All of these questions are left fluttering around my inquisitive mind at the moment. I cannot stop thinking about this documentary that was released on Netflix in December 2015. I wrote a little summary of the “so far” after watching a few episodes, The Steven Avery case, and now I have watched the entire documentary. I am left feeling quite confused with some questions that I really wish I could ask the court myself.

Image from Netflix

Making a Murderer is a must see

I have so many questions that are left unanswered, and not just for my benefit, for his defence team too I am sure. How can this be? How can there be unanswered questions left at the end of a fair trial? I suppose it all depends on what you class as a fair trial. I suspect this was more like a witch hunt – sounds like the original trial all over again doesn’t it? So, here are my unanswered questions and some thoughts behind them:

Where are the blood splatters?

So, he apparantly stabbed her, slit her throat and shot her in the head. Where are the blood trails and splatters? You cannot do any of those things and not produce blood, surely? There was evidence by a specialist, that the skull fragments found had been caused by a gun shot. So if she was shot, where are the blood splatters? I think I have seen enough on TV to know that a gun shot to the head would end up with plenty of blood splatters. Why has there been no search for a crime scene? Just a focus on the garage and trailer.

Why was Dassey convicted?

He said that they did all kinds of things in a trailer, which could not possibly have been true as there was no DNA evidence of this whatsoever. Teresa’s DNA was not found in the trailer, let alone Dassey’s. Even if she walked in to the trailer, a hair would be somewhere or a finger print would be placed on something, surely? Top this off with the evidence from above (gun shot/skull) this completely contradicts Dassey’s evidence. Then you have the whole debate about how he was questioned, he was frightened by the police investigators, he changed his story every single time – as if to suggest he was just saying what he thought he “should” say. It just doesn’t make sense. Then it was used as evidence for his uncle’s case. Why? It was unreliable. Obtained from situations that were not normal for police questioning. It’s disgusting behaviour from his defence lawyer at the time. I am glad he didn’t last long.

But, the evidence suggests gun shot to the head?

As I mentioned above, the two paragraphs before this, simply contradict eachother. How can she be shot in the skull and stabbed/slit etc? How can there have been so many variations of this death. The puzzle pieces do not fit together.

Bullet fragments found in garage, did they match gun?

Did anyone investigate if the bullet in the gun matched the gun siezed from Steven’s home? Then was it matched to the body parts found, if possible. Surely someone can prove a link or not so, whichever way around it might be.

Why would Steven store the RAV 4 on his own land?

Who in there right mind, would kill someone on their own land and hide the vehicle on their own land. When there is a perfectly good car crusher on site? The prosecution are clearly suggesting here that Steven is clever enough and skilled enough to erase blood stains and DNA, completely from his home and Teresa’s belongings. So I guess he was clever enough to demolish the car in the crusher too?

Not hide it, in a car park, THE most obvious place to hide a car.

Why was Teresa’s car locked?

I found out, after watching the Netflix show, that her car was found locked up. So, let me get this straight, he was also clever enough to clean the car completely of DNA, including her own and leave a blood trail (whilst wearing gloves if no finger prints found etc). And after doing all of that, he left the car locked. Why? Why would you kill someone, move their vehicle and lock it? Or maybe that was part of the framing – locking the car would suggest that there is a key to be found. Oh, I wonder where the key was found? Oh that’s right…

The car keys must have magic powers.

How on earth did the keys not get seen, the first six times, his house was searched? The key was very obviously found in sight. How did it go unfound for so long, after so many searches. What a coincidence that it was found by the cop involved in Steven’s initial case. A cop, who most definitely, should not have been on that land in the first place!

Was there an investigation in to the key? Did Teresa only carry around her car key? No house keys? Was the blue lanyard something that she was seen with? Were the other people investigated and asked questions from her other two appointments. They might have seen the keys she was holding? They might have noticed something.

How was Teresa’s DNA not on her own car keys?

How can you own a car and a set of keys and not have your own DNA on them? This is ridiculous. So Steven was clever enough and skillful enough to remove every trace of DNA from the car and keys of Teresa’s but leave his own. Why would you do that? If you wanted to clean these things up, you would clean your own off including Teresa’s – not just hers. It is crazy. It’s like they were two seperate actions. Cleaning off the DNA and then at a later time, adding Steven’s.

