Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Paully D

The whole thing is just depressing really, albeit fascinating.

A bloke who while no angel, was framed initially for a crime he didn't commit because he was an easy target because of who he was and the county wanted the case solved ASAP because of who the victim was. Then the "murder". :rolleyes: I won't even go into Dassey because it makes me physically angry. The only thing with Dassey is he will probably live a better life in prison than he would have outside it because he was in no way, shape or form equipped for the outside world and the people he had around him were clearly giving him no chance in life. At least he will have a bit of structure inside. The transformation in the poor guy (I'd imagine because of medication?) over the years has been insane however.

My opinion is that Avery was set up when it became clear that he was intent on bringing a big money case against those involved in the initial cover up, that the insurance wouldn't cover his potential (or virtually guaranteed) damages and that the individual officers/county/DA involved in the framing of Avery in the initial case would have been on the hook for ALL of the cash. $36m. Just think about that again for a second - the individual officers/county/DA involved in the cover up would have had to pay that money to Avery.

People who don't think high-level police officers would be willing to sacrifice someone like Halbach and/or just frame Avery to save their reputations and their financial livelihood along with that of their families need a reality check. The judge was clearly on the take too with some of his decisions throughout the trial, most blatantly the EDTA decision. The corruption is just disgusting.

Halbach's family, especially her brother. There's surely just no way you can sit through what we heard throughout the trial and think "yeah, it had to be have been Avery who killed Teresa". If that was you, you'd surely want the right person convicted and not just anyone and be thinking "hold on, there's something massively off here"? Though to be fair I've thankfully never been in that position and please God never will be so I accept that it's hard to read too much into that, but it's something that stood out to me.

As for the jury - at the very least there's reasonable doubt. 7 of the jurors thought "not guilty" when they sat down initially after the trial and gave their initial opinion. Then they find him guilty of the first count and not guilty of the second count. You really do have to wonder. I feel for the guy who had to leave because of the medical emergency. It's clearly eating away at him that he wasn't able to stay and give his vote to "not guilty".

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

You saw a TV show. You didn't see all the evidence presented. It looked dodgy to me too on the tv show. But that was the aim of the show. Not to show an unbiased look at a trial. To push the conspiracy angle. And it did that by selectively showing the evidence and opinions.

Where was all this extra evidence? The really hard hitting evidence that was not shown?

I saw enough to make me question the credibility of the prosecutors. Should that be considered null and void because I did not see the trial in its entirety?

I saw enough. I saw the way Avery was going down for it irrespective of no incriminating evidence that could legitimately be said was not possibly planted by people that should never have been near that crime scene.

marklazarcovic

also remember the call which would have been in the middle of when this poor woman was being killed (their time frame) from averys fiancé from the prison ,he was in no way rushed,hurried,panicked,...he was totally normal and sounded like he would have spoken to her all night..

nothing like a fella that had a body to dismember and burn before people came looking for her ,waaayy to many inconsistencies to jail the man for life, lenk,her brother,dasseys brother and step dad, out hunting in the woods ..


katz telling the jury if you dont convict avery then what you are saying is its the police that murdered her and cut her up and burned her to frame him, from the start it was bully boy tactics from law enforcement,and they won.

Sunflower 27

Paully D wrote: »

The whole thing is just depressing really, albeit fascinating.

A bloke who while no angel, was framed initially for a crime he didn't commit because he was an easy target because of who he was and the county wanted the case solved ASAP because of who the victim was. Then the "murder". :rolleyes: I won't even go into Dassey because it makes me physically angry. The only thing with Dassey is he will probably live a better life in prison than he would have outside it because he was in no way, shape or form equipped for the outside world and the people he had around him were clearly giving him no chance in life. At least he will have a bit of structure inside. The transformation in the poor guy (I'd imagine because of medication?) over the years has been insane however.

My opinion is that Avery was set up when it became clear that he was intent on bringing a big money case against those involved in the initial cover up, that the insurance wouldn't cover his potential (or virtually guaranteed) damages and that the individual officers/county/DA involved in the framing of Avery in the initial case would have been on the hook for ALL of the cash. $36m. Just think about that again for a second - the individual officers/county/DA involved in the cover up would have had to pay that money to Avery.

