Netflix: Making a Murderer

[thewap]

Look at the link I posted above and watch the video. There was a criminal in the area that has destroyed bones like that in the past.

Yes, I just did some research on Edward Waynes Edwards the last two days, it is a very interesting theory that matches the MO of planted evidence (to incriminate both defendant and police). Here is an interesting youtube radio interview with the expert of this serial killer who immediately recognized the similarities of the Avery murder case to Waynes as the possible killer, and also seems to recognized Waynes in the Avery documentary making a *cameo* appearance as was also his MO in his murders.

 

[Moyank24]

Yes, I just did some research on Edward Waynes Edwards the last two days, it is a very interesting theory that matches the MO of planted evidence (to incriminate both defendant and police). Here is an interesting youtube radio interview with the expert of this serial killer who immediately recognized the similarities of the Avery murder case to Waynes as the possible killer, and also seems to recognized Waynes in the Avery documentary making a *cameo* appearance as was also his MO in his murders.

Edward Waynes Edwards may be the most serial killerist name of all time.

 

[thewap]

Edward Waynes Edwards may be the most serial killerist name of all time.

Indeed, and admitted being the zodiac killer when the writer de-cyphered his code in the serial killer's book, when the writer interviewed Edwards in jail.

Deemed a genius by the age of 12 when he committed his 1rst murder, he became an expert on framing people for his murders by the age of 13.

Edwards killed on Halloween - Theresa in the Avery case was killed on Halloween.

Edwards was finally arrested for a murder in Wisconsin in 2009.

Edwards killed by tying up the victim, slashing the throat, then shooting, then fragmenting the body with explosives internally, then burned them in pre-made planned crematoriums/ovens.

Edwards then planted DNA evidence to incriminate his chosen patsy in high recognition cases (Avery case is high recognition case) to incriminate the defendants and incriminate the police.

Edwards also made cameo appearances in news, photos to amuse himself - possibly seen in the Avery documentary as per the writer expert.

Edwards has a unique serial killer profile unlike any other, and pre-planned his murders and framing of everyone for years at a time in each of his cases.

It is my understanding that one of the leading lawyers in freeing falsely accused murder defendants framed by Edwards (the zodiac killer) is now representing Steven Avery.

 

[Tomorrow]

That said, I think that the Manitowoc police officers invited a lot of this on themselves. They should have been nowhere near the scene of the crime, at any point.

I completely agree. They could have just stood down and allowed the investigation to take its natural course without them - all the evidence pointed to Avery, anyway.

And I truly do believe that they planted the key. It was found during the 7th search. 7th! Do you honestly believe that they missed the key the first 6 times? And why was only a single key found in there? And not her whole keychain? And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't only his DNA on the key and not hers? That seems odd as well. I don't think that means that he didn't do it, but I do think that they wanted to make sure he didn't get out this time.

Good questions all. I'll address them here:

a) Yes, I honestly believe they missed the key the first six times. Takes me that long to find mine, sometimes, especially if they fell back behind a nightstand or bookcase during my first search. I don't know that that's what happened, but it's entirely feasible. Much more feasible, in my mind, than point c) below.

b) Looks to me like that key detached from something, likely the rest of her keychain. If Avery moved her car to the salvage yard (I can't fathom who else it would have been), there would have been no need for him to have her entire keychain, just enough to move the car.

c) Yes, his DNA (from his perspiration, NOT his blood) was on the key and hers was not. I'm no DNA expert, but my guess is that it's entirely possible to handle something (like, with your hands) and not leave DNA. Again, it was his perspiration that was on the key. Maybe she wasn't sweaty (it was Halloween, after all), maybe because the key was in her pocket any of her sweat got wiped off, who knows?

Overall, your implicit question seems to be: "Did the Manitowoc police plant evidence?" I don't think they did. I think they could have, but I don't think they did. And in my mind, the opportunity to do so does not mean that it was acted upon; I didn't see any evidence that pointed to the police doing it.

None of the mentioned alleged *evidence* omitted in the documentary are or were *key* to the case or a *smoking gun* that would definitely incriminate Steve Avery beyond a shadow of doubt for the murder.

Really? His DNA on her car and on her key? His gun having fired a bullet found with her blood on it? That's not a "smoking" enough gun for you?

