Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

hardCopy

Ageyev wrote: »

Look up the Morris Tribunal which investigated Garda corruption. There have been accusations against the Gardai before and since. Also, pay close attention the next time you hear a crime correspondent's news report: they get tip-offs and info leaked unofficially in a manner not dissimilar to the March 2006 press conference seen in Making a Murderer.

I'd love to see a documentary of this quality about Ian Bailey, Kerry Babies or the Donegal saga.

PressRun

wardides wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure that's the whole point of the show. I viewed it as an insightful insight into the negligence and poor standard of law enforcement in the Manitowoc area. It highlights huge doubts over vital evidence which went on to convict a man of murder. Your point about the Halbachs producing their own documentary, which highlights their own side. What exactly do you think this would show? What exactly would it "convince"?

I think people need to step away from the "did he or didn't he" theories. The documentary is about how a criminal case can be brought and held up, how two people can be sentenced for the rest of their lives in prison, without any legitimate evidence that proves, without reasonable doubt, they deserve to be there. That's the point. Not that Steven Avery is innocent, but that the handling of the case was one of the worst documented, and to ensure this doesn't happen again.

And there are definitely many more cases like this one and probably worse, where people have been convicted on flimsy evidence. The American legal system is way too conviction-focused, full of prosecution attorneys with one eye on a job in politics and who don't care how they get their conviction, so long as they get it.

Deise Vu

Absolutely cracking documentary. I could talk for days on the holes in the prosecution's case but in the end I think it swung on the FBI experts testimony that the blood splashes did not contain the preservative ETDA (?). The defence had an expert to rebut the test but I think the jury would have been impressed just by the FBI tag alone. On the other hand if the splashes did contain ETDA (?) or if the test could be proven to be unreliable I think there is no option but to acquit Stephen Avery (which would then collapse Brendan Dasseys conviction - If Stephen didn't do it, Brendans confession is absolute rubbish, if we didn't know that already).

I was wondering then why the defence doesn't get 6 samples from the tampered evidence phial and 6 samples of Stephen Avery's blood, mix them up and see if the FBI can conclusively identify the 6 with ETDA. If they fail to do so there would surely have to be a re-trial at a minimum. Or is that too simple?

Ageyev

hardCopy wrote: »

I'd love to see a documentary of this quality about Ian Bailey, Kerry Babies or the Donegal saga.

Or any number of Ireland's scandals and human rights abuses. Defamation law would be a bit of a stumbling block though.

Elmo

Ageyev wrote: »

Or any number of Ireland's scandals and human rights abuses. Defamation law would be a bit of a stumbling block though.

You'd have to have footage, or tape recordings and a willingness to give them over.

Also IMO for some reason I think that woman in cork was killed by that guy from over across the water

Lingua Franca

vapor trails wrote: »

As a counter balance I wonder if the the Halbach family had coincidentally commissioned

Let me stop you right there.

Ageyev

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Let me stop you right there.

Yup. Neither Avery nor Dassey commissioned this documentary

Deise Vu

Deise Vu wrote: »

Absolutely cracking documentary. I could talk for days on the holes in the prosecution's case but in the end I think it swung on the FBI experts testimony that the blood splashes did not contain the preservative ETDA (?). The defence had an expert to rebut the test but I think the jury would have been impressed just by the FBI tag alone. On the other hand if the splashes did contain ETDA (?) or if the test could be proven to be unreliable I think there is no option but to acquit Stephen Avery (which would then collapse Brendan Dasseys conviction - If Stephen didn't do it, Brendans confession is absolute rubbish, if we didn't know that already).

I was wondering then why the defence doesn't get 6 samples from the tampered evidence phial and 6 samples of Stephen Avery's blood, mix them up and see if the FBI can conclusively identify the 6 with ETDA. If they fail to do so there would surely have to be a re-trial at a minimum. Or is that too simple?

