"Making A Murderer"

[GlamMosher]

I think you need to try and get the cat incident out of your mind in regards to this case. I am (see my avatar) the human of 2 cats so find that absolutely appalling but it was 20 years before and I do know personally that people do terrible things whilst under the influence of other things that they would never normally do. I am not excusing him at all for that, but he went to jail and paid his price.

The show is more about whether the police proved the case or whether they were corrupt rather than his previous crimes (heinous though they may have been).

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Ok, I am on my phone so this won't be long. Spoilers....








The cat incident was disturbing but he was in his late teens and I don't think it means he is capable of rape/murder 25 years later...
-the local police is SO prejudice. Ex when searching Steven's trailer one police said they should get prints of all his shoes to compare with unsolved burglaries
-NO real dna. No blood in trailer/garage. NO hair. Nothing. He was a slob. No way he could clean that up.
-Brandon's confessions are so upsetting. I do not believe he was involved or had a fair trial.
-her roommate did not alert anyone for 4 days!!!
-checking and deleting her VMs...shady
-the cousin found the car within 30 mins and was the only one given a camera
-the blood in the RAV4 does not make sense
-bones were moved

I think someone else killed Teresa and the cops framed Steven to save $38 million

 

[GlamMosher]

Spoilers























And the blood sample being tampered with??? How could that have not been considered important by the jury? I know the incredible new FBI technique developed especially for this case (I mean really, they have time for that?) said the blood in the car was not from the vial but that test could not considered accurate without lengthy control tests.

The bones were excavated from the burn pit without the coroner there so were not preserved/documented properly. I read that the coroner found out about the body by the media and when she called the police (sheriff? i don't understand the difference) was told she was not required and was denied access to the site.

The 2 accused were both found guilty but of different ways of killing her - how can that be right?

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I know!!! Lots of things do not make sense.

 

[GlamMosher]

http://www.wkow.com/story/30834876/...ses-stevern-avery-case-on-capitol-city-sunday

Attorney Dean Strang discusses Steven Avery case on Capitol City Sunday

Very interesting interview!

 

[House Cat]

He doused the cat w/gasoline first? I missed that part. I thought he'd "just tossed the cat over the fire"..not that that's appropriate or anything, I'd've put his eyes out for that, I'm just saying that's all I'd heard. Gasoline first is intentional, not the "harmless just for fun to see the cat fly over the fire" prank he made it sound to be. And you don't have to be a wizard to understand that gasoline is flammable so what would happen, duh?

The gasoline information is on the Internet. It was left out of the documentary.

 

[packrat]

He doused the cat w/gasoline first? I missed that part. I thought he'd "just tossed the cat over the fire"..not that that's appropriate or anything, I'd've put his eyes out for that, I'm just saying that's all I'd heard. Gasoline first is intentional, not the "harmless just for fun to see the cat fly over the fire" prank he made it sound to be. And you don't have to be a wizard to understand that gasoline is flammable so what would happen, duh?

The gasoline information is on the Internet. It was left out of the documentary.

Ohh I see. I've not looked anything up. I'm only just done w/the third episode.

 

[missy]

Missy, I agree with everything you have said...spoiler ahead...






















I tried over and over in my mind to defend Steven in the cat burning incident. I tried to use the thought process that goes into the idea that psychopaths use animals as practice, therefore they are methodical with the animals and they use animals over and over. It sounds as though the cat in Steven's case is a one time incident and impulsive. I think, too, that psychopaths have above average intelligence. It has been proven that Steven has below average intelligence.

But then it occurred to me that "people vary" and that I don't know squat about everyone in the world. Furthermore, 20 years ago, there was a horrible accident in my house involving a kitten and it was hands down, one of the worst days of my life. I can't even really speak of it. Why? Because I am a cat lover to the middle of my bones. Even if I wasn't such a cat lover, say I was an average person with a normal level of cat liking, it would still be an awful day and I would not be ok with the incident.

To dowse a cat in gasoline is torture enough for that poor animal, but then to throw it into the fire and to watch it burn is a f#cked up act beyond anything I could imagine. My mind never sits in words. My mind makes graphic scenarios and I have pictured this act in my mind and it paints a very different side of this man. If you can sit and watch, as that poor kitty writhes in pain as it burns, what else are you capable of?