Most of the evidence presented is questionable as to how any of it got on the property, and there is no forensic evidence of a *murder site* that corroborates the prosecution's multiple conflicting arguments of the murder scene theory (which murder scene is it??).

Now, here's where presentation in the documentary gets even dicier.

You have to remember that you and I had the benefit of seeing both cases (Avery's and Dassey's) playing out side-by-side. We heard Dassey's story of the murder, and the prosecutor's presentation during Avery's trial. And yes, they were different, which is weird - but you must remember, the prosecution only presented ONE story to the jury during Avery's trial, and the evidence at the scene (her bones in his fire pit, the bullet with her blood on it in Avery's garage, etc.) DID match the story they told. I agree that Dassey's case is another matter altogether, but the case presented in Avery's trial WAS consistent and DID match the crime scene.

You say it's "questionable" as to how any of the evidence got on the property? It's not "questionable" that Hallbach drove her car to Avery's property, it's not "questionable" that the bullet with her DNA came from Avery's gun, and it's not "questionable" that her bones would be in his fire pit since she was seen on his property. It would be MORE "questionable" to suggest that she showed up, left, got killed elsewhere, then got brought BACK to his fire pit. THAT's a questionable story.

There is also as of recent it seems allegations of the jury having been threatened, and two of the jurors now are revealed as related to the sheriff's dept.

This is interesting - do you have a source for this? Who threatened the jury? Or, who made the allegations?

 

[Gregg2]

..., I also wonder if they left out some conclusive details about his guilt.

That's what the prosecutor says about the program.

what about brenden dassey?

when you get framed by the police, its pretty easy to look guilty in the media.

I didn't form a strong opinion about his guilt. Seemed he was lead astray by his uncle.

By the way, there are some entertaining documentaries about the Kennedy assassination that seem pretty convincing too. Most if not all of them have been debunked.

 

[thewap]

Really? His DNA on her car and on her key? His gun having fired a bullet found with her blood on it? That's not a "smoking" enough gun for you?

1. Blood evidence DNA on her car - but no fingerprints. Where was she shot?

2. Gun was in possession by the police, bullet shot for forensic evidence- bullet left on site after the fact and after not having found anything in 6 previous full on searches. Bullet matches gun is no smoking gun.

3. 22 caliber bullets or fragments of do not fall out of people's heads (usually would be embedded with such a small caliber)

4. No blood or DNA evidence (powder burns, blood splatter, skull fragments,flesh, hair etc..) found in garage or bedroom or near bullet, nor is there bullet mark evidence that it was fired on the ground or anywhere in the garage. In other words, there is no crime scene.

5. No bullet fragments in the fire where if anywhere it should have been.

6. jurors afraid for safety:

7. ah the imfamous key found on the sixth search of the same area that conveniently appears by the hand of the investigator who has clear conflict of interest in the case, who was not supposed to be there at all.

[doublepost=1453832027][/doublepost]By the way, there are some entertaining documentaries about the Kennedy assassination that seem pretty convincing too. Most if not all of them have been debunked.[/QUOTE]

None of the prosecutor's case is in anyway convincing at all, and one cannot debunk when apparent corruption and prejudice permeate a case.

 

[Tomorrow]

1. Blood evidence DNA on her car - but no fingerprints. Where was she shot?

Not in the car, apparently - but the prosecutors never claimed she was.

2. Gun was in possession by the police, bullet shot for forensic evidence- bullet left on site after the fact and after not having found anything in 6 previous full on searches. Bullet matches gun is no smoking gun.

It's easier for you to believe this than that the owner of the gun fired it on his own property? How and when did the police get her blood on the bullet?

3. 22 caliber bullets or fragments of do not fall out of people's heads (usually would be embedded with such a small caliber)

Perhaps not, but they could travel through soft tissue.

4. No blood or DNA evidence (powder burns, blood splatter, skull fragments,flesh, hair etc..) found in garage or bedroom or near bullet, nor is there bullet mark evidence that it was fired on the ground or anywhere in the garage. In other words, there is no crime scene.

So, if there's no blood, she must not be dead, right?

5. No bullet fragments in the fire where if anywhere it should have been.

Any bullets in the fire would have completely liquefied, if not vaporized. Lead melts at a relatively low temperature for metal, and .22's are not jacketed.