As far as I remember there wasn't even a control test done on the tube of Avery's blood to see if EDTA could be detected at all. Plus apparently those tests can fairly unreliable. The fact it was used at all to prove that the blood in the car was not from the tube was crazy.

NeVeR

I just finished this

I just can't see how they convicted him.... where was all the blood from this so called body mutilation ? .. They said she died in the garage ... not a drop of blood from her found.. and it wasn't cleaned as other DNA was found.

They had it out for him from the start... I think the whole thing is a set up and this man and his nephew are in prison for life now.

I've no idea how the Judge was able to refuse re-trials and other things they tried to get.

I was delighted when I seen Kruts had problems,, I ****ing hated that man.. his smug face and voice ... prick !! haha

Also how can they not give Brendan a re-trail.. he lawyer Len was a total dick just looking for fame... he thought he was guilty from day one and was pals with the DA !! - Anyone with half a brain could see those police officer convinced him what to say.. he didn't understand what he was saying most of the time... breaks my heart... He was talking about wanted to see Wrestling and thing s 6 or 7 year old would be talking about.

Elmo

Tv3 are doing a doc on Sophie Toscan du Plantier .... I should just leave that at that but that would be unfair considering many of the dreadful crime docs TV3 have produced in the past.

Don't worry Jim Sheridan is involved and it is part of the BBC's Storyville, the BAI or IFB/BSÉ may also come on board.

Green Peter

No one was convicted in relation to the Sophie de plantier case, I fail to see what it has to do with this case!

Elmo

Green Peter wrote: »

No one was convicted in relation to the Sophie de plantier case, I fail to see what it has to do with this case!

It was mention a day or two ago, in this thread, what Irish crime could be revisited.

bryangiggsy

Ken Kratz the sexual addict. A fitting end to his sham performance.

hobie21

Its funny, we were taking about this show down the local bar and I was saying how Americans were so unbelievable gullible.

Then this one American who happened to be listening commented. Hey not all of us are that stupid, just a lot of them......

Tipsy McSwagger

Watched it and really enjoyed it but it is clearly biased. I will read up on the case before I start shouting from the rooftops that 2 innocent men have been set up.

Tipsy McSwagger

The Raptor wrote: »

The Jinx, The Staircase, anything else to watch?

Murder on a Sunday Morning (YouTube)
The Thin Blue Line (Netflix)
Into the Abyss (Netflix)

mrsdewinter

At last! I bookmarked this thread a couple of weeks ago when I started watching Making A Murder and held off reading it until this evening, when I completed the final episode.
My takeaway is: Steven's parents are incredibly dignified. I don't know how they have held onto their sanity and good grace over the past 30 years. Forget Avery, they are the real heroes of the piece.
Also, while lots of commenters are throwing plenty of side-eye in the direction of Teresa's brother and ex-boyfriend, I think Barb's husband Scott (Brendan's stepfather) and Brendan's brother are far more dodgy. In recent days, I've seen references to Scott's history of violence towards another woman.
I've seen some commenters speculate that Brendan may have been covering for his brother and mother's bf but I doubt they would have taken him into their confidence.
In any case, Brendan's case definitely merits being looked at afresh. Definitely.
But it's a great thread... Keep it up!

skittles8710

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/steven-averys-ex-fiancee-jodi-stachowski-believes-he-killed-teresa-halbach-claims-he-also-threatened-to-kill-her-w161627

Jodi claiming Steven is guilty!

"When one of Nancy Grace’s producers asked if she believes Avery killed the 25-year-old photographer, Stachowski said: “Yes, I do, because he threatened to kill me and my family and a friend of mine.”

According to Avery’s former fiancee, the convicted murderer also threatened to take her life once. “I was in a bath and he threatened to throw a blow dyer in there and he told me that he would be able to get away with it,” Stachowski said during the interview. She added that Avery also once told her “all bitches owe him because the one that sent him to prison the first time and that he could do whatever he wanted.”

