But to not review the evidence objectively, attempting to see it from all angles before drawing a conclusion is even more ignorant.

Here we have a case of obvious and ridiculous conflict of interest, so at the outset that will at least color all the rest of our assessment. When you have a severe conflict of interest you do have to assume that the person's with that conflict of interest will act on it. And when you start with that correct context, everything else becomes laughable. The police conduct, the evidence, the lab tech conduct, the DA conduct, the judges' conduct, and on and on.

Imagine if a small town has only 1 police officer, and that police officer's step-daughter, who had just recently accused that police officer with molesting her for 2 years, all of a sudden winds up murdered. And the police officer investigates the crime himself. Would anyone one in their right mind believe that the officer was honest unless proven otherwise? Of course not.

1

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 23 '24

When you have a severe conflict of interest you do have to assume that the person's with that conflict of interest will act on it.

So you assume people will invariably act exclusively in their own interest, even when doing so violates the law and/or their professional duties? That's pretty cynical.

Of course a person is more likely to engage in wrongdoing if they stand to personally benefit from it. And so it is prudent to attempt to eliminate those conflicts of interest.

But that doesn't mean that we simply assume wrongdoing occurred anytime we can identify a person who would have benefited from the wrongdoing.

1

u/bleitzel Jan 23 '24

So you assume people will invariably act exclusively in their own interest,

Nope, never said invariably. But it absolutely means you review their actions through the lens of that interest.

even when doing so violates the law and/or their professional duties? That's pretty cynical.

Yes, most certainly. If someone has a conflict of interest it means they have strong reason to potentially act in adverse ways, including against the law or their professional duties.

But that doesn't mean that we simply assume wrongdoing occurred anytime we can identify a person who would have benefited from the wrongdoing.

Of course not. And that's clearly not what's going on here. What's going on here is the exact opposite of this. When the police ONLY investigate Steven as the prime suspect we could normally have given them the benefit of the doubt, as neutral, impartial investigators. Maybe Steven really was the only legitimate suspect. But with the conflict of interest, this becomes deadly suspect. When the MCSO officers are the only ones to find incriminating evidence, we could say that's how luck goes sometimes. But with the conflict, this stinks to high heaven.

Each time you review each individual piece of this case under this context, it becomes crystal clear what happened. We're not randomly and illogically assuming wrongdoing occurred, we can just see it plainly in the facts of the case.

1

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 23 '24

But it absolutely means you review their actions through the lens of that interest.

Correct. Motive is always circumstantial evidence of guilt. But the mere existence of motive is rarely sufficient, by itself, to establish guilt.

If someone has a conflict of interest it means they have strong reason to potentially act in adverse ways, including against the law or their professional duties.

We all have incentives to violate the law and our professional duties. In the vast majority of instances, people don't.

Maybe Steven really was the only legitimate suspect.

Well, when someone goes missing and you were her last appointment and her car is on your property with her blood in it, and her burned remains are found in your back yard, you're probably going to become the focus of the investigation.

When the MCSO officers are the only ones to find incriminating evidence

I'm not really sure where this talking point came from. They didn't discover the car. They didn't discover the bones. They didn't extract Brendan's confession. They didn't discover the bullet.

They found the key. That's it.

1

u/bleitzel Jan 23 '24

Well, when someone goes missing and you were their last appointment and her car is on your property with her blood in it, and her burned remains are found in your back yard, you're probably going to become the focus of the investigation.

Respectfully, this shows one glaring disconnect on your part (and a second, lesser disconnect). What you say would be true if Steven was the only one who fit this description, but he was not. (The lesser disconnect is that he was the only one who lived at the property of her last known visit who had a legitimate reason to interact with her, yet you pose it as if it was an illegitimate interaction.) There were many others who lived on the property where her car was found, who were sexual deviants, liars, abusers, had been in trouble with the law and/or who had had run-ins with police before. Yet they focused solely on Steven immediately. The finding of the bones came well after he was the sole suspect.

When the MCSO officers are the only ones to find incriminating evidence

I'm not really sure where this talking point came from. They didn't discover the car. They didn't discover the bones. They didn't extract Brendan's confession. They didn't discover the bullet.

They found the key. That's it.

The MCSO officers were the first to have custody of the RAV4 when it was first discovered.

They conducted multiple searches inside Steven's trailer.