One could argue that he was too stupid to feel empathy for that cat, but if he was, then he could be too stupid to feel empathy for Teresa Halbach while he was harming her.

I also felt the documentary was largely biased.

The one portion of this story that burned my blood was Brendan. I hope to God that the publicity of this story gets him an appeal or retrial. That poor kid should have never been locked up. I am wishing for a large $$$$$$ settlement on his behalf.

Did anyone else bubble over with emotion whenever they saw the grandma's face? She looked so exhausted and tired, like all life and joy and been sucked out of her. She looked worse each time they put her on camera. Seeing her face was a testament to the extreme harm that corrupt police department has done to her family.

He doused the cat w/gasoline first? I missed that part. I thought he'd "just tossed the cat over the fire"..not that that's appropriate or anything, I'd've put his eyes out for that, I'm just saying that's all I'd heard. Gasoline first is intentional, not the "harmless just for fun to see the cat fly over the fire" prank he made it sound to be. And you don't have to be a wizard to understand that gasoline is flammable so what would happen, duh?

The gasoline information is on the Internet. It was left out of the documentary.

Yes just another example of the filmmakers slanting the sympathy in favor of SA. Anyway I believe something like burning a cat, either way it happened, is not a one off incident. Sorry but that doesn't make sense. Glam Mosher, doing something like that to any living being is more than just an atrocious act. There is something terribly wrong with an individual who could do that. I don't care if he was a teen or not at the time of the incident. A normal person who has empathy does not ever do something like that. IMO.


If they are both to ever get out of jail the real killer or killers need to be found. That is what should be the focus for anyone who is trying to help them.

And yes, my heart goes out to that poor mother (grandmother of Brendan). That poor woman has been through more than anyone should ever have to go through.

 

[packrat]

Started the fourth episode just now. I'm really having a hard time w/some of the speech and just the..I don't know how to put it. "He ain't gone and did nothing". Reading that boy's "statement" or whatever it was, the fact that he and his mom didn't know what "inconsistent" meant. He just looks like he has *no* clue whatsoever what is going on or what he's being asked. None of them really seem to have a clue. I feel like there should be someone to try to explain things to all of them, to help them understand what they're hearing, what they're being told, and what they're saying in reply. Is the whole family lower functioning? Are they being taken advantage of/railroaded b/c they can't defend themselves?

And um...did I not just watch a man tell that boy specifically what to draw pictures of?

The cat thing...that still doesn't fly with me. People change, yes. And some people don't. Who is to say which way this went, you know? Doesn't make him a rapist/murderer, but it doesn't mean he didn't do it either.

This show is irritating me.

It irritated JD last night too and he only was home for the last like 30 minutes of one episode.

 

[House Cat]

No Peeking!!

I think you need to try and get the cat incident out of your mind in regards to this case. I am (see my avatar) the human of 2 cats so find that absolutely appalling but it was 20 years before and I do know personally that people do terrible things whilst under the influence of other things that they would never normally do. I am not excusing him at all for that, but he went to jail and paid his price.

The show is more about whether the police proved the case or whether they were corrupt rather than his previous crimes (heinous though they may have been).

I feel the cat inicident is relevant to SA's character. I want to get it out of my mind, but I can't. He isn't the innocent, kind, simple man that this documentary made him out to be. He has a sick streak in him. To say he paid his price for this crime means nothing when it comes to character. Our prisons are full of people who will pay the price for their crimes, get released, and within months, turn around and commit crimes again. This is a statistical fact. Certain people have a flaw of character that make them harm other living things without care for their feelings.

Normal human beings see pets as the ultimate helpless beings. We also see them as our babies to croon over and to love with unconditional abandon. We are crazy for our little loves. If we weren't, the pet merchandise business wouldn't be so lucrative. When someone harms a helpless animal, there is something inherently wrong with them. I am going to have to stand my ground on that value.

SA is not a sweet simpleton who just wants to live on his junkyard while gardening and raising animals. There is more to his character than that. Taking everything I have said into account, I can't say he is a murderer.

Unfortunately, he lives in a town with a horribly corrupt police department that learned to hate him for his smaller crimes. It seems that they framed him.