Prior to his conviction for Halbach’s murder, Avery was wrongfully convicted of rape and spent 18 years in prison before DNA evidence exonerated him.

Stachowski also claimed that her ex-fiance was physically abusive and that she once ate rate poison in an attempt to be hospitalized and escape Avery. “He beat me all the time. [He’d] punch me, throw me against the wall,” she continued. “He’s like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Semi-nice person and then behind closed doors, he’s a monster." Stachowski and Avery split in 2007.

As previously reported, Grace told Us Weekly that she believes Avery is guilty.

Steven Avery's former fiancée Jodi Stachowski, who is featured in Netflix's Making a Murderer, speaks out in an exclusive new interview for HLN's Nancy Grace, days after the show's namesake host raised questions about the series during the Television Critics Association's winter panel.

Stachowski reached out to Nancy Grace's producer, Natisha Lance, to share her side of the story. Lance previewed the pre-taped interview on HLN's morning program on Wednesday, January 13.

In the preview, the two sit down face to face and discuss why Stachowski is suddenly choosing to speak out now. "It's been 10 years," Lance notes to her subject. "Why are you talking to me? What do you want people to know?

"The truth," Stachowski replies. "What a monster he is, and he's not innocent."

Though Stachowski defended Avery in the 10-part true-crime docuseries, she told HLN that she never loved her ex-fiancé. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

"I ate two boxes of rat poison just so I could go the hospital," Stachowski revealed to Lance. "And get away from him, and ask them to get the police to help me."

The news about the program's exclusive interview with Stachowski was announced as Grace has made her opinion about Avery's conviction loud and clear. This past weekend, Grace told reporters during a TCA panel that while she was a fan of Netflix's series, she had other thoughts about the real-life situation.

"It's not what I think. It's what I know," she told Us Weekly and other reporters. "Steve Avery is guilty. He murdered Teresa Halbach. He and his nephew [Brendan Dassey] raped and murdered her. I love Making a Murderer. It's beautifully put together, it's just leaving out about 60 or 70 percent of the evidence. I don't think our justice system should be on the shoulders of two film students. I remember interviewing Steve Avery while we were still looking for Teresa … My knowledge at that time and now is that he brutally murdered this girl. True, he was wrongly convicted on a previous charge, and that's a miscarriage of justice too. But he killed Teresa Halbach."

runningbuddy

One thing struck me. When the judge was sentencing Avery, he mentioned (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Avery's crimes had escalated over the years. The only crimes I'm aware of are, the horrific cat incident and pulling a gun on some woman prior to his wrongful rape conviction. Am I missing something??

Just on a potential Governor pardon. Wouldn't Steven Avery have to admit guilt in order for that to happen?

Tipsy McSwagger

runningbuddy wrote: »

One thing struck me. When the judge was sentencing Avery, he mentioned (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Avery's crimes had escalated over the years. The only crimes I'm aware of are, the horrific cat incident and pulling a gun on some woman prior to his wrongful rape conviction. Am I missing something??

He started off with burglary, then animal cruelty, exposing himself and running his cousin off the road at gunpoint.

Tipsy McSwagger

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

He started off with burglary, then animal cruelty, exposing himself and running his cousin off the road at gunpoint.

Objection, hearsay!! :pac:

Drumpot

runningbuddy wrote: »

One thing struck me. When the judge was sentencing Avery, he mentioned (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Avery's crimes had escalated over the years. The only crimes I'm aware of are, the horrific cat incident and pulling a gun on some woman prior to his wrongful rape conviction. Am I missing something??

This seems to be a part of American legal system that is sort of accepted as evidence of a crime.

I listened to "Serial" and in a similar way, the prosecution being able to "prove" that its possible a person might be capable of doing it is strongly implied and most importantly accepted by the jury as adding credibility to wafer thin evidence. In short, its like saying "watch this documentary about an innocent guy" and the whole way throughout you would think "holy sh~t, I cant believe the cops got away...". Instead of watching it with an open mind. Granted its skewered towards Avery, but that's because none of the states side wanted to be interviewed. Many people think an innocent person would want to profess their innocence, yet the state (officers etc) were afraid of their lives to be "interrogated" because they might of ended up saying the same stupid things that Brendan said.

