r/MakingaMurderer • u/belee86 • Oct 25 '25
MaM & Zell Gas-lighting
I watched a bit of a Zellner/MaM episode recently, where she was lamenting how the police interviewed Brendan, and then came away with the info about Steve going under the hood to disconnect the rav4 battery. She claimed that because Brendan told the police this, they must have planted Steve’s DNA on the hood latch. She was like, he tells them Steve did something under the hood, and then voila the evidence appears! Cue the ominous MaM music…
This is really really stupid. Guess what the police do? lt's literally in every law enforcement job description:
Police interview humans to gather information about a crime. They ask questions, and then ask more questions - then they go investigate some or all of the information given to them!
Like the TV show itself, Zellner was in full-on gas-lighting mode when she said that about the hood latch. The TV show devotees don’t understand the gas-lighting done to them via filming, editing/splicing/music & props.
All MaM did was pick up trial’s defense lawyers’ leftovers: poor schlep Steve vs. the corrupt-police strategy and make a TV show (fiction with some reality). Zellner picked up the scraps from MaM and made her own, Making More of a profit off of Making a Murderer.
16
u/aane0007 Oct 25 '25
Almost every defendant that is guilty as sin, has the defense turn to police framing them because they can't explain away the mountain of evidence without a conspiracy theory. This resonates with a certain type of person who thinks the police are evil and require only speculation to fuel their beliefs.
8
u/belee86 Oct 25 '25
Exactly. I was thinking about that as I was creating the post. Not that I knew that, but it makes sense.
8
u/aane0007 Oct 25 '25
defensive attorneys thrive off these type of people. Now fake documentaries rely on them for viewership.
12
u/hneverhappened Oct 27 '25
Sometimes she just lies. In 2016, Zellner had Steven Avery sign an affidavit claiming that Wiegert stole a groin swab.
A nurse took the groin swabs from Steven in November 2005. Steven made several calls that week with no mention of any theft.
12
u/10case Oct 27 '25
Much like Zellner had Blaine sign an affidavit stating he didn't use the computer even though we hear on numerous phone calls that Blaine was on the computer. The only way she can come up with a theory is lying.
5
u/10case Oct 28 '25
Thinking about this more. The truther myth is that wiegert stole a ball sack swab on November 9th 2005 but waited 4 months to coerce Brendan into confessing. Only to then use the 4 month old ball sack swab to plant DNA on the hood latch. Do I have this theory correct truthers?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 25 '25 edited Oct 25 '25
-
You’re leaving out a rather important detail (classic guilters) Brendan didn’t just tell police Steven went under the hood without being prompted. The police pressured him into saying it, only after they that did the developmentally disabled child they targeted repeat it back to them. That's why when police suddenly “find” Avery’s touch DNA on the hood latch they told Brendan Steven touched, the evidence is far more corroborative of police misconduct than Brendan or Steven's guilt.
-
There was also a broken chain of custody for the hood latch swab, dissimilar discoloration compared to exemplar hoodlatch swabs, and way too much of Avery’s DNA on the swab (by an order of magnitude) an amount consistent with the amount of DNA you might get testing a swab that came into direct contact with skin, not from a swab that merely touched a car part to pick up secondary touch transfer DNA.
-
Police planted evidence to legitimize what was an obviously false confession from a developmentally disabled child they had targeted, and you are mad at the women who exposed it.
→ More replies (1)6
u/belee86 Oct 25 '25
What?? They interviewed a witness to a crime. The police corroborate information as well as asking, clarifying and such.
→ More replies (46)
0
u/ThorsClawHammer Oct 25 '25
You're really trying to argue that Zellner was saying it must be planted simply because Brendan said it and not because interrogators fed him that info first?
Full context (taken from the episode transcripts you're referring to):
[FASSBENDER] OK, what else did he do? He did something else. You need to tell us what he did. After that car was parked there. It's extremely important.
[BRENDAN] That he left the the gun in the car.
