Making a Murderer on Netflix **SPOILERS**

[Moxie]

Putting space at the top. I thought it would be good to have a thread for those of us who have finished the series. You've been warned that there will be spoilers in this thread!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, crap. Are the producers pulling one over on us or are these men clearly innocent??

 

Where is the blood?? She was shot in the head but there was no blood in the trailer or even the cracks in the garage floor?!?

 

Why is Len still allowed to practice law?? Why was the investigator crying about the ribbon?? Jerks.

 

I think Lenk found her car and her body and used it as a way to save his reputation and end the lawsuit. But to ruin Brenden's life as well?? How do they sleep at night?!? My mama bear is really getting worked up.

 

If you are poor or not very bright, our legal dusts will screw you over. How depressing.

 

And there is still a murderer out there!

Edited December 30, 2015 by Moxie

[sarawatsonim]

I read somewhere yesterday that the group Anonymous plans on helping. That they have found some evidence stating his innocence. It will bee interesting to see how it plays out. 

[Guest]

I have spent too much time googling this morning. Idk, they might have done it. The documentary didn't mention that she was afraid of Steven and that he seemed to be obsessed with her.

 

I'm also troubled by how easily the public has been swayed to think he/they are innocent.

 

Idk. Glad I wasn't on the jury.

[Tangerine]

The whole thing is disturbing, but nothing made my skin crawl more than Brendan Dassey's smiling press-courting lawyer.

[Guest]

The whole thing is disturbing, but nothing made my skin crawl more than Brendan Dassey's smiling press-courting lawyer.

I have no idea if Brendan is guilty or innocent but I do firmly believe he is owed a new trial.

[livetoread]

Yes, I watched the first two episodes and spot-watched/googled the rest. I decided not to watch the rest because I felt kind of manipulated by the series. I thought they downplayed SA's past behavior and edited things in a way to make him seem like a slow but guileless guy. He was allowed to misrepresent his cat story without any challenge and I wondered what else that was true for. They quickly showed his letters to his ex-wife where he threatened to kill her, but didn't comment on it.

 

I think they were trying to get across the huge miscarriage of justice done by the system here and they get no push back from me on that. I think they were cynical too and realized that, just like in the real court of this case, in the court of public opinion evidence matters less than emotion. If they could make him more sympathetic, he would have a better shot at justice.

 

Neither SA nor Brendan should have been convicted IMO given the reasonable doubt, especially Brendan (what happened to him was a travesty), but I'm not so sure SA is innocent either.

 

Oh, and I also think the police probably tampered with evidence.

[clementine]

There are now a couple of petitions out to try to get Obama to pardon him.  

[Guest]

There are now a couple of petitions out to try to get Obama to pardon him.  

This is what I was talking about above.  It was a 10 hour, heavily edited, docutainment and now people think they are experts and know all the facts and need to intervene.  I have to think that 2 juries and how many appeals courts know a thing or two??

[SeaConquest]

I am also in the camp that believes that SA probably did it. Pouring gasoline on a cat and watching it burn alive puts one firmly in the psychopath category, IMHO. I also agree that the letters to his wife and the fact that he was quasi-stalking the victim were likely telling of his mental state. I just don't trust a heavily-edited documentary -- even one recorded over a number of years -- to give me insight into one's mental state on any given day, especially after being subjected to the trauma of 18 years of false imprisonment. The fact that there was no EDTA in the blood was also very convincing for me. At the same time, where *was* all the blood?

 

I am less convinced of Brendan's guilt, and agree that he deserves a new trial. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by SeaConquest

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I think Colburn found the victim's SUV at the quarry. Remember that he read the plate off to the dispatcher prior to the discovery of it at the salvage yard. I think he and other deputies moved her burnt bones using SA's burn barrel. They left the pelvic bones at the quarry by accident. Then they planted the SUV on the property. At some point, they planted the car key in SA's bedroom to ensure that SA would be the obvious suspect.

