You should watch all of his interviews. He offers up a lot of details without being coerced at all.

 

Do these take place before or after the initial interrogation where he gives up those details? If it is before that's one thing, but if it is after them it could easily be argued that he was trying to keep the story straight because he thought that was what his interrogators wanted. He is not a strong willed person for sure.

Do these take place before or after the initial interrogation where he gives up those details? If it is before that's one thing, but if it is after them it could easily be argued that he was trying to keep the story straight because he thought that was what his interrogators wanted. He is not a strong willed person for sure.

 

There's a part at the end of the interrogation where they ask him if he's hungry and he says no then they bring him a sandwich and tell him to eat it and he does right away. It's strange.

I know one fact to be true and that is I watched this in one sitting. Can you say Binge.

 

Do these take place before or after the initial interrogation where he gives up those details? If it is before that's one thing, but if it is after them it could easily be argued that he was trying to keep the story straight because he thought that was what his interrogators wanted. He is not a strong willed person for sure.

 

I think there's some truth to his statements. I don't think all of it is true. I don't know if any of it is either.

 

I've seen two different interviews with him and he offered up some details in his own in both.

 

The documentary didn't show any of that though...

 

Regardless, I think his initial attorney was worthless and everyone deserves better representation.

 

Although, if he took the deal that attorney was working on, he'd have been looking at 20 years right? Now he's in for life...

Do these take place before or after the initial interrogation where he gives up those details? If it is before that's one thing, but if it is after them it could easily be argued that he was trying to keep the story straight because he thought that was what his interrogators wanted. He is not a strong willed person for sure.

Excellent points. Unless he offered up these details on his very first interview, anything he says afterwards is suspect as influenced by the police.

Thoughts on this?

 

A Cold Case Expert Thinks ?Making A Murderer? May Be Tied To One Of The Most Prolific Serial Killers Ever ? Page 3 ? UPROXX

You should watch all of his interviews. He offers up a lot of details without being coerced at all.

 

Even if he offered up details, the details need to be verifiable and consistent with the physical evidence. For example, when they were grilling him about something being done to her head, didn't he say they cut her hair? That's a detail I suppose, but it can't be proven.

 

Edit: and I guess I disagree with the "without being coerced at all" part too. The atmosphere and circumstances were coercive and in my opinion permeated throughout.

I saw that too. If what is in the article and the sites linked in it are true then that is INSANE!

Jerry Buting's response to Kratz's allegations that the documentary didn't show all of the prosecution's evidence.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115?utm_content=inf_10_2720_2&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=tsejan2016&tse_id=INF_889a064cac8349e0b3b69480797b91ac

 

 

Looks like they left out things for the defense too.

 

Even if he offered up details, the details need to be verifiable and consistent with the physical evidence. For example, when they were grilling him about something being done to her head, didn't he say they cut her hair? That's a detail I suppose, but it can't be proven.

 

Edit: and I guess I disagree with the "without being coerced at all" part too. The atmosphere and circumstances were coercive and in my opinion permeated throughout.

 

Look, it's clear some things were made up to please them, like the hair thing.

 

If you haven't watched the interviews I don't know why we're having the discussion.

 

I've seen two of them.

Look, it's clear some things were made up to please them, like the hair thing.

 

If you haven't watched the interviews I don't know why we're having the discussion.

 

I've seen two of them.

 

Okay. I am always ready to be corrected. So what are some of the details that he gave, that he could not have known otherwise from news reports, that show his confession was true.

I think Steven is guilty as charged but I also believe the police pulled a few stunts to help make their case even more solid. It's almost a certainty that the key to the vehicle was planted in the room. I mean, get real, officers had combed that room 7 times and on the 7th search they suddenly find the key laying in plain view. Who were these guys....Mr MaGoo?

I think Steven is guilty as charged but I also believe the police pulled a few stunts to help make their case even more solid. It's almost a certainty that the key to the vehicle was planted in the room. I mean, get real, officers had combed that room 7 times and on the 7th search they suddenly find the key laying in plain view. Who were these guys....Mr MaGoo?

What makes you feel that he is guilty?

What makes you feel that he is guilty?

The secrecy with his phone calls and attempts to conceal who was calling. And asking specifically for that lady to be the one to come take the pictures. That's one reason. Which that alone would not convict him, but it does appear he had some not so good plans in the making involving the woman. She had mentioned to co-workers that she didn't like going to his home because he "creeped her out".

The secrecy with his phone calls and attempts to conceal who was calling. And asking specifically for that lady to be the one to come take the pictures. That's one reason. Which that alone would not convict him, but it does appear he had some not so good plans in the making involving the woman. She had mentioned to co-workers that she didn't like going to his home because he "creeped her out".

 

I don't know as thought I could decide one way or the other. I can't find convincing evidence and there are several other possible good suspects that it seems were not investigated. I most certainly feel that he shouldn't have been convicted.