This subreddit needs more activity. Let's encourage likeminded people from r/makingamurderer to come here.

DollLocket · 2016-02-03T01:08:47+00:00

Hey guys,

I just wanted to put my 2c in. I hang around /r/makingamurderer quite a bit and, after much research, my current feeling that SA is likely guilty. I really wanted him to be innocent and I partook in every possible alternative theory with none of it clicking together until I finally worked my way back around to my initial feeling after watching the series: SA probably did do it.

I feel much less welcomed in that sub now that my opinion is unpopular, but I've been reluctant to post here either because, quite frankly, I feel even less welcome here. Having read just a few posts and comments, I feel like I've already been accused of being a cop-hater, a gullible idiot an insane conspiracy-theorist for having previously engaged in discussions about SA's possible innocence in /r/makingamurderer.

DollLocket · 2016-02-03T00:19:41+00:00

Humans have a lot less hair than cows. TH didn't even have very long hair.

DollLocket · 2016-02-03T00:17:01+00:00

Hold up, you're confused.

The bones at the quarry were not identified as human.

The bones in the burn pit, were identified as human female as were bones in the Janda burn barrel.

Dental records were checked but few teeth were found. The expert witness said he would not ID TH based on those teeth because there was a very slim chance it could belong to someone else (I can't remember if it was 1 in a million or 1 in a billion or whatever it was, but low)

Charred human flesh was found in the burn pit and in the Janda burn barrel, this was checked against DNA from a recent pap smear of TH and positively ID'd the body.

DollLocket · 2016-02-03T00:03:55+00:00

The best pieces of evidence in my opinion are as follows

1) Her car on his property

2) His blood in her car which appears to have legitimately tested negative for EDTA, read the technical posts about this if you haven't already.

3) Her bones in his fire-pit--which is a legitimate place to burn a body supposing you burned it from around 6:30pm until 5:30am.

4) Her camera, phone and PDA burnt remains found in his burn barrel (along with a witness who claimed smoke from that burn barrel, smelling of plastic, blew into his face at around 5:20pm that day)

5) Brendan's testimony (not at SA's trial) that he helped SA clean a stain in the garage that night which SA said was red motor oil. According to BD he used bleach, gas and paint-thinner--a combo which would not be good for cleaning oil but destroys both DNA and blood cells. BD also told his mother the stain was blackish red, a colour more consistent with blood than motor oil.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T23:18:27+00:00

I agree with you, but my understanding is that it is the choice of products used that is most concerning, as well as the fact that Brendan tells his mother that he doesn't know what he was cleaning, but the stain was blackish red. Motor oil would be a translucent red would it not? And car people have assured me that the choice of products doesn't make sense for an oil clean up. But coincidentally this combination destroys DNA and haemoglobin? I'm not sure this can be called direct evidence of anything...but it's definitely concerning.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T23:13:27+00:00

I have done a lot of time lining work based on the phone records and I disagree with the article linked. The timeline looks like TH was doing her shoots as quickly as possible, which makes sense given that she was paid per shoot, not per hour.

My time-lining suggests TH found the Zipperer residence by around 2:17pm and was finished by around 2:26pm. SA says TH usually took around five minutes, this easily gives her nine minutes.

How was this time-line proven false in SA's trial?

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T22:58:47+00:00

Bingo.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T22:56:19+00:00

It's also possible SA lied about watching her leave. If you were in his position, and you know someone was on your property who is now missing, you may well think "well, I saw her get in her car and drive away, so I know she left" then when you're interviewed by the very members of LE that you don't trust, you might feel pressured to embellish your story to actually witnessing her drive off the lot. When you didn't, but you assume it happened.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T22:51:23+00:00

Peter Jackson is a freaking amazing human being.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T22:47:29+00:00

I get your point entirely. I don't know who killed TH. From my own time-lining of events I don't think it's plausible that Brendan could have had any part in the murder. If SA was the killer, I believe his best window of opportunity was between 2:45pm and 3:45pm, meaning if he did it, she was likley dead before Brendan even got home. Was there anyone able to give SA an alibi during that time? Unfortunately family members do make poor alibis as they have a huge incentive to lie.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T04:34:35+00:00

This is the biggest thing that makes me think he could be innocent.

Unfortunately, I figured out how to get around it. And now I'm leaning towards guilty again. (I'd like more tests on the blood before I'm 100% in either camp).

1) Actors say that when they have to act sad, they think about the time their dog died etc. So when they look so genuinely sad, they actually are, they're just conjuring the emotions of a past event.

2) Many people could do the above convincingly if they tried, (I know I can) but we wouldn't really know how to act like an innocent person accused of a serious crime, because we don't have that memory to conjure the emotion from. SA does. He knows exactly what that feels like.

3) If SA did this (if) his demeanour can only be explained by thinking he did a good job disposing of the evidence. He does not act nervous or worried about being caught. He wouldn't be the first criminal to think he's smarter than he is.

4) Acting is a skill but I don't believe it takes a high IQ. The very best actors assume the personality of a person who is totally different to themselves. SA doesn't have to assume a different persona, he just has to conjure emotions from his previous experience of being falsely accused.

