DiscoverRebutting a Murderer
Rebutting a Murderer

Rebutting a Murderer

Author: iHeartRadio

Subscribed: 3,224Played: 22,965
Share

Description

Is Steven Avery from Making A Murderer Guilty? Rebutting A Murderer Podcast gives new facts and insights about the case
21 Episodes
Reverse
loading
Comments (9)

Ilana S

I presume that this entire podcast was written by the likes of Ken Kratz? It's filled with nothing but lies, fabricated evidence, illogical scenarios and inconsistencies throughout. I particularly love how they are quick to dismiss the complete lack of blood evidence in Steven's home by simply stating that he had time to clean it up...Yes, of course, and he also took the time to remove every trace of DNA, fiber, hair, and fingerprint, all the while managing to carefully and strategically replace all the dirt and dust found in the trailer. However, being a gracious fellow, he decided to not only keep the car on his lot, he also opted to leave behind the blood stains in the vehicle for law enforcement to find. Yup, sure makes sense to me.

Jan 12th
Reply

Martin Riggs

This is a podcast, not a one minute TV news story.. THE VOICE IS ANNOYING AF!

Jan 1st
Reply

Noah M

this show is even more bias than making a murderer, ignores even more evidence than this guy is claiming making a murderer ignores

Dec 22nd
Reply

FreakOffALeash

psshh

Dec 4th
Reply

baytiff

another issue I had with Brain Fingerprinting thing is that they only questioned him on their theory made up after a few experiments. so if their lightly experimented theory is incorrect, obviously his brain won't recognize it. they should have done it with a variety of scenarios. but the easy excuse out of that was that he heard all that stuff in trial. so... pointless test.

Dec 1st
Reply

Jason Butcher

How can you talk like that the whole time?

Nov 14th
Reply

Félix Juan Ruiz

I definitely think that Zellner's experiments were not done 100% correctly. The interesting fact is that you have a blood expert panel telling you what type of evidence should have been discovered through their decades of experience and how they were in such disbelief that the evidence "discovered" actually matches with the prosecutions narrative. In addition, I like that you clearly state your opinion in your podcast. It's much more clear about the bias than the Netflix series, since they don't mention that they are for Steven Avery's release but the way it is filmed it definitely speaks for itself. However, in your rebuttal for the experiments you pick the ones that you think are flawed but you don't mention anything about the amount of DNA found on the keys and on the hood latch and how it does not match with "touch DNA." Regardless of her experiments, there are a barrage of inconsistencies in this case. Broken chain of custodies.. etc. It's incredible how so many of the people involved in this case have been prosecuted themselves for their own crimes which should lead us to question their work ethic and the integrity of their arguments. As for Brendan, I have formal training in interrogations and have conducted several interrogations myself and the number one thing that they teach you is questioning techniques and how you should never ask yes or no questions or even ask leading questions, because it leads to bad Intel. In the Army we even require a medical screening of the person to ensure that they are able to psychologically handle the interrogation. This individual was not offered the same treatment . Treatment that we offer some terrible people. Alsoz even though my personal opinion is meaningless... with the timestamps and searches and the perjury that Bobby has clearly committed... the consent of Brendan's mother is inconsequential since even she might have been implicating. We live in a world where the Mandela Effect is a proven fact... where memories can be imprinted on an individual and false confession happen. We know that police lineups do not work nearly as good as we think... we need to stop relying on personal account and focus on forensic evidence only. If there is no forensic evidence implicating you in a crime you should not be prosecuted on that crime. Because anybody can make up a story and make an emotional deposition.

Oct 29th
Reply

Aaron Cordova

Félix Juan Ruiz Spot on.

Nov 13th
Reply

Darrell Strickland

makes some good points, but reaches pretty far (as far as the Netflix show at times) on others

Oct 28th
Reply
loading
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store