Why did her ex and room mate not get questioned?

The ex and room mate looked particularly dodgy on the footage shown. I remember thinking that they looked peculiar. Why did they not get questioned? Didnt one of them point the lady in the direction of the car too. How peculiar? Was that just a lucky guess? How did they know what the land was like? Where the cars were parked? If I had never been on the land before, I wouldnt know where to start!

Where did her voicemails go?

Someone deleted voicemails off her mobile phone, after she disappeared. Possibly after she died too. How? Turns out they would have had to have known her password. The ex or roommate (whichever it was), when questioned about hacking into her phone logs, suggested he knew passwords or could guess very easily. Oh look, there’s a link. Was that explored and investigated? Probably not.

Why was there blood in the car?

If you kill someone in your home, burn them outside of your home, why on earth would you drive her somewhere? You would have no need to put her back in the car bleeding all over it. Or was it a case of murder committed somewhere else, driven to location and put in fire pit?

Where did the blood in the car come from?

There was specks of Steven’s blood in the car. But no finger prints. How can you leave blood but no finger prints. To drive a car you would need to touch many parts, including doors, seats and the wheel for starters. Clever Steven managed to clean the car entirely from the finger prints, but leave blood specs from the cut on his hand. That just doesn’t make sense. Does it? Whether it was done in the light or the dark, he was good enough to remove finger prints so must have been good enough to remove the blood too.

DO NOT get me started on the vial of blood found. With a needle point through the top of it. With the sealed tape cut. Oh what a coincidence. If that was opened, legimately, after the trial there would have been a log of it. There would have been a reason logged, somewhere. It’s just crazy.

Does blood change depending on sugar levels or food etc. Did the blood from the vial match the blood from Steven at the time of the new trial? Not sure if this is a silly question but if your blood is the same all of the time then I guess this question can be ignored.

Was there any CCTV?

Was there any CCTV footage investigated for the area? Even streets a few blocks off, it may have seen her driving off the land after her appointment!

Why did they assume it was Steven?

I suppose this is one of the first questions to ask, but why did they instantly suggest it was him? Why did they ban him from his land for over a week? Why did they arrest him before she was found dead? The phone call of the police knowing the RAV 4 plates and asking why he was in custody already really make you think. How did they know it was that car? That plate? Why did they arrest him before any evidence was found? Its just like the first case, they wanted it to be him. They didnt care about anything else, other than detaining him. They would make the rest of the puzzle match up to make their case I suppose.

And more importantly, where is the actual DNA evidence of anything?

I can see nothing, but circumstance, to suggest that there was a murder that took place on that land. NOTHING. It could have very easily have been planted. Why did some things appear days after searching? Why did things appear after several searches? Why did the police help when they were told not to? Why was no one looking out for Steven? No defence at all from what I could see at the start. If the person at the start of the investigation, from outside of the police force, had done his job properly – questions would have been asked from both sides and other people would have been investigated, other places searched for blood splatters etc. Did anyone check her apartment for blood splatters?

And so…

Somewhere, there is a crime scene left unfound. Somewhere, there is a weapon with evidence waiting to be found. Somewhere, there is someone with memories of committing a crime and I hope they turn themselves in – as it will not be long before the truth is found. As I find it really hard to believe that Steven did this to himself!

I feel, in my honest opinion, that the police did not DO this to Teresa in order to set up Steven (I suppose that feeling is more hope that they haven’t), but I do believe that someone else has killed her and thought they could get away with it by framing Steven. Or even, did it on purpose to frame Steven – what a chilling thought. Maybe the police paid off a low life criminal to do their dirty work for them. Or maybe the police (for example the police from the original investigation) saw the opportunity to get Steven off their backs once and for all. I cannot see how and why Steven would kill someone, just after being released from prison for a crime he did not committ, when building his life up again. Why he would do this? On his own land? It just doesn’t make any sense!

Go Kathleen Zellner!

I was really happy to see in the news this week that Steven has a new lawyer and that she is investigating his land, including the trailer and garage to see if there is any blood. She looks like she is going to rock this case and hopefully get some questions answered. I loved reading her tweets, they are just so true:


Categorized in:


Last Update: Monday, 15th February 2016