6. jurors afraid for safety:

This clip does not say what you're implying it says. First, it's a statement from the (biased) filmmakers, not from the juror. Second, it's not corroborated. Third, any intimidation was from other jurors, not from any outside influences.

7. ah the imfamous key found on the sixth search of the same area that conveniently appears by the hand of the investigator who has clear conflict of interest in the case, who was not supposed to be there at all.

Yes, he was not supposed to be there. Can you explain how he (1) acquired the key, (2) put Avery's sweat on it, and (3) hid it with nobody noticing? Because nobody else has, either.

 

[puma1552]

Overall, your implicit question seems to be: "Did the Manitowoc police plant evidence?" I don't think they did. I think they could have, but I don't think they did. And in my mind, the opportunity to do so does not mean that it was acted upon; I didn't see any evidence that pointed to the police doing it.

You say it's "questionable" as to how any of the evidence got on the property? It's not "questionable" that Hallbach drove her car to Avery's property, it's not "questionable" that the bullet with her DNA came from Avery's gun, and it's not "questionable" that her bones would be in his fire pit since she was seen on his property. It would be MORE "questionable" to suggest that she showed up, left, got killed elsewhere, then got brought BACK to his fire pit. THAT's a questionable story.

Please address how and why Colburn was calling in Theresa's license plate on November 3rd (the day she was reported missing) yet the car wasn't "found" until November 5th, on the Avery property no less.

 

[Moyank24]

a) Yes, I honestly believe they missed the key the first six times. Takes me that long to find mine, sometimes, especially if they fell back behind a nightstand or bookcase during my first search. I don't know that that's what happened, but it's entirely feasible. Much more feasible, in my mind, than point c) below.

I'm trying to find pictures of where the key was found to post, but you can see them on this twitter:

If cops and crime scene investigators missed this 6 times, they are in the wrong business.
[doublepost=1453835745][/doublepost]

Yes, he was not supposed to be there. Can you explain how he (1) acquired the key, (2) put Avery's sweat on it, and (3) hid it with nobody noticing? Because nobody else has, either.

Well, there was the bit where he called in the plates days before the car was found. So, it's not outrageous to believe that they found the car and used it to build a more solid case against a guy who had already gotten out of a conviction once before.

 

[thewap]

Not in the car, apparently - but the prosecutors never claimed she was.

It's easier for you to believe this than that the owner of the gun fired it on his own property? How and when did the police get her blood on the bullet?

From blood in the car?

Perhaps not, but they could travel through soft tissue.

Prosecutor's case was that she was shot in the head.

So, if there's no blood, she must not be dead, right?

This is not my argument. Rather that she was killed (not by police) and that Avery was possibly framed. Police planting evidence to reinforce their incriminating a defendant they have clear prejudice against (and conflict of interest) is a separate possibility.

Any bullets in the fire would have completely liquefied, if not vaporized. Lead melts at a relatively low temperature for metal, and .22's are not jacketed.

Lead melts at 1100C but does not vaporize, nor do human bones get pulverized in a bonfire.

This clip does not say what you're implying it says. First, it's a statement from the (biased) filmmakers, not from the juror. Second, it's not corroborated. Third, any intimidation was from other jurors, not from any outside influences.

Yes intimidation by other jurors - who also seem connected / related to Sheriff dept.
Juror remains anonymous due to fear of re-percussion.

Yes, he was not supposed to be there. Can you explain how he (1) acquired the key, (2) put Avery's sweat on it, and (3) hid it with nobody noticing? Because nobody else has, either.

1. from the car. 2. there is no DNA test that can show it came from *sweat*. 3. Easy as a pocket when found.

 

[fitshaced]

I think it's far more likely that the other burn site was the primary burn site and then bones were transported to the Avery burn site. The fact that they were dug up without proper process by police more than suggests that whoever instructed the avery burn site to be dug up that way was aware that it was in fact the secondary burn site.

 

[samiwas]

This was Dassey's claim. The prosecutors argued that she was shot outside.



The production, and the defense team, did a good job of presenting a timeline that suggests the police could have planted evidence.

Could have. They didn't present a single shred of evidence that shows that they did.

Here's why I came to the conclusion I did - between two scenarios, I decided which of the two was more likely:

Scenario 1 - Avery killed Hallbach and burned her body.