 

It was strange that very early on, just after the victim's SUV had been found, Colburn asked if SA had been picked up yet. He even asked if they had found her body yet even though there was no indication she was murdered at this point. This was before anything had been found inside SA's trailer or the victims bones found. This is curious because there were other people like Steve's brothers and nephews who lived on the property as well, yet Colburn just focused on SA.

 

I kept waiting for more physical evidence. The victim was chained to the bed so where were the marks on the bed? Where was the blood from her throat being slit? If she was shot in the garage, where was the blood? Eleven or 12 shell casings found, but just one bullet? Why wasn't the blood foynd in her SUV that looked like hair strands tested? If she was killed at SA's house or garage and just dumped at the nearby firepit, why was there blood in the back of her SUV? None of the prosecutions story made sense.

 

As for Brandon, I think he was railroaded and anyone who is a parent of a teen with diminished intellectual abilities ought to be very frightened by how Brandon was manipulated. The interviews of Brandon clearly illustrate how he was victimized.

Edited December 30, 2015 by NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

I read somewhere yesterday that the group Anonymous plans on helping. That they have found some evidence stating his innocence. It will bee interesting to see how it plays out.

I hope they are able to hack into Colburn and Lenk's personal cell phone records for the time period of November 3rd through 5th.

[livetoread]

Has Anonymous become our new Batman? Save us from ourselves, Anonymous!

 

I suppose anyone can claim to be them and say whatever, so I'm not holding my breath that anything will come of that. I do hope that there is some way of doing some sort of enhanced investigation legally though. I saw the Innocence Project put out a very carefully worded statement about it.

[Carrie12345]

I'm still not done, but I gave up on avoiding spoilers.

 

I do not like any of these people.  I don't think SA is a good person. I do think he would have continued to do horrible things.

 

I doubt he did this. I suppose it could be possible.  But this... this is just insane.

[kwickimom]

Whether they were innocent or guilty (I am leaning towards innocent) there is no way they proved their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. NO way. Very few bones found, no murder scene or blood, they found the car on that HUGE lot in like minutes, the key showing up after 7 searches...........

[BigMamaBird]

I don't know about Steven, but I'm firmly in the Brendan is innocent camp.  With lawyers like his, who needs criminals?  

 

When they were doing the tests on the blood smears, looking for the preservative chemical, why didn't they also do a control test of a sample of blood directly from the test tube?  It seems like with this new, rushed test, they would have been a little more systematic with their science.

 

My heart really goes out to Steven's parents.

I'm curious if those who think SA is innocent, and, are of a certain age, also think that OJ Simpson is innocent?

[Guest]

I'm curious if those who think SA is innocent, and, are of a certain age, also think that OJ Simpson is innocent?

I thought everyone knew OJ did it since he wrote that book?

I thought everyone knew OJ did it since he wrote that book?

 

Turns out he didn't actually write a word of book, or participate in the production -- he just took a half million dollars to have his name on it.

[livetoread]

I'm curious if those who think SA is innocent, and, are of a certain age, also think that OJ Simpson is innocent?

I see lots of differences. I think aside from the stronger evidence against OJ, there was a coherent storyline and no other plausible suspects.

 

In Stephen's case, the prosecution storyline is impossible given the evidence, there was a very strong motive for police framing with stronger evidence it had happened than in OJ's case, and several plausible alternative suspects that were not carefully checked out.

 

I am pretty evenly split on whether Stephen is innocent, and wasn't with OJ.

 

Does anyone else wonder if there were lie detector tests given?

[AndyJoy]

I don't know about Steven, but I'm firmly in the Brendan is innocent camp. With lawyers like his, who needs criminals?

 

When they were doing the tests on the blood smears, looking for the preservative chemical, why didn't they also do a control test of a sample of blood directly from the test tube? It seems like with this new, rushed test, they would have been a little more systematic with their science.

 

My heart really goes out to Steven's parents.