On one hand, its understandable that a person who has shown a propensity to violence would be more likely to be violent. But that means a jury is not taking this case on its merits. If you are using previous incursions to prove this happened, you aren't adding evidence, you are only adding motive/probability.

This is fine, IMO, if this is only used to compliment evidence that's solid, but in both cases the evidence was flimsy and extremely questionable. In both cases, testimony's that didn't make sense were accepted.

In the "serial" podcasts, they got one special investigator (former homicide detective) who said its not the job of the prosecution to be honest, its to make the story they have created stick. That means, if they have a theory and its the best one they can come up with, their job is to make it stick. This is wrong IMO in that, even if evidence comes to light that debunks the theory, the prosecution do not appear to be obliged to reveal it.

Even in the case of the vial of blood tampered with, the state didn't feel in anyway obliged to investigate it. Why ? This is a mans life ! But instead, the state focused all its vast resources on making its unbelievable telling of events stick.

It feels like the state prosecutors job isn't to find the perpetrator, its purely to convict whatever person is put on front of them! If you are innocent until proven guilty, why did Kratz make an announcement before the trial ? Ah, I could go on forever, but the state were just deplorable in the entire trial. . They did less to find the killer and more to make the Avery storys stick.

PIORUN

apparently there was a lot of stuff left out of the documentary that came up in the trial. Reading this really casts a different , more seedier light on Saint Steven of Avery http://truthkings.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-gives-9-reasons-steven-avery-is-guilty/#

Tipsy McSwagger

PIORUN wrote: »

apparently there was a lot of stuff left out of the documentary that came up in the trial. Reading this really casts a different , more seedier light on Saint Steven of Avery http://truthkings.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-gives-9-reasons-steven-avery-is-guilty/#

2. Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.” On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.

This to me is massive and somehow left out of the documentary.

Tipsy McSwagger

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

2. Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.” On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.

This to me is massive and somehow left out of the documentary.

All those words in bold are aimed to paint Avery in a certain light.
On the other side of it he was actually selling his sisters car and was selling it at the same address, surely Theresa knew the address and wasn't "tricked" into going.

Drumpot

PIORUN wrote: »

apparently there was a lot of stuff left out of the documentary that came up in the trial. Reading this really casts a different , more seedier light on Saint Steven of Avery http://truthkings.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-gives-9-reasons-steven-avery-is-guilty/#

Most of the evidence left out of the case is either in reference to his character or is circumstantial that could mean something or nothing and it does nothing to add weight to the evidence of the case.

The announcement from the state that the documentary left out important information is a tactic to try and refocus people on Avery, as opposed to the case or evidence (or lack of). Its actually quite appropriate because this was the main "strength" of the cases defense. The strongest part of their case was that Avery was an awful person who would be capable of doing what they were saying he did.

As I have said before, I don't know if he did or didn't do it, but being a nasty person doesn't make you a killer. This was at the centre of the states case and shows how easy it could be to manipulate a guilty verdict. If Hitler was on trial and being accused of touching up children, most people would be happy to believe it, it doesn't mean its true. It also means most people would be happy to give "benefit of the doubt" to states evidence in most/all circumstances. It also means any 50/50 potential coincidence would be skewered in favor of the prosecutor. So there would be no benefit of the doubt given to a person. Its not completely wrong, but like I said, with the contaminated and inconclusive evidence of the Avery cases, its extremely dangerous and does not make for a fair trial.

Tipsy McSwagger

Deleted User wrote: »

Objection, hearsay!! :pac:

Overruled that man was in the nip

Tipsy McSwagger

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Overruled that man was in the nip

Move to strike your honour, there's clearly an agenda being pushed through by the prosecution with no evidence to back it up.