Scenario 2 - Someone else killed Hallbach, then the police burned her body in Avery's fire pit without him or anybody else noticing, the police planted her vehicle on Avery's property without him or anybody else noticing, the police acquired some of Avery's blood (not from the evidence room; it tested negative for EDTA) and planted it in her vehicle, then the police acquired some of Avery's perspiration, prior to taking him into custody, and planted it on the latch of Hallbach's car hood; then took some of that same perspiration and planted it on her car key, then planted the key in Avery's house. Then, the police somehow got hold of Avery's .22 and fired a shot, keeping the slug (since it was ballistically matched to the gun), put some of Hallbach's blood on it, and planted it in Avery's garage; somewhere along the way, they managed to convince Dassey that he should tell his cousin (in December) that he helped Avery murder Hallbach, then have him tell detectives the same story again in March; all while taking advantage of the "good fortune" that Hallbach just happened to have been murdered by someone other than Avery on the day she went to Avery's house.

The production of "Making a Murder" is biased, which is fine; that's their prerogative. But they intentionally omitted key bits of evidence that, for me, completely seal the deal. That's not responsible, in my opinion.

Wait...and Newsmax isn't biased? Not that politics come into play, but isn't Newsmax some right-wing shill site?

There's a whole lot of 'Kratz said" and "according to Kratz" in this article you posted. Forgive me for not trusting that snake. That guy was a creep of epic proportions from the beginning. His later troubles with the law himself and having to resign his position only help to support that theory.

I wish I could find again someone else's account of how they think it went down. It was quite convincing, using both evidence from the show and some of the stuff not from the show. I believe there was also a witness who saw Teresa's SUV leaving the property that day. His theory pins it on the other Dassey and the the brother in law (I think), whatever his name is.

There was still nothing proven anywhere close to reasonable doubt in my opinion, even with bias. Certainly not enough to put a man away for life.

I'm not convinced that the police killed her to set up a frame job, but I think they went into attack mode the second the opportunity presented itself. Even something as simple as that 11/3 phone call about the license plate. Colburn (another total snake) read the plate info out and the dispatcher gave him a response in less than a second. There's also that whole bit about the brother and boyfriend just "guessing" the password to her phone and voicemails supposedly being deleted. Combine that with the person searching the lot finding the car in mere minutes on the very first search, the extreme lack of DNA evidence (except on stuff found by Manitowoc County officers), finding key bits of evidence only after multiple searches of the same areas, and there just happening to be more human bones burned in another pit just behind the Avery property...nope, just not buying it.

I think the prosecution really clinched it in their closing when they said that the only way the jury can find him not guilty is if they think the police killed her.

Which isn't true. The law doesn't say that one person is guilty unless you can prove someone else was, just that it has to be proven that they did it. Remember, the police never had another suspect, even family members or ex-boyfriends. They didn't seriously question anyone except to get their story of what Avery allegedly did.

 

[Tomorrow]

Please address how and why Colburn was calling in Theresa's license plate on November 3rd (the day she was reported missing) yet the car wasn't "found" until November 5th, on the Avery property no less.

Well, there was the bit where he called in the plates days before the car was found. So, it's not outrageous to believe that they found the car and used it to build a more solid case against a guy who had already gotten out of a conviction once before.

I think people are making a much bigger deal about this than necessary.

A woman (and her vehicle) were missing. A cop calls to verify the license plate number of the car they're looking for. I see nothing wrong with that.

Prosecutor's case was that she was shot in the head.

Check your facts, prosecutor's case was that she was shot multiple times.

Lead melts at 1100C but does not vaporize, nor do human bones get pulverized in a bonfire.

Check your facts, lead melts at 327.5°C but yes, it vaporizes at a much higher temperature.

1. from the car. 2. there is no DNA test that can show it came from *sweat*. 3. Easy as a pocket when found.

So you're more of a DNA analyst than the person who determined this during the investigation? This was actual court testimony.

 

[samiwas]

then the police burned her body in Avery's fire pit without him or anybody else noticing, the police planted her vehicle on Avery's property without him or anybody else noticing

Should have mentioned these in my previous post...

There just happening to be a burn pit with human bones in it less than half a mile from Avery's back door is highly suspicious. Dumping bone fragments behind his house unnoticed would be simple.