If the jury was given ONLY the information that we have seen in the documentary, I am shocked at their verdicts for both men. There was plenty of reasonable doubt. I wonder if they are of limited intelligence as well, although the juror who had to leave due to a family emergency seemed normal. I wonder if there was much more evidence that we did not see. Once again, I believe this documentary favored SA. If this jury was only given the information that we have seen and I was a juror, I would have hung that jury. They did say that the jury started with seven in favor of not guilty. I cannot stand it when people don't stick with their convictions, especially, yanno...when it comes to putting a person in prison for life.

 

[packrat]

Miraclesrule said on FB that there's other stuff on the internet that wasn't in the documentary.

ARGH you know what, you guys kinda suck. I need to go thru shit in my basement and get it organized and cleaned and pretty and here I sit on the damn couch!

 

[House Cat]

Miraclesrule said on FB that there's other stuff on the internet that wasn't in the documentary.

ARGH you know what, you guys kinda suck. I need to go thru shit in my basement and get it organized and cleaned and pretty and here I sit on the damn couch!

Did she say what stuff was left out of the documentary? I am dying to know!

Basement Shmasement... This is far more important. Do you have popcorn?

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

The whole thing left me mind blown. Despite his prior violence (with the cat) which he plead guilty to and served his time, I do not think he committed the other crimes. Especially the rape/murder. IMO the most pressing thing was the LACK of evidence. If that rape and murder had occurred anywhere in that house or outside there would have been bodily fluids all over, especially that concrete. Concrete is so porous, it would have lit up under a black light in a heartbeat.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

The whole thing left me mind blown. Despite his prior violence (with the cat) which he plead guilty to and served his time, I do not think he committed the other crimes. Especially the rape/murder. IMO the most pressing thing was the LACK of evidence. If that rape and murder had occurred anywhere in that house or outside there would have been bodily fluids all over, especially that concrete. Concrete is so porous, it would have lit up under a black light in a heartbeat.

DNA cleared him from the other crime. So we know he did not commit that. They even broke up the concrete in the garage. No blood. Makes no sense.

 

[kama_s]

Anonymous is all set to release evidence to help convict the real killers!!

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/29/anonymous-will-publish-evidence-to-help-the-convict-from-netflixs-making-a-murderer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thenextwebtopstories+%28The+Next+Web+Top+Stories%29

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Anonymous is all set to release evidence to help convict the real killers!!

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/12/29/anonymous-will-publish-evidence-to-help-the-convict-from-netflixs-making-a-murderer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thenextwebtopstories+%28The+Next+Web+Top+Stories%29

This will be interesting!

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

Following!

 

[kama_s]

Ahhh, sadly beginning to think this handle seems to be a hoax. The latest tweets are really bizarre.

 

[kama_s]

I hope I'm wrong, but even the anon guy 0Hour1 is distancing himself. But strangely, the lawyer Buting seemed on board earlier, which is what made me feel like this may be the real deal

 

[Niel]

Ok so I just finished this and I can't get over it. So I'm going to share some thoughts.

Fist off I watched the first ep and thought "this guy is a piece of sh!t". Throw a cat into a fire and run a woman off the road at gunpoint?

But the rape conviction was upsetting. Points like " the rapist wore underpants and Avery didn't own any" makes me wonder how it got that far.

Next the deposition in the civil case. How so many of the of the people in that county police department felt that, despite DNA evidence and a court exoneration, he still totally did it.

Brenden broke my heart. Clearly he's slow and I think he got railroaded. Their story that they got out of Brenden was that he slit her throat while handcuffed to a wooden bed. Then, after sitting her throat, he choked her. Oh and cut her hair? Where was one shred of evidence of that?! In Stevens case, they said they didn't feel she was murdered in his house. So the confession they relied upon to convict Brenden they completely discounted in Stevens case.


In my mind there's too many inconsistencies in what I saw the defence make for Steven's case for me to have come back a guilty verdict. Here's why.

The biggest one was why that policeman called a few days before the car was discovered essentially calling in her car?!

Why was blood tampered with in his previous files?

Where is any blood in his home or on the grounds?

Why would there be only a few bones in the quarry? He took the time to get a handful of bones but not the other ones?