The documentary leaves out a lot. I don't have source documents but a lot of others discussing the case online say they did test blood from the vial and found the presence of the preservative. I want to know if they smeared some of it on a car surface, let it dry for a similar period of time under similar conditions, and then tested it. It seems plausible that the preservative might not be present in the same concentration once it's dried, been exposed to air, etc. Edited December 31, 2015 by AndyJoy

[kwickimom]

I'm curious if those who think SA is innocent, and, are of a certain age, also think that OJ Simpson is innocent?

 

I think SA is innocent and OJ is guilty as heck. 

[Carrie12345]

I didn't follow the OJ trial.  

[BigMamaBird]

I found this article today that talks about the actual filmmakers themselves and the process they went through while making this documentary.  Now, it's Buzzfeed, not exactly the New York Times, but it is interesting.  It answers some questions of mine and raises some others.  I thought you might find it interesting.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwieselman/making-a-murderer-burning-questions-answered#.dk5aKPjXN

[Lady Marmalade]

This was a local event for me.   I have not seen the documentary, nor do I plan to, but there has been a major outcry from people "in the know" that this documentary was very skewed and did not present the facts correctly.  The sheriffs department acted correctly and precisely and are now getting threats because of inaccurate reporting for the sake of entertainment. 

 

There was absolutely no doubt that SA murdered that woman.  No doubt.  That poor family... they thought they had closure when these men were convicted and their appeals fell short.  Now it's all coming back out again and I feel so awful for that girl's family. 

[SeaConquest]

This was a local event for me.   I have not seen the documentary, nor do I plan to, but there has been a major outcry from people "in the know" that this documentary was very skewed and did not present the facts correctly.  The sheriffs department acted correctly and precisely and are now getting threats because of inaccurate reporting for the sake of entertainment. 

 

There was absolutely no doubt that SA murdered that woman.  No doubt.  That poor family... they thought they had closure when these men were convicted and their appeals fell short.  Now it's all coming back out again and I feel so awful for that girl's family. 

 

Erika, did you watch the trials when they happened? I am curious what specific evidence led to your conclusion with such certainty. As this was not something that was on my radar until recently, I would love to hear more about the evidentiary basis for your opinion. :)

[Lady Marmalade]

Erika, did you watch the trials when they happened? I am curious what specific evidence led to your conclusion with such certainty. As this was not something that was on my radar until recently, I would love to hear more about the evidentiary basis for your opinion. :)

 

Here is a very lengthy article from 2006 that my local paper linked to earlier today.

 

*Warning* The description by Dassey is pretty disturbing and detailed.

 

http://www.milwaukeemag.com/2006/05/01/blood-simple/

 

I just remember all the press conferences... watching the nightly news daily to see what went on during the whole time they were investigating the disappearance.   SA had been in the news previously (quite a bit) for his release due to the Innocence Project. It really wasn't a far cry to see that he had maybe been thinking that since he'd already served time for a crime he didn't commit, why not actually commit a crime and see what he could get away with a second time.

 

Brendan Dassey's confession- as reported in the article I linked, was SO thorough and detailed.  I always thought that when they talked to him on camera that there was just no way he was intelligent enough or capable of making the confession up.  He maybe should have gotten a lesser sentence because he was a minor who was so easily swept up into his uncle's devious plan, but I don't know anyone around here who ever thought that the wrong decisions had been reached in the courtroom.  Even Avery's family believed the two were rightfully convicted.  

 

Yes, the DA was a bit of a *$%^, and he came across very arrogant in interviews and press conferences, but there is a HUGE difference between sexting and planting/tampering with evidence. Not that I think the sexting was okay in any way...

Edited December 31, 2015 by Lady Marmalade

[livetoread]

Lady Marmalade, you need to watch the taped interviews they did to get that detailed confession from Brendan.

[Guest]

LM, I understand you don't want to watch the documentary but I wish you would. I'd love to discuss it with someone local.

[December]

 

 

Brendan Dassey's confession- as reported in the article I linked, was SO thorough and detailed. 