The car was also found just south of the pond in the southeast corner of the property. This spot happens to be easily accessible from where the alternate burn site is, which is easily accessible from a back road, and out of view of the salvage yard operations. Easy to do with no one noticing, even in broad daylight.

 

[Xanderstone12]

Lol... Don't wanna miss wrestlemania

 

[Moyank24]

Which isn't true. The law doesn't say that one person is guilty unless you can prove someone else was, just that it has to be proven that they did it. Remember, the police never had another suspect, even family members or ex-boyfriends. They didn't seriously question anyone except to get their story of what Avery allegedly did.

Oh, I know it's not true.

But I think that statement still had an impact. The way the defense presented the case, to find the guy not guilty the jury would have had to assume that somebody killed her immediately after she left his house, then came back and planted the bones, somehow knowing that Avery had a bonfire recently, and ditched the car. The police then find the ditched car and keys, plant both on his property and then arrest him. OR that the police did it all in an effort to frame him.

 

[samiwas]

This is interesting - do you have a source for this? Who threatened the jury? Or, who made the allegations?

I recall either reading or hearing that the original vote from the jury was 7 innocent, 3 guilty, and 2 undecided. One juror in particular was extremely vocal and made the rest of the jury uncomfortable, and pushed them hard for a guilty verdict. The excused juror had a bit to say about it, and he even came back later.

 

[thewap]

Check your facts, prosecutor's case was that she was shot multiple times.

http://www.wsaw.com/news/headlines/6251486.html,
prosecution relied on Brandon testimony (bedroom crime scene) to indict Steven *shot left temple, then back of head on the bed* . But since defense showed that Brandon testimony was coerced, prosecution then changed the crime scene to *the garage* with bullet found 4 months after the fact. Forensic in the series points out skull fragment indentation as probable bullet entry point. - please check your facts and link.

Check your facts, lead melts at 327.5°C but yes, it vaporizes at a much higher temperature.
Perhaps on the vaporization, which does not explain the majic bullet theory of the prosecution which showed up 4 months after the fact.

So you're more of a DNA analyst than the person who determined this during the investigation? This was actual court testimony.[/QUOTE]
Sweat has no dna unless skin cells are found in the sweat, and even if DNA is found in sweat has only 30% reliability and is non conclusive, especially at the time the crime took place and the dna tech they had. Furthermore the dna test of the bullet was contaminated by the tester which should have rendered the test result as not admissible and should have resulted in a re-test.
[doublepost=1453844570][/doublepost]

I recall either reading or hearing that the original vote from the jury was 7 innocent, 3 guilty, and 2 undecided. One juror in particular was extremely vocal and made the rest of the jury uncomfortable, and pushed them hard for a guilty verdict. The excused juror had a bit to say about it, and he even came back later.

Another juror called the producers and claimed being pressured and in fear-who remains anonymous.

 

[fitshaced]

I think people are making a much bigger deal about this than necessary.

A woman (and her vehicle) were missing. A cop calls to verify the license plate number of the car they're looking for. I see nothing wrong with that.



Check your facts, prosecutor's case was that she was shot multiple times.



Check your facts, lead melts at 327.5°C but yes, it vaporizes at a much higher temperature.



So you're more of a DNA analyst than the person who determined this during the investigation? This was actual court testimony.

Colburn was calling in a license plate of a missing person that was not in his district. He had no reason to check it other than having seen it already.

 

[puma1552]

I think people are making a much bigger deal about this than necessary.

A woman (and her vehicle) were missing. A cop calls to verify the license plate number of the car they're looking for. I see nothing wrong with that.

Colburn's reaction to that question - or lack thereof - seemed to suggest otherwise to me. If that was the case, I imagine he would've been quick to explain it.

 

[sim667]

So I'm just on episode 9 on this, and what I can't get around is that many people seem to be missing the point of the whole series.... Its not about the Avery's, its not about Theresa, its not even really about policing. Its about the impossibility of ever being able to have a fair an unbiased trial in the US.

Trials happen in the county, with jurors that know you. On high profile cases the media are like flies round **** reporting on it, and the language and way they describe things is almost always judgemental, inflammatory and intended to provoke reaction and emotion. Policing interview training is clearly designed to illicit confessions, rather than get to the truth, with almost no safeguarding to ensure anyone who is easily led cannot be led by police interviews (although granted this is the same world over).

