Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

stealinhorses

Very engrossing show, haven't binge-watched something in a while but this definitely had to be done.

I thought it slowed down a little bit the last few episodes, it could have done with some more theories or speculations on what actually happened to Teresa rather than showing the parents over and over, but I understand why that was done.

The documentary is super biased, which is understandable, but in its attempt to show Avery's innocence it misses out on the opportunity to search for the real killer. I found the episode where they discuss the ex-boyfriend & roommate, as well as the two lads who went "hunting" that day the most interesting.

The treatment of that mentally underdeveloped 16-year old kid by the police was off the charts despicable. Jessie Misskelley all over again, but this time not even smart enough to stay quiet/defend himself when pressed at different times throughout the years, and he wasn't getting much help from his family either. The scumbag lawyers did him in the end, I think he would have walked free if it wasn't for that "confession" in the classroom.

One thing is for sure, Manitowoc county's reputation after this is never recovering again :P

The Raptor

8-10 wrote: »

Ok....please share your source for this as my belief is that this is a completely false statement

DNA isn't in sweat. DNA is in the cells of human tissue like skin and blood.

Sweat is mostly made of water, salts, and urea. There's no dna in this. But it can get mixed with dead cells when it leaves the body.

This sweat/DNA that they claimed was under the bonnet wasn't investigated or tested until after Brendan's confession. They tested it in April 2006. I don't remember if the timeline was mentioned in the documentary. But i definitely read it.

What struck me while reading was that they took swabs of Steven Avery's mouth in November 2005 so they had his DNA.

Why leave it five months to test a car for evidence?

PLL

PRO-DEFENCE information that wasn't included in the doc..

https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40dquo/prodefense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/

Lots of it too! Including info on the sweat on the car.

Also, and I might explain this badly but the family were portrayed as being very outcast due to the way the lived etc so when watching I thought maybe it was akin to how the way travellers aren't integrated here (not trying to insult travellers) but after joining the Facebook page and visiting profiles of the family they seem so normal and can write well. It feels like the cops took advantage of the less intelligent members of the family.

Joeface

PLL wrote: »

PRO-DEFENCE information that wasn't included in the doc..

https://m.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40dquo/prodefense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/

.

well That's fairly damning , what I need now is a list similar from the prosecution with what they said was left out . So i can be swung back the other way again

jayo26

Just watched the final episode I thought it be boring last episode but some of the most interesting information came out in it.

I can't say anything that others on here haven't said already the investigation into both Stevens trials were shocking and also with Brendans.

My opinions on it is while I think there is absolute terrible things that have been done to make sure he is convicted I wouldnt be in the camp looking to get him a pardon.

I think his case needs to be looked at again but I don't think its far fetched to think that he may have actually done it but not at the home place or garage its possible he did it in the quarry and the police fabricated evidence to make sure he went down for it and in doing so created a terrible looking case.

Just a theory but eitherway the police departments and justice system in this particular area need to be looked into.

irish_dave_83

jayo26 wrote: »

Just watched the final episode I thought it be boring last episode but some of the most interesting information came out in it.

I can't say anything that others on here haven't said already the investigation into both Stevens trials were shocking and also with Brendans.

My opinions on it is while I think there is absolute terrible things that have been done to make sure he is convicted I wouldnt be in the camp looking to get him a pardon.

I think his case needs to be looked at again but I don't think its far fetched to think that he may have actually done it but not at the home place or garage its possible he did it in the quarry and the police fabricated evidence to make sure he went down for it and in doing so created a terrible looking case.

Just a theory but eitherway the police departments and justice system in this particular area need to be looked into.

I agree, I wouldn't be comfortable saying that he didn't do it or let him out with a pardon. However I do believe it was a miscarriage of justice to convict him on the evidence(including witness) presented to the court. I don't believe he(or Brendan) got a fair investigation or trial, and even if he did do it he is entitled to those things. Also, when a prosecutor has to say "even if evidence was planted, this man is guilty" (paraphrasing) in their closing argument, an eyebrow has to be raised.

Keyzer

Finished watching this last night. Very compelling story and highly addictive.

I don't know if Steven Avery is innocent or guilty of this crime but I am 100% positive he did not get a fair trial. In many ways, his trial by media before the actual trial commenced condemned him. Additionally, the treatment of Brendan Dassey is utterly deplorable from the investigators to Len Kachinsky.

Veloce

How on earth did the jury members come to the conclusion that he was guilty? [beyond reasonable doubt] It is ridiculous.

Heat_Wave

I just read on Facebook that Steven Avery has been appointed two new female lawyers.