 

 

Reading the article, the description of what happened is based on multiple sources and is an account of how the prosecutor would describe it, not an account given by Dassey, though of course it is based on statements he made.  Quoting from the article:

 

"Based on criminal complaints, statements to police by Dassey, statements by investigators and prosecutors and interviews by Milwaukee Magazine with Avery’s mother, father and brothers, here is an account of Teresa’s death as the prosecutor is likely to describe it, a picture of pure terror."

 

If you watch the video of the confession, it becomes clear, I think, that his confession was only so detailed because the investigators spent hours asking for more and more details.  They wanted him to confess to Theresa being shot in the head, because that was a detail that no one except the police knew about at that time.  So they kept asking him, "What else happened?  What else did you do to her? You did something to her head, what did you guys do to her head?"  and he kept coming up with more ideas of what they could have done to her.  He never did come up with shooting her, until the investigator asked, "Which one of you shot her?"  If he had just sat down and spilled out the whole story in one go I would agree that is too detailed to just make up, but with hours of being asked, "What did you do then?" while receiving negative verbal reinforcement for answers that the investigators didn't like and positive reinforcement for answers they did like, it doesn't surprise me at all that he could come up with so many details.

[6packofun]

 

 

There was absolutely no doubt that SA murdered that woman.  No doubt.  

 

What would you say is the evidence that leaves no doubt?  I'm curious about your take on why Theresa's blood was in the back of her Rav4 and the several instances of what appear to be inconsistencies in the prosecution's timeline(s).  I've never had a clear picture of what anyone actually thinks happened or if most people just don't know, yet still believe he did it.

Edited January 4, 2016 by 6packofun

[DesertBlossom]

I am only 3 episodes in, but I feel so bad for Brendan. From the recordings, it seems like he just had no idea what was going on.

[Guest]

I am only 3 episodes in, but I feel so bad for Brendan. From the recordings, it seems like he just had no idea what was going on.

Oh, agreed!! When he asked about going back to school after "confessing", I almost cried. I don't know how those grown men sleep at night.

[DesertBlossom]

When his mom asked how he could have come up with all those details if they weren't true he said "I guessed." He really was just saying what he thought they wanted to hear. And then to hear him say he was stupid was really sad.

[FriedClams]

Oh.my.word.

 

Y'all sucked me in. 10 hours gone.

 

I'm glad I watched it. It's kind of haunting me. I'm so thankful for SA's defense team. They struck me as such genuine, excellent, honest men. They really seemed like they were concerned for SA, BA, and the system. They (and the Innocence guys - Laura and the rest) left me with hope for the future of our legal system.

[AlmiraGulch]

I've read about some of the additional evidence that was not presented in the series.  Even with it, I still could not have convicted SA had I been on that jury.  The investigative incompetence and, in my opinion, corruption, was clear and staggering.  I obviously don't know if he did it or not, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did, but he was not afforded the rights and protections that are supposed to exist in our justice system.  Not by a long shot. 

 

As for Brendan Avery?  That kid was absolutely railroaded.  No doubt about it.  I'm convinced that he actually had nothing to do with it at all.  

 

The most compelling takeaway for me, though, is that apparently every phone conversation in Wisconsin begins with "Yeah?  Yeah."  haha

 

 

[6packofun]

And then to hear him say he was stupid was really sad.

 

My dh cried at that part.  :(  It's heartbreaking to think that Brendan's mental capacity--lack of it--is pretty much why he is spending his life in prison!  I mean, not having an advocate there with him was cruel, IMO!!  It made me sick to see him ask what words meant (indictment...his mom didn't even know what that meant!) and when they asked if he had any weapons on him, he told them he had a CD player.  ??!!!  They knew they could talk circles around him and he'd be utterly confused.  So inexcusable to me.  