Why didn't he crush the car?

That key is suspicious


I also think they didn't do their due diligence in looking into other people. Bobby ? The brother?

I'm not saying he didn't do it. I just don't think I could have said there wasn't reasonable doubt. Even if , as the prosecutor said from a man who argued in closing arguments that" reasonable doubts are for innocent people"

 

[ihy138]

My husband and I just finished this series in a two-day marathon. I can't believe that I hadn't heard of this case previously, which makes me wonder how often something like this happens. I am conflicted and I'm not sure what to believe. I tend to feel that Steven and especially Brendan are innocent, but I know that's how the documentary is supposed to make me feel. Missy - you're right in that SA is a "low life" type. He is not educated nor intelligent, and he seems prone to anger. For these reasons, I think it was easier for something like this to happen to him. Someone with more resources (in every sense of the word) probably would have been a more difficult, less believable target. I think that's why the jury had no trouble convicting him despite lack of evidence and shoddy police work. I think that's the why the police felt they had their perp and didn't feel the need to keep looking. It's not much of a stretch that he might do something like this given a few of his past transgressions, but it doesn't mean that the police should have stopped their search.

Brendan is the most sympathetic character in my opinion. I feel badly for the family as well.

 

[packrat]

I watched four episodes and haven't been back to finish them. Just irritated.

 

[MollyMalone]

* * * I'm not saying he didn't do it. I just don't think I could have said there wasn't reasonable doubt. Even if , as the prosecutor said from a man who argued in closing arguments that" reasonable doubts are for innocent people"

I've not yet viewed Making A Murderer , but seeing Niel's quotation of the prosecutor saying, in summation, "reasonable doubts are for innocent people" propelled me on to the 'net to find out who made that jaw-dropping declaration (which, in New York, would be a sound basis for appealing a trial conviction on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct).

When Google revealed that the prosecutor who said that was Ken Kratz, an unrelated bell went off for me. He's the "sexting DA" who sent grossly inappropriate texts to a domestic abuse victim; refused to step down after the story broke and other women came forward; eventually resigned the day the removal proceeding against him was scheduled to begin. See, e.g., this well-done article by a local reporter, picked up by Associated Press & the related articles linked in left-hand sidebar of the page:
http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/e-mails-show-da-tried-to-keep-sexting-quiet/article_e47d9c12-c1ab-11df-9e2f-001cc4c002e0.html

Settled civil lawsuit in 2013 before the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended his license to practice law last year for just 4 months after he had admitted to certain specified ethics violations:
http://wislawjournal.com/2012/06/15/agency-drops-2-more-counts-against-former-da-kratz/
http://wislawjournal.com/2013/02/13/sexting-lawsuit-against-former-da-kratz-settled/
http://wislawjournal.com/2014/06/06/sexting-das-license-suspended/

Kratz has complained that Making a Murderer is slanted, omits much of the physical evidence that ties Avery to the homicide. But even if that is true, he's still reprehensible.

 

[telephone89]

I binged this over the weekend. It is obviously VERY bias. I looked up a few things that were left out of the documentary...

Teresa had photographed for SA previously. She asked NOT to be sent to his house again, because he creeped her out.
When SA was selling the car, he specifically asked for her. He used a fake number and fake name to get her to come out.
He called her multiple times using *67 on the day she came to his house. He called her once after she supposedly left, not using the *67, but obviously she didn't pick up.
In prison (for the false rape) he told his cellmate that he wanted to build a 'torture chamber' so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.
He told his cellmate that the only way to get rid of a body was to burn it.

This is from an email from Ken Kratz. So, not sure if it's totally true, or if it came up in trial, but that is what he alleges.

Anyways, I don't know if he was guilty, but I don't think there was enough physical evidence to convict him. I believe the jury had reasonable doubt, which should have been a not guilty verdict.

Things that bothered me:
SA guilty of killing Teresa in the garage.
Brendan guilty of killing Teresa in the bedroom.
First of all, how is that even possible, second, there was no blood in either place.
Bobby & Step dad (forgot his name) alibi that ONLY saves each other, but doesn't match up to what the bus driver saw.
Those cops were crooked as f^$k. I 100% believe they planted evidence, however that doesn't mean SA wasn't guilty.
I want to know what the 'retrieved' messages were. Teresa's brother was super sketch, he obviously deleted some of the msgs and I want to know what they were.
The fact that neither the brother OR ex boyfriend were investigated by police.
Len has got to be the worst lawyer ever. And I also didn't like the judge who kept denying the defense requests. Some of that stuff would have been incredibly relevant!