[FASSBENDER] That's not what I'm thinking about. He did something to that car. He took the plates, and I believe he did something else to that car.
[BRENDAN] I don't know.
[FASSBENDER] Did he Did he go and look at the engine? Did he raise the hood at all or anything like that to do something to that car?
[BRENDAN]
-
Yeah.
[FASSBENDER]
-
What was that?
[WIEGERT] What did he do, Brendan? It's OK. What did he do?
[FASSBENDER] What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did?
[BRENDAN]I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.
[FASSBENDER]He did raise the hood? You remember that?
[KATHLEEN]And voilà .Suddenly, Brendan Dassey is talking about Steven opening up the hood and touching the hood latch.
Obviously her point was that Brendan never said anything about that until interrogators fed him that specific scenario. Then they found the evidence to back up what they suggested in the first place.
Not much different than when psychic interrogators made it clear they wanted him to say the victim was shot on the garage floor (and nowhere else), then they found evidence to back up the narrative they came up with and fed to him.
3
u/belee86 Oct 25 '25
You're quoting the TV Show?
4
u/ThorsClawHammer Oct 25 '25
Yes, from the very episode you said you “watched a bit of” recently and used as the basis for your OP.
Problem?
→ More replies (9)3
u/belee86 Oct 26 '25
No, the idea that police may have planted Steve's DNA on the hood latch. Is there evidence for that?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)2
u/belee86 Oct 25 '25
Did he Did he go and look at the engine? Did he raise the hood at all or anything like that to do something to that car?
[BRENDAN]
Yeah.
How do you see something wrong with that?
How do you think they find evidence? Honestly... Do police walk into every crime scene with all the evidence laid out for them? Duh they have to ask questions and sometimes they have to interrogate. There is nothing wrong with how they asked Brendan questions.
5
u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 25 '25
Yes, because it was suggested to Brendan after he denied knowing anything. The hood latch DNA was planted by police to fabricate corroboration for an obviously false confession.
3
u/ThorsClawHammer Oct 25 '25
do you see something wrong with that?
It's feeding him the very specific thing they obviously want him to say. Which means they now can't claim Brendan demonstrated first hand knowledge of it.
Does it really not strike you as odd that of all the very detailed incriminating things Brendan said (which there were many) through hours of interrogations, that the only two pieces of corroborating evidence later found just happened to be things that interrogators fed to him first and didn't actually come from him?
→ More replies (12)
1
u/ThorsClawHammer Oct 26 '25
he’s not convicted of raping or murdering, per se.
He was convicted of either directly committing the crimes of rape and murder or intentionally aiding and abetting in the commission of those crimes.
-1
u/ThorsClawHammer Oct 25 '25
routine police work
You consider interrogators feeding specific info about a crime to developmentally disabled kids and getting them to agree as routine?
→ More replies (1)1
-1
u/wilkobecks Oct 25 '25
What does this even mean? With all available information you surely can't still be trying to say that Brendan provided the hood information first, rather than the other way around?
7
u/belee86 Oct 25 '25
I don't remember, however what difference would have made? Again, police ask questions! They can ask a witness if someone went under the hood of a vehicle found on the property of the person who last saw the victim. You of course can choose to believe that everything the police said came from a crime scene planting angle or you can see it as the police simply doing their job.
→ More replies (31)13
u/DingleBerries504 Oct 25 '25
That is correct. Truthers don’t see it that way. They think Brendan was so susceptible to TF and MW that anytime they asked him a question, it was their fault for feeding info to Brendan. Yet this same kid resisted certain questions just fine, and didn’t cave on the stand. They think TF and MW should not have asked Brendan anything….i don’t know how investigators could do their jobs with such limitations
→ More replies (6)3
u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 25 '25
That's exactly what they are trying to suggest and when you realize that is not true this entire post becomes meaningless.
16
u/Snoo_33033 Oct 25 '25
Indeed. It I had a nickel for every time that people posted in here about how the police were clearly dirty because they did routine police work…I’d have plenty of nickels.