 

In the documentary it was hard to know what evidence, like the filmed questioning sessions, the jury actually got to see.  (Did they SEE how the investigator said, "OK, I'll just come out and say it...who shot her in the head?" because that was a freaking bombshell to me!)  On the other hand, the closing arguments by the prosecution against Brendan mentioned something about him wanting to try sex or a fantasy or something and I was taken aback because I don't remember any sexual motivation in the rest of the documentary.  So I know we're not getting a full picture, but I'm not sure there IS anything that would take away my reasonable doubt in his case.

[Annie G]

It was so sad when Brendan asked what inconsistencies meant and his mom couldn't tell him. And when he said he was stupid. Oh, that poor boy.  I don't even want to think about what kind of awful things have happened to him in prison all these years. 

[Lady Marmalade]

What would you say is the evidence that leaves no doubt?  I'm curious about your take on why Theresa's blood was in the back of her Rav4 and the several instances of what appear to be inconsistencies in the prosecution's timeline(s).  I've never had a clear picture of what anyone actually thinks happened or if most people just don't know, yet still believe he did it.

 

http://www.ranker.com/list/making-a-murderer-missing-evidence/candice-darden?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=making_a_murderer_evidence

 

I suspect Ranker is not an ideal site, BUT if you can get past the clickbait, these are the things that were very clear and all over the news when this case was on-going and in the news all the time around here.  

 

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that a documentary might be one-sided in the information it presents. 

[unsinkable]

So many questions...this isn't really important but how did Branden Dassey's dad end up marrying Steve Avery's ex-wife?

 

And did anyone else see Brandon's step-father smile when the guilty verdict was read?

[DesertBlossom]

http://www.ranker.com/list/making-a-murderer-missing-evidence/candice-darden?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=making_a_murderer_evidence

 

I suspect Ranker is not an ideal site, BUT if you can get past the clickbait, these are the things that were very clear and all over the news when this case was on-going and in the news all the time around here.

 

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that a documentary might be one-sided in the information it presents.

Dassey says he helped Avery move the car and that's how the DNA got under the hood? We didn't get to watch that part of his confession, but at this point I have a hard time believing he wasn't manipulated into saying that as well.

 

The other evidence is interesting though.

[unsinkable]

It was so sad when Brendan asked what inconsistencies meant and his mom couldn't tell him. And when he said he was stupid. Oh, that poor boy. I don't even want to think about what kind of awful things have happened to him in prison all these years.

I thought at one point he was offered a deal to get out in 15 years. It is really sad to think he'd be halfway done if he had taken the deal...that the way things are working out that being railroaded into that deal would have been better for him.

 

I don't believe his confessions are what really occurred.

[MistyMountain]

This series is an interesting case. I haven't finished watching but I have been reading. I am actually finding it hard to stay focused on it at times. I am not as riveted as some people.

 

I still think that SA can still be responsible. They really glossed over or barely mentioned some things about him that he did and some of the evidence. The stuff they put is very cherry picked which I understand with so much footage. They wanted to show they did not get a fair trial. I get why it was and I am not surprised by that but a lot if people are probably not aware of the details that were left out.

 

I noticed in the first episode it mentions that he always owns up to what he did but I do not think he really takes full culpability for his actions even if he admitted to them. Dousing a cat in lighter fluid and throwing it in a fire is not just a stupid youthful thing he did by accident because he had bad influences in his life. They do not even mention the part about dousing the cat in lighter fluid. They also barely mention his threats to his ex wife or that he was ordered to stay away from his fiancé and lots of other things. He actually got a 6 year sentence for the incident with his cousin so he actually lost 12 years of his life to the first wrongful accusation not 18.

 

It is obvious there is some reasonable doubt in the case and that it was really mishandled. You are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty and they should not be questioning anyone never mind a 16 year old with that IQ with no attorney present. I heard that the full recording is not as bad as the parts the show shows but still he should not have been questioned like that. They really also did not really examine other possible suspects as much as they should.

 

One thing that has been bothering me is that people are now calling people who made comments before this series was out stupid for thinking he was the murderer. Anyone who still thinks he might have done it or that a lot was left out is likewise called all sorts of names. A lot of people really do not seem to know how to debate topics, discuss things reasonably, and hear other people's viewpoint to see where they are coming from.