They state 'whoever deleted those voicemails off Teresa's phone is the killer or at least plays some part in the cover up of her murder'.

Her brother and ex boyfriend were definite weirdos throughout the documentary. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it were them.

Drumpot

Found it compelling viewing.

On one level it did appear to be defending the Averys, but one could argue it was a counter balance to the OTT negative press they got before even all evidence was available.

Lets say Stephen was guilty, there was little evidence to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that it was him. The biggest problem I felt was that the police and authorities felt "well hes guilty so lets make this stick" and they did everything they could to manipulate a guilty verdict.

This included isolating Stephen from family and even ruining a relationship with his partner. Does the end justify the means? Well, perhaps the problem is the system and more importantly its not the job of the police to "correct" that error by in essence making stuff up to force a square peg in a round hole.

I have to say, I absolutely loved the eloquent way his solicitors spoke. I got the impression they even intimidated the local judge who even mentioned this at one stage.

Whatever about Stephens innocence, his nephews role in the alleged incident is even less clear and to be frank the evidence used to convict him was something you would expect to see on a simpsons skit. It made me think of when the townsfolk get their pitchforks and burning sticks after somebody.

There are so many variables and unanswered questions from this case. At the end of the series, when all his solicitors are discussing what they could do to try and get him another case, I was thinking "if he was guilty, would they really bother being interviewed to look sympathetic to his cause and give ideas on what he could do for another trial?". Maybe for tv coverage?

But what is undeniable is that whether he is guilty or not, he did not get a fair trial. Like one solicitor said, I would hate to be in Wisconsin and wake up with a fire in my back garden with body parts in it. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the default strategy in that state! And God help you if they really do believe you are guilty!

marklazarcovic

irish_dave_83 wrote:

I agree, I wouldn't be comfortable saying that he didn't do it or let him out with a pardon. However I do believe it was a miscarriage of justice to convict him on the evidence(including witness) presented to the court. I don't believe he(or Brendan) got a fair investigation or trial, and even if he did do it he is entitled to those things. Also, when a prosecutor has to say "even if evidence was planted, this man is guilty" (paraphrasing) in their closing argument, an eyebrow has to be raised.

You dont believe they got a fair trial,you think it was a miscarrige of justice ,you agree the trial was a bit of a farce, but you dont think he should get a pardon?

Just because he might be guilty is it?


This is why the guys in jail right now, 'might be' is far from proof of guilt,in fact its as far away as he is innocent.



They could be guilty,but they should be released and a proper investigation done into the case,which of course wont happen,because too many heads will roll if they do.

Not having a go at you btw,just highlights how peoples views on his past crime ,i.e the rape he didnt commit and was jailed for,skew the thought process.

irish_dave_83

marklazarcovic wrote: »

You dont believe they got a fair trial,you think it was a miscarrige of justice ,you agree the trial was a bit of a farce, but you dont think he should get a pardon?

Just because he might be guilty is it?


This is why the guys in jail right now, 'might be' is far from proof of guilt,in fact its as far away as he is innocent.



They could be guilty,but they should be released and a proper investigation done into the case,which of course wont happen,because too many heads will roll if they do.

Not having a go at you btw,just highlights how peoples views on his past crime ,i.e the rape he didnt commit and was jailed for,skew the thought process.

I think you may have misunderstood me. If he gets a pardon he cannot get another trial, and a pardon also does not remove his conviction in the first place. A pardon does not absolve him of guilt, it merely releases a guilty person back into society. That is why I don't think he should have a pardon. Therefore I believe he should have a retrial, which is the most sensible option.

Its nothing to do with his past crimes. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

jayo26

marklazarcovic wrote: »

You dont believe they got a fair trial,you think it was a miscarrige of justice ,you agree the trial was a bit of a farce, but you dont think he should get a pardon?

Just because he might be guilty is it?


This is why the guys in jail right now, 'might be' is far from proof of guilt,in fact its as far away as he is innocent.



They could be guilty,but they should be released and a proper investigation done into the case,which of course wont happen,because too many heads will roll if they do.

Not having a go at you btw,just highlights how peoples views on his past crime ,i.e the rape he didnt commit and was jailed for,skew the thought process.

In a nutshell this was summed up on the series, its not the outcome thats the problem its the path taken to get them there thats the problem.

People love sensational stories thats why this is one of the most watched documentaries right but people looking for the Entertainment end to this series and demanding a pardon is ridiculous just because it's seems the only fair outcome.

If Steven avery had a retrial on the evidence that he was convicted on im 100 percent sure that he would be found not guilty but that dont mean he is innocent it means that there is not enough evidence to convict him.