Tbh, I'm not surprised Brendan was convicted. You have someone who confesses TWICE, and then tries to recant on the stand? That's not gonna go over well. His cousin (kayla) was also a bit weird as well. But, considering they took her statement after the news had already gone crazy with the story, it's not unusual that it matched up.

Anyways, very interesting. I doubt SA will get out. With no money and the county firmly on the opposite side, I think he's in trouble. Brendan should have a re-trial though. I'm confused as to why his judge is denying that.

 

[House Cat]

I binged this over the weekend. It is obviously VERY bias. I looked up a few things that were left out of the documentary...

Teresa had photographed for SA previously. She asked NOT to be sent to his house again, because he creeped her out.
When SA was selling the car, he specifically asked for her. He used a fake number and fake name to get her to come out.
He called her multiple times using *67 on the day she came to his house. He called her once after she supposedly left, not using the *67, but obviously she didn't pick up.
In prison (for the false rape) he told his cellmate that he wanted to build a 'torture chamber' so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.
He told his cellmate that the only way to get rid of a body was to burn it.

This is from an email from Ken Kratz. So, not sure if it's totally true, or if it came up in trial, but that is what he alleges.

Anyways, I don't know if he was guilty, but I don't think there was enough physical evidence to convict him. I believe the jury had reasonable doubt, which should have been a not guilty verdict.

Things that bothered me:
SA guilty of killing Teresa in the garage.
Brendan guilty of killing Teresa in the bedroom.
First of all, how is that even possible, second, there was no blood in either place.
Bobby & Step dad (forgot his name) alibi that ONLY saves each other, but doesn't match up to what the bus driver saw.
Those cops were crooked as f^$k. I 100% believe they planted evidence, however that doesn't mean SA wasn't guilty.
I want to know what the 'retrieved' messages were. Teresa's brother was super sketch, he obviously deleted some of the msgs and I want to know what they were.
The fact that neither the brother OR ex boyfriend were investigated by police.
Len has got to be the worst lawyer ever. And I also didn't like the judge who kept denying the defense requests. Some of that stuff would have been incredibly relevant!

Tbh, I'm not surprised Brendan was convicted. You have someone who confesses TWICE, and then tries to recant on the stand? That's not gonna go over well. His cousin (kayla) was also a bit weird as well. But, considering they took her statement after the news had already gone crazy with the story, it's not unusual that it matched up.

Anyways, very interesting. I doubt SA will get out. With no money and the county firmly on the opposite side, I think he's in trouble. Brendan should have a re-trial though. I'm confused as to why his judge is denying that.

Something doesn't quite make sense about SA using a fake name and number to lure Theresa out on to his property. This was a small town. Everyone knew SA's family and the junkyard. The road leading to the junkyard was "Avery Road." It wouldn't be much of a leap to say that Teresa knew she was going to the Avery property. I think Ken Kratz is lying in his email.

 

[Niel]

I don't care if Brendan confessed a million times. His confession didn't make any sense. If I confessed to nursing Kennedy would a jury convict?


You're using his conviction and have absolutely no evidence that supports the confession. If he had an aliby and nothing supported his aliby it wouldn't be used...

His story made so little sense they came up with a completely different murder theory in the SA case.

Not a single drop of evidence to support his theory. How that doesn't matter to a jury or judge is beyond me.


I don't trust anything the inmates said about what he said in prison. They'll tell you whatever you want to hear if it helps.

 

[GlamMosher]

Teresa had photographed for SA previously. She asked NOT to be sent to his house again, because he creeped her out.
When SA was selling the car, he specifically asked for her. He used a fake number and fake name to get her to come out.
He called her multiple times using *67 on the day she came to his house. He called her once after she supposedly left, not using the *67, but obviously she didn't pick up.
In prison (for the false rape) he told his cellmate that he wanted to build a 'torture chamber' so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.
He told his cellmate that the only way to get rid of a body was to burn it.