Edited January 6, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Guest]

This series is an interesting case. I haven't finished watching but I have been reading. I am actually finding it hard to stay focused on it at times. I am not as riveted as some people.

 

I still think that SA can still be responsible. They really glossed over or barely mentioned some things about him that he did and some of the evidence. The stuff they put is very cherry picked which I understand with so much footage and they wanted to show they did not get a fair trial. I get that it was and I am not surprised by that but a lot if people are probably not aware of the details that were left out.

 

I noticed in the first episode it mentions that he always owns up to what he did but I do not think he really takes full culpability for his actions even if he admitted to them. Dousing a cat in lighter fluid and throwing it in a fire is not just a stupid youthful thing he did by accident because he had bad influences in his life. They do not even mention the part about dousing the cat in lighter fluid. They also barely mention his threats to his ex wife or that he was ordered to stay away from his fiancé and lots of other things. He actually got a 6 year sentence for the incident with his cousin so he actually lost 12 years of his life to the first wrongful accusation not 18.

 

It is obvious there is some reasonable doubt in the case and that it was really mishandled. You are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty and they should not be questioning anyone never mind a 16 year old with that IQ with no attorney present. I heard that the full recording is not as bad as the parts the show shows but still he should not have been questioned like that. They really also did not really examine other possible suspects as much as they should.

 

One thing that has been bothering me is that people are now calling people who made comments before this series was out stupid for thinking he was the murderer. Anyone who still thinks he might have done it or that a lot was left out is likewise called all sorts of names. A lot of People really do not seem to know how to debate topics, discuss things reasonably, and hear other people's viewpoint to see where they are coming from.

Agreed! A 10-hour documentary does not make a person an expert!

[DesertBlossom]

One of the jurors said they thought he was innocent, the guilty/not guilty counts was a compromise and they were afraid of the police. The jurors had all agreed not to talk to the media.

 

http://www.today.com/popculture/making-murderer-filmmakers-our-goal-was-question-us-justice-system-t65161

 

 

And the dismissed juror that was on the film, says he later found out that one juror was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy and another juror's wife works at the County Clerk's office.

 

 

For those looking for original coverage, the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinal made a list of all the articles they wrote.

Ugh. It seems that there was so much wrong with the whole case. I hate to say it, but I would rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man get locked up.

 

Was it in the documentary where someone pretty much said that if SA hadn't been let free from jail for the rape than he wouldn't have been able to commit the murder? Did I hear that right? That just blows my mind. While it's horrible that TH was murdered, it's not okay that an innocent man was in jail. That line of thinking lends itself to the idea that we should/could lock up people who *might* commit crimes. It's not the job of the criminal justice system to try to prevent crimes. And it seems that's almost the reasoning they people had- they felt SA was no good scum who was better off lockdd up even if he wasn't guilty of this particular crime.

Edited January 6, 2016 by DesertBlossom

[6packofun]

This may be a topic to take to a S/O thread, but I'm curious how many people feel that one incident of animal cruelty pretty much definitively indicates a possible serial killer/psychopath?  I *love* animals and understand the correlation that has been established after the fact, I guess, but I can think of instances where people are quite cruel to animals--actually, many people working in poultry/pork/beef farms and processing plants might qualify--and never ever become killers.  I don't know all the details of the cat incident.  Was SA drunk? Does that matter?  What was his state of mind at the time and doesn't *enjoyment*--not stupid hillbilly pranks that go way too far--play a part?

 

I just see violence against animals, even a one-time thing, being equated unequivocally to the potential for killing human beings all the time and I'm not sold on that. 