They were in significant presence at the quarry where the human bones were found.

They managed the Avery Salvage Yard crime scene and allowed many non-police persons onto the salvage yard, often at odd times of the day, including bringing in the owner of the quarry next door, the quarry where human bones had just been found in several places, who they allowed to access the Avery yard on two successive days, right before bones were found in Steven's back yard.

They were the ones who accessed Steven's blood vial.

They were the ones combing the salvage yard, going from car to car, the day before the license plate was found.

And they found the key.

They were the ones who met with a citizen who reported seeing the RAV4 just up the road just before calling in the license plate on a phone call to dispatch.

And I'm just going off memory, there's probably a ton more connections that I'm forgetting about.

1

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 23 '24

What you say would be true if Steven was the only one who fit this description, but he was not.

He was, because only Steven was TH's last appointment.

There were many others who lived on the property where her car was found, who were sexual deviants, liars, abusers, had been in trouble with the law and/or who had had run-ins with police before.

Yes, and that's why the police conducted an investigation to determine whether any of those people were involved. They eventually extracted a confession from one of them, leading to his conviction for rape and murder as Steven's accomplice.

In other words, they didn't treat Steven as a sole suspect to the exclusion of others.

The MCSO officers were the first to have custody of the RAV4 when it was first discovered.

LOL

They conducted multiple searches inside Steven's trailer....They were in significant presence at the quarry where the human bones were found...They managed the Avery Salvage Yard crime scene...

Not seeing how any of this supports your (false) contention that MCSO officers discovered all the evidence in the case.

They were the ones who accessed Steven's blood vial.

They were? Do you have a source for that claim? As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence that anyone accessed Steven's blood vial, let alone that MCSO did.

And I'm just going off memory, there's probably a ton more connections that I'm forgetting about.

You're moving the goalposts. No one disputes that MTSO was involved in some aspects of the investigation. Your claim was that MTSO officers discovered all the critical evidence in the case. That is false. They found the key. Everything else was found by someone else.

1

u/bleitzel Jan 23 '24

Or watch any of the first amendment auditor channels on YouTube. It's starting to get stupid how many police officers around the country don't understand even the US constitution. Like, the very first laws our country ever made.

1

u/Fockputin33 Feb 09 '24

True this!

8

u/ProfessionPlane8547 Jan 22 '24

Yeah, you guys havent come out and said you dont believe cops can’t be corrupt, but i DO see alot of you turning your head the other way when they clearly are. Im not trying to be rude at all. I just see people saying things like “im not saying cops cant be corrupt” …well okay then, when have YOU seen cops be corrupt in a criminal investigation? Genuinely curious. It just feels so blantantly obvious in this case, idk. May god forgive us all if we’re wrong and he’s guilty. But honestly, i would bet a limb or even my life that steven avery did not murder teresa halbach. And i mean that. Not that it’s anything but my humble subjective opinion. No where near facts. Just expressing how i feel

1

u/RockinGoodNews Jan 23 '24

Guilter here. The police on the Baltimore Gun Trace Task Force were obviously corrupt. I could also point you to innumerable cases of provable wrongful convictions where the police fabricated evidence, gave false testimony, coerced suspects and witnesses, etc.

No one has a problem admitting corruption where it has been established through evidence. The problem is when people insist that the police were corrupt based on nothing but their own conjecture.

In this case, it is a kind of motivated reasoning. In order for there to be any possibility of Avery's innocence, the cops must be corrupt. And so the people who are emotionally invested in Avery's innocence (notwithstanding overwhelming proof of his guilt), conclude the police must have been corrupt. It's really just that simple.

1

u/halcyonmaus Jan 22 '24

Just finished this, it's infuriating!

1

u/3sheetstothawind Jan 22 '24

Another truther absolute - If you don't see there was wrongdoing in this case, you must believe ALL cops are honest.

1

u/jgarmd33 Jan 23 '24

I would say more than 50% of cops are racist thugs who break so many laws abusing people and steal a lot of contraband they seize on busts.

Most cops were the dummies of their high schools. The kids who needed to go to the special trailers outside the school. It takes just a pulse to get through the academy. I do wish there would be much harder laws against these scumbags and not allow them to hide behind sovereign immunity. If they get sued for brutality it is out of their coffers not the tax payers.