But one important factor in the whole case is that a woman was murdered and butchered and burnt and someone did that as bad as the police are in it i dont think they did it and also as much as there is no evidence that say avery did do it there is no evidence to say he didn't.

retro:electro

If Avery were to be granted a federal trial, I would imagine it would be hard to find a fair jury. The case is infamous now, there would be bias in each direction.

Joeface

I have to agree with going against a Pardon , as someone pointed out " A pardon does not absolve him of guilt" . A retrial could find him innocent but it also leaves the door open for a Teresa Halbach investigation .

To my mind a Pardon would just be your free to go and that case is closed.
If there are enough of holes in the evidence someone has to be investigated as to what went on. If the Evidence is solid he will be found guilt


Currently loving this form the reddit thread linked about. Colburn statement has all the hallmarks of OJ's glove
"Colborn testified that he "roughly" shook the bookend table when the key fell out, yet if you look at the photo, there is a remote and some paper sitting on top and things sitting neatly inside. https://imgur.com/a/vgV9B"

Heat_Wave

jayo26 wrote: »

but that dont mean he is innocent

You've been watching too much of Making a Murderer I think!

jayo26

Heat_Wave wrote: »

You've been watching too much of Making a Murderer I think!

And now I'm gonna go binge watch murder she wrote im telling ya some of them confessions they got were dodgy.

8-10

One thing that still niggles with me a little - happy for others to weigh in and shed some light.

I am in the Avery is probably innocent camp. Most people who are in the same camp and think he is innocent or more likely innocent seem to believe Teresa was killed not to frame Steven, but for some other reason - and the circumstances meant that Steven could be framed.

There are very few people on Reddit or elsewhere claiming that she was killed specifically to frame Steven Avery - and I don't believe this either - I think it's very unlikely.

So if Teresa was not killed for the pre-meditated reason of framing Steven, then man! Isn't it just incredibly unlucky that he was her last appointment that day, and incredibly unlucky that whoever killed her decided to burn the body (not generally a common thing to do in murders) instead of dump it or bury it - on the same day that Steven Avery had a bonfire?

I mean think about it. Doesn't matter if it's 3ft or 10ft, and yes I know it's Hallowe'en and all. But having a bonfire in your back yard and inviting family members to see it, on the same day that over in a quarry nearby somebody else is burning the body of the lady that called to see you that afternoon. That's incredibly unlucky.

simonw

Heat_Wave wrote: »

I just read on Facebook that Steven Avery has been appointed two new female lawyers.

They state 'whoever deleted those voicemails off Teresa's phone is the killer or at least plays some part in the cover up of her murder'.

Her brother and ex boyfriend were definite weirdos throughout the documentary. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it were them.

I'd say the ex had left some stalkery voicemails and realised how it would look when she went missing.

corkonion

8-10 wrote: »

One thing that still niggles with me a little - happy for others to weigh in and shed some light.

I am in the Avery is probably innocent camp. Most people who are in the same camp and think he is innocent or more likely innocent seem to believe Teresa was killed not to frame Steven, but for some other reason - and the circumstances meant that Steven could be framed.

There are very few people on Reddit or elsewhere claiming that she was killed specifically to frame Steven Avery - and I don't believe this either - I think it's very unlikely.

So if Teresa was not killed for the pre-meditated reason of framing Steven, then man! Isn't it just incredibly unlucky that he was her last appointment that day, and incredibly unlucky that whoever killed her decided to burn the body (not generally a common thing to do in murders) instead of dump it or bury it - on the same day that Steven Avery had a bonfire?

I mean think about it. Doesn't matter if it's 3ft or 10ft, and yes I know it's Hallowe'en and all. But having a bonfire in your back yard and inviting family members to see it, on the same day that over in a quarry nearby somebody else is burning the body of the lady that called to see you that afternoon. That's incredibly unlucky.

You have to take into context where this took place, and that the burnpit in question would have been used frequently as a means of disposing of trash and garbage, weekly at least.

youandme13

I'm just finishing episode 6 right now! I'm sorry but Kr*tz really irritates me can't stand watching him he is so smug doing press conferences and that! I believe he is innocent but perhaps a family member is guilty of this...but I've a feeling the girls brother looks very dodgy too..what do you all think?? I feel so bad for Brendan he really doesn't understand what's happening to him!

Drumpot

corkonion wrote: »

You have to take into context where this took place, and that the burnpit in question would have been used frequently as a means of disposing of trash and garbage, weekly at least.

Another factor for me is the intelligence of the Averys.

On one hand, I could completely believe he would leave the car as evidence in his plot and burning the body right beside his house.