[livetoread]

This may be a topic to take to a S/O thread, but I'm curious how many people feel that one incident of animal cruelty pretty much definitively indicates a possible serial killer/psychopath? I *love* animals and understand the correlation that has been established after the fact, I guess, but I can think of instances where people are quite cruel to animals--actually, many people working in poultry/pork/beef farms and processing plants might qualify--and never ever become killers. I don't know all the details of the cat incident. Was SA drunk? Does that matter? What was his state of mind at the time and doesn't *enjoyment*--not stupid hillbilly pranks that go way too far--play a part?

 

I just see violence against animals, even a one-time thing, being equated unequivocally to the potential for killing human beings all the time and I'm not sold on that.

I agree. There is waaay more casual animal cruelty out there than there are sociopathic murderers!

 

I think it comes from the trifecta associated with serial killers, namely animal cruelty, late bed-wetting, and arson, but even then it isn't exactly diagnostic. I think I remember reading somewhere that actually it is more predictive of child abuse; IOWs someone exhibiting these three behaviors is a lot more likely to be a victim of abuse rather than grow into a perpetrator (not that those are exclusive).

 

I was bothered by the cat story because I thought SA totally downplayed it and the film makers allowed him to do so. It made me question their forthrightness. I didn't see it as useful information regarding his ability to commit murder, I saw it as useful info into his character (he lies) and useful info about the film makers (they let him).

[Carrie12345]

This may be a topic to take to a S/O thread, but I'm curious how many people feel that one incident of animal cruelty pretty much definitively indicates a possible serial killer/psychopath?  I *love* animals and understand the correlation that has been established after the fact, I guess, but I can think of instances where people are quite cruel to animals--actually, many people working in poultry/pork/beef farms and processing plants might qualify--and never ever become killers.  I don't know all the details of the cat incident.  Was SA drunk? Does that matter?  What was his state of mind at the time and doesn't *enjoyment*--not stupid hillbilly pranks that go way too far--play a part?

 

I just see violence against animals, even a one-time thing, being equated unequivocally to the potential for killing human beings all the time and I'm not sold on that. 

 

I don't *quite* think it's definitive, but I think it's such a prevalent occurrence in highly disturbed people that it's entirely too risky to ignore.  I can't research stats right now, but it certainly seems as though animal abuse, torture, and killing is a giant link.  Or I watch too much TV.

 

I have never personally heard stories of people who tortured/risked animals (sober or drunk) and then went on to function normally in society. Though I realize it's not something people might go on to advertise.  Still, I would think people might have stories of other people that would get around.

[MistyMountain]

It is highly correlated with psychopathy. Most violent serial killers tortured and harmed or killed animals. I do not think everyone that does that is a pyscopath but it is not typical behavior. It depends on how it happens. If someone is prone to anger and overreaction and hurts an animal that is different then just showing no emotion towards an animal feeling pain and wanting to see it suffer. What really got me is how he downplayed it and was not fully honest about the incident. I do not know enough about the incident to know what was going on when it happen. I do not know the chances that someone who intentially harms and kills animals will go on to hurt humans or continue that type of behavior.

 

I do not know for sure if he killed her. He is very calm during the interviewing and if he did kill her then he does not show signs of an anxiety response or emotion but that could also mean he did not do it.

 

I think cruelty in factory farming is a different thing altogether and more similar to how people acted during the Nazi reign.

Edited January 7, 2016 by MistyMountain

[DesertBlossom]

I don't *quite* think it's definitive, but I think it's such a prevalent occurrence in highly disturbed people that it's entirely too risky to ignore. I can't research stats right now, but it certainly seems as though animal abuse, torture, and killing is a giant link. Or I watch too much TV.

 

I have never personally heard stories of people who tortured/risked animals (sober or drunk) and then went on to function normally in society. Though I realize it's not something people might go on to advertise. Still, I would think people might have stories of other people that would get around.

 

A couple of my childhood friends put a bird in a microwave. They are now functional, highly educated individuals.

[Guest]

I think SA could have killed her. I think there is zero chance it happened the way the prosecution claims. And I don't think we'll get to the truth on Brendan on this side of heaven. I'm not sure Brendan knows the truth at this point.