This was all from Kratz emails to people saying that 80% of the evidence wasn't shown on the doco.

It all sounds like Kratz version of the how the murder took place TBH.

Teresa DID tell the receptionist that SA had answered the door in a towel, but the both laughed and said "ew". Nothing about her being creeped out and not going there again. She had been there many times in the past few months. She even spoke to the Auto Trader office and said she was on her way to the Avery property then. She knew where she was going. If she was creeped out, why did the office send her, and why wouldn't she have refused when she saw the address?

The name was his sister's as it was her car. She knew who it was though.

I read an interview with Dean Strang and he said SA was very protective of his privacy after what had happened and the media etc so often used *67.

The torture chamber is another of Kratz's theories and that wasn't even allowed in court. I guess the judge even saw through that one. I can just picture the interview with the cell mate.
"how did he say he would get rid of the body? By burning it?"
"yeah".

The only thing that Kratz came up with that wasn't shown was the sweat on the hood latch, but really DNA yet no finger prints on the hood? How hard would it be to get a dirty sock or underarm of a t shirt and rub it on the latch. Even the "confession" from BD that SA had touched the hood of the car was suggested to him and he agreed.

 

[telephone89]

@Housecat: He used his sisters name and number with Autotrader. So, I assume he used *67 so she wouldn't see his number? Not sure.

@Glammosher: Yes, all from the reddit email. I do think there was quite a bit that was not included in the docu, especially if there were 900 items taken from the home/area for evidence, and multiple crime scenes.

I also think its weird that there were 0 fingerprints anywhere on the car. His blood, but no finger prints? And if it's true that there was sweat DNA on the hood of the car, that's kind of weird in general haha.

Also, another thing I was thinking about, was the contaminated bullet. It shouldn't have been included, and should have been thrown out as per protocol. Making a special case to include it (likely at fassbenders request) was inappropriate.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

* * * I'm not saying he didn't do it. I just don't think I could have said there wasn't reasonable doubt. Even if , as the prosecutor said from a man who argued in closing arguments that" reasonable doubts are for innocent people"

I've not yet viewed Making A Murderer , but seeing Niel's quotation of the prosecutor saying, in summation, "reasonable doubts are for innocent people" propelled me on to the 'net to find out who made that jaw-dropping declaration (which, in New York, would be a sound basis for appealing a trial conviction on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct).

When Google revealed that the prosecutor who said that was Ken Kratz, an unrelated bell went off for me. He's the "sexting DA" who sent grossly inappropriate texts to a domestic abuse victim; refused to step down after the story broke and other women came forward; eventually resigned the day the removal proceeding against him was scheduled to begin. See, e.g., this well-done article by a local reporter, picked up by Associated Press & the related articles linked in left-hand sidebar of the page:
http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/e-mails-show-da-tried-to-keep-sexting-quiet/article_e47d9c12-c1ab-11df-9e2f-001cc4c002e0.html

Settled civil lawsuit in 2013 before the Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended his license to practice law last year for just 4 months after he had admitted to certain specified ethics violations:
http://wislawjournal.com/2012/06/15/agency-drops-2-more-counts-against-former-da-kratz/
http://wislawjournal.com/2013/02/13/sexting-lawsuit-against-former-da-kratz-settled/
http://wislawjournal.com/2014/06/06/sexting-das-license-suspended/

Kratz has complained that Making a Murderer is slanted, omits much of the physical evidence that ties Avery to the homicide. But even if that is true, he's still reprehensible.

That was covered in the documentary. You should watch it.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I don't care if Brendan confessed a million times. His confession didn't make any sense. If I confessed to nursing Kennedy would a jury convict?


You're using his conviction and have absolutely no evidence that supports the confession. If he had an aliby and nothing supported his aliby it wouldn't be used...

His story made so little sense they came up with a completely different murder theory in the SA case.

Not a single drop of evidence to support his theory. How that doesn't matter to a jury or judge is beyond me.


I don't trust anything the inmates said about what he said in prison. They'll tell you whatever you want to hear if it helps.

I agree! He clearly did not understand what was going on and was trying to please the detectives. Re-watch BOTH of his "confessions." It is sad and very upsetting.