But I don't believe he would be capable of cleaning up evidence in the manner in which it happened. How is the only evidence available not able to tell a plausible story of what happened when there appears to be a fair bit ? How can anybody explain how he shot a person in the head (forget the rapes etc) and not have any evidence anywhere else on the premises?

This would contradict any argument that he was too stupid to hide evidence like car or bones.

I don't know, I would be fascinated to see a counter argument/show from the prosecution. I have to admit I wanted them to be wrong and fail. They lied in court, planted/created evidence and before they even had everything together they publically set the guy up for a fall by announcing the gruesome things he allegedly did. How was he ever going to get a fair trial ?

I must add that some of the counter argument seems to be that Avery is a bad piece of work and that his actions of the past suggested a person getting bolder/badder. Torchuring animals, pulling a gun on a woman and apparently having a fixation on the deceased are all bad signs but they don't mean he killed her. I feel if these are secondary bits of evidence that only suggest he is capable of what he was accused. However they do little with the evidence we witnessed on the show.

kirk buttercup

youandme13 wrote: »

I'm just finishing episode 6 right now! I'm sorry but Kr*tz really irritates me can't stand watching him he is so smug !

Fat Ned Flanders. His voice went through me.

jayo26

Ha another thing that amused see me the whole way threw this was how the family was talked about been poor and so on but yet they have a salvage business that lies on alot of acres of land l, they have sheds built with hight quality materials and electric doors, the dad built a fish farm, in the end they have a fairly new car. Someone in that business has brains.

retro:electro

I think the documentary definitely wants us to be suspicious about the brother, it certainly directs us in that way. I however don't feel he had anything to do with it, I just don't see how or why. Whoever killed Teresa was on Avery's land that day, she did not leave his site that day, that much I believe. Personally I'm not 100% convinced of his guilt or innocence, but I do not think he should have been found guilty with the evidence that was presented. I would be more inclined to be suspicious about Scott and Bobby than Teresa's brother.

Ageyev

irish_dave_83 wrote: »

I think you may have misunderstood me. If he gets a pardon he cannot get another trial, and a pardon also does not remove his conviction in the first place. A pardon does not absolve him of guilt, it merely releases a guilty person back into society. That is why I don't think he should have a pardon. Therefore I believe he should have a retrial, which is the most sensible option.

Its nothing to do with his past crimes. Hopefully that clears it up for you.

The president can't pardon him - http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10711150/obama-pardon-making-a-murderer

The governor has said he will not pardon Steven and thus far has not issued any pardons - http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/scott-walker-vows-to-never-pardon-steven-avery-it-would-undermine-cops-and-prosecutors/

irish_dave_83

Ageyev wrote: »

The president can't pardon him - http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10711150/obama-pardon-making-a-murderer

The governor has said he will not pardon Steven and thus far has not issued any pardons - http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/scott-walker-vows-to-never-pardon-steven-avery-it-would-undermine-cops-and-prosecutors/

I know this already, and it doesn't change my opinion. I am not advocating for a pardon, quite the opposite.

Joeface

The Gun at his cousin keeps been mentioned , bit crazy alright running her off the run and stuff and pulling an unloaded shot gun outta the car to threaten her.

Funny that in the middle of series what his cousin has described as the Avery running around naked and what not. Was pretty much a word for word a complaint made against Allen the Real rapist in the original Crime from 85. Also she is married to a cop and it was her friend that wrote the 85 statement and named Avery . Pretty sure been a you red neck and have your cousin say **** like that about to all around town would enrage anyone.

If I can find the section i will link it in.

So really his only Crime was Animal Cruelty (Cat person here so he is a DICK HEAD ) and a B&E + an argument with is cousin over lies/rumors .....Not really the build up a criminal to kidnap rape and murder ....that's a pretty big leap

Oh and to add on top of that , His previous Exonerated crime is pretty much the reason for his sentence . And the sheriff ignoring DNA evidence of that on the stand . mental stuff.

And yes I know last week I said I was pretty sure he did it ...:D

youandme13

And then her voice mails:

1. Brother said he logged in and someone deleted messages from her phone... And

2. That should of been a big lead tracing and finding out who logged into her phone.. This alone is a big red flag against the sheriffs in my opinion!

Heat_Wave

What are people's opinion on Brendan's cousin Kayla? Why did she tell police officers that Brendan told her that he did it, and spoke to her about the bones in the fire? Then turn around and claim she made it up.

It's all very weird.

Also apparently Steven bought the leg restraints and rope etc. 3 weeks previous to Teresa's death. Why wasn't this mentioned in episode 1 to 9?