American's really need to stop for a moment and think about how their justice system is so skewed toward those who point a finger almost always being right, to drain people out of money so they can't have a fair trial and to offer a sacrificial lamb for responsibility regardless of whether there's reasonable doubt or not.

People have been and still are executed under that legal system

 

[BernyMac]

So I'm just on episode 9 on this, and what I can't get around is that many people seem to be missing the point of the whole series.... Its not about the Avery's, its not about Theresa, its not even really about policing. Its about the impossibility of ever being able to have a fair an unbiased trial in the US.

Trials happen in the county, with jurors that know you. On high profile cases the media are like flies round **** reporting on it, and the language and way they describe things is almost always judgemental, inflammatory and intended to provoke reaction and emotion. Policing interview training is clearly designed to illicit confessions, rather than get to the truth, with almost no safeguarding to ensure anyone who is easily led cannot be led by police interviews (although granted this is the same world over).

American's really need to stop for a moment and think about how their justice system is so skewed toward those who point a finger almost always being right, to drain people out of money so they can't have a fair trial and to offer a sacrificial lamb for responsibility regardless of whether there's reasonable doubt or not.

People have been and still are executed under that legal system

What legal system should the US adopt?
What country affords the best possibility of being able to put the accused (specially the poor) to a fair and unbiased trial?
What country offers a police that is not designed to illicit a confession rather than to get to the truth?
Are there still media outlets that do not almost always "editorialize" in the way they report? Today's media outlets are designed to sell...nothing sells like emotionally charged reporting (besides sex, of course).
I doubt very much that the Netflix "documentary" is unbiased. One thing it did is that it sparked the internet murder experts, web homicide investigators, CAT5 CSI wannabes, keyboard trial lawyers and desktop criminal profilers into action.

Not everyone is telling the whole truth, they tell the truth the way they perceive truth. They frame the questions to illicit a response in such a way to fit the answers they want. Such is human nature and the human condition.

 

[sim667]

What legal system should the US adopt?
.

One where employees of defence lawyers don't make comments like "we need to end the gene pool here".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hold one country's legal system up as the pinnacle of justice, but you can't hide from the fact that the US often presents the very best and the very worst of the western world. In this instance I can see why people would defend what is quite a strong legal system, but in this case there seems to be many bad examples of the very worst of that legal system and those who are supposed to be impartial are quite blatantly turning a blind eye to what's happening, regardless of whether they're guilty or not.

 

[C DM]

One where employees of defence lawyers don't make comments like "we need to end the gene pool here".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hold one country's legal system up as the pinnacle of justice, but you can't hide from the fact that the US often presents the very best and the very worst of the western world. In this instance I can see why people would defend what is quite a strong legal system, but in this case there seems to be many bad examples of the very worst of that legal system and those who are supposed to be impartial are quite blatantly turning a blind eye to what's happening, regardless of whether they're guilty or not.

There are more than likely plenty of bad (and good) examples when it comes to pretty much any system out there--it's basically that ever-present underlying and inescapable involvement of human nature/condition (as was also brought up earlier).

 

[BernyMac]

One where employees of defence lawyers don't make comments like "we need to end the gene pool here".

Unfortunately, that maybe a wish that will never be granted. People will form their own thoughts and there will be those that will express themselves in a manner not befitting the role they are thrust upon nor the ones they place themselves in.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hold one country's legal system up as the pinnacle of justice, but you can't hide from the fact that the US often presents the very best and the very worst of the western world. In this instance I can see why people would defend what is quite a strong legal system, but in this case there seems to be many bad examples of the very worst of that legal system and those who are supposed to be impartial are quite blatantly turning a blind eye to what's happening, regardless of whether they're guilty or not.

I am afraid that your perception may have been clouded by the same culprits you accuse of being like flies surrounding biological excrement. The media and those pretending to be impartial (and yet sells their wares to the unwary) are not wont to put out product that no one will buy. The more controversial the product, the more they can sell. The best and the worst will sell, no one wants to buy the mediocre. Who wants to see a show that depicts a situation that worked out the way it was intended to go?

Do you want to know how to cock up the most imaginably perfect system? Throw in the human factor.

As humans, we are capable of creating the best ideals that is capable of raising humanity to a higher plane of existence, yet, we are the same creatures who possess the same capacity for turning it all to pot.