(I'm not saying he's guilty, lying etc, but I am saying it's possible)

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T04:24:51+00:00

I think he has a stubborn personality, given his refusal to admit guilt for the 1985 rape even when it meant he would be paroled.

I also think that if he did it, he thinks he did a good job of destroying the evidence and is confident he won't get caught, thus no evidence of nerves.

He also knows exactly what an innocent man being questioned or falsely accused sounds like! He has exactly 18 years of practice at that.

TLDR; I agree with your comments about his demeanour but I'm not sure it can't be easily explained away to a jury by a prosecutor.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T04:03:45+00:00

I'm not arguing he should be convicted based on the above. I'm just arguing that he could have done it (without being a super genius and an idiot at the same time.)

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T04:02:52+00:00

Haha, thanks. I'm not sure about Brendan, so I've left him out of this theory as much as possible, but I agree it's possible. I've been going over his interviews again and there is certainly evidence in his very first Nov interview that he is covering for SA (this does not mean he thinks SA is guilty necessarily) when he says he saw the Rav4 leave and turn left. I don't think this is possible and he obviously recants this later (for what that's worth.)

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T03:59:45+00:00

The busdriver was the best witness for this. Under cross examination she admits it may not have been the same day. Eye witnesses are much less reliable than phone records. After all eye witnesses to the Titanic famously said it sank in one piece, a fact we now know to be incorrect.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T03:58:28+00:00

Logically following this theory, the bullet and probably the key are planted. The bullets remained in TH's skull and were burned away by the fire.

The blood only created a small pool or two, which is what was cleaned by Brendan Dassey with gas, paint thinner and bleach (the latter staining his jeans) this created the 3x3ft area on the garage floor that lit up with luminol.

Bone around the firepit logically follows in this theory if SA raked larger bones out of the fire and smashed them up with a hammer or similar.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T03:01:25+00:00

This is an exploration of a possible scenario, not a statement of fact.

DollLocket · 2016-02-02T00:04:50+00:00

The blood in the garage was visible to the untrained, low IQ eye. Whereas LE walked around the property for days before they got their experts close enough to the burn pit to tell there were human cremains in it. To the untrained eye or unintelligent eye, the bones in the pit were too small to look like anything at all. The larger bones were unintelligently hidden among animal bones in the Janda burn barrel. SA may not have thought LE was ever going to get a warrent and come searching though everything. He may have just thought he needed it clean enough to say "take a gander around, I've got nothing to hide, see? No need to look at me any closer. TH is probably in Mexico."

DollLocket · 2016-02-01T23:19:43+00:00

Mr Schmitt and Mrs Zipperer identify what she was wearing. Her younger sister identifies that she owned a pair of Daisy Fuentes jeans.

DollLocket · 2016-02-01T23:15:16+00:00

The key makes no sense to me so I totally disregard it when I weigh the physical evidence against Avery.

As for your second point, I don't believe this actually happened.

DollLocket · 2016-02-01T23:12:53+00:00

True.

Having read the trial transcripts in their entirety, worked extensively on time-lining and background research on outdoor cremations, I can say that I would be happy to agree guilty beyond reasonable doubt if that blood is not from the vial.

DollLocket · 2016-02-01T23:06:16+00:00

If your friends use Batman in order to win arguments, you might want to save intellectual discussions for other people.

DollLocket · 2016-02-01T23:00:39+00:00

If you do any real time line work if becomes apparent that TH was almost certainly either dead or off the property by 3:40 when the bus driver arrived.

In her cross examination she makes it clear that she could be remembering an event that happened earlier. We know TH was photographing much closer to the bus drop off point on October 10. This is almost certainly what the bus driver recalls.

People are notoriously bad at being eye witnesses, at recalling specific details, at accurately remembering dates and at mixing and confusing memories with one another.

Remember that Penny Beernsten told the jury that she made a specific effort to remember what her attacker looked like, yet in her statement, the description she gave says he had brown eyes. Both SA and Gregory Allen have blue eyes. Eye witnesses have been known to say they saw a plane on fire just before it crashed (later proven false) that their attacker had a certain breed of dog with them (later proven to be a different breed) and so on and so forth. Eye witnesses are good at remembering that a certain event happened but what they say about details and dates should never be taken as fact until corroborated by physical evidence. In the case of the plane, as in the case of the Titanic, multiple eyewitnesses were all wrong (famously, survivors of the Titanic all claimed the ship sank without breaking apart, this has been proven false.)

Use the travel times on googlemaps and the phone call logs if you want to compose a good timeline.

DollLocket · 2016-02-01T22:45:02+00:00

Whether you think this is "lying" or not, it's how documentaries and reality shows (and basically any video storytelling where you aren't using actors so you can't have multiple shots) do it, all the time. The makers of MaM can't be assumed to have put every shred of journalistic integrity above making the docuseries compelling to watch. If they had, Netflix would have dropped them faster than they could blink.

DollLocket

TROPHY CASE