People who don't think high-level police officers would be willing to sacrifice someone like Halbach and/or just frame Avery to save their reputations and their financial livelihood along with that of their families need a reality check. The judge was clearly on the take too with some of his decisions throughout the trial, most blatantly the EDTA decision. The corruption is just disgusting.

Halbach's family, especially her brother. There's surely just no way you can sit through what we heard throughout the trial and think "yeah, it had to be have been Avery who killed Teresa". If that was you, you'd surely want the right person convicted and not just anyone and be thinking "hold on, there's something massively off here"? Though to be fair I've thankfully never been in that position and please God never will be so I accept that it's hard to read too much into that, but it's something that stood out to me.

As for the jury - at the very least there's reasonable doubt. 7 of the jurors thought "not guilty" when they sat down initially after the trial and gave their initial opinion. Then they find him guilty of the first count and not guilty of the second count. You really do have to wonder. I feel for the guy who had to leave because of the medical emergency. It's clearly eating away at him that he wasn't able to stay and give his vote to "not guilty".

Judge was very much on the side with the cronies. Some serious wtf moments there. And the bullet that had his dna but was inconclusive. Why was that even allowed? It was quite clear that woman found what she was instructed to find.

And the aunt who found the car and said she saw a ridge and 'just had to search that area'. What was that about? That car yard was huge. Part of me wonders if the jury were a little thick and didn't understand parts that were clearly dodgy because SA's attorney's couldn't say 'hang on, that makes no sense'.

It wasn't always clear and explained easily as there was so much jargon.

PressRun

Thepoet85 wrote: »

It was the job of the prosecution to prove the guilt of Avery, and for me they didn't achieve that. I'm not saying he was innocent, I really don't know if he is or not, but it wasn't the job of the defence to prove him innocent, merely not guilty. And there's a difference between the two.

This is where I stand too. Like I said, if there's some clear cut evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that Avery did it, then let's hear it. I haven't heard anything that does that and despite Kratz's complaints that the documentary doesn't show all the evidence, he is yet to provide anything compelling to prove it.

amdublin

Midway through ep 5 here


Bloody hell I'm emotionally drained.

Sunflower 27

Was there a scene at the start when Steven's property was being searched and he was sitting with two others, very relaxed? He didn't look concerned at all.

And as for those suggesting he told Teresa's boss 'send the woman you sent before' (or words to that effect). Are these the comments of a man wanting to murder her and then get away with it (by burning her behind his trailor).

Or maybe he thought she was pleasant, easy to deal with, thought she was professional and didn't judge him after all he had gone through. Maybe that us why he insisted she come (if in fact he did).

Sunflower 27

amdublin wrote: »

Midway through ep 5 here


Bloody hell I'm emotionally drained.

Wait till the last two....

Wompa1

I'm very cynical. I can't get behind Steven Avery being innocent at all. I did do a bit of research afterwards because you have to be weary. The makers of the show want to tell a compelling story, so you can't take it all and not question it.

Avery's prior history, before 1985 was much, much worse than the show depicted. If you read the grissly details of what he had previously done, you get a better picture of his character.

But there's no way there was justice in this case. In my opinion, Brendan needs to be released and Steven needs a new trial outside of Wisconsin.

Sunflower 27

Wompa1 wrote: »

I'm very cynical. I can't get behind Steven Avery being innocent at all. I did do a bit of research afterwards because you have to be weary. The makers of the show want to tell a compelling story, so you can't take it all and not question it.

Avery's prior history, before 1985 was much, much worse than the show depicted. If you read the grissly details of what he had previously done, you get a better picture of his character.

But there's no way there was justice in this case. In my opinion, Brendan needs to be released and Steven needs a new trial outside of Wisconsin.

The trial was not about his past, but whether he committed this horrible crime. I don't think there was remotely enough evidence he did. I totally agree he needs a new trial away from that place.

I wonder if people were jealous he was to make so much money. It doesn't seem like the place where people that are successful financially live. Maybe I'm wrong, but there may have been resentment.

PressRun

Wompa1 wrote: »

Avery's prior history, before 1985 was much, much worse than the show depicted. If you read the grissly details of what he had previously done, you get a better picture of his character.

But there's no way there was justice in this case. In my opinion, Brendan needs to be released and Steven needs a new trial outside of Wisconsin.

You can't convict someone on prior history though. I don't find Steven Avery an overly nice guy or anything and as I said before I'm not 100% sure either way on his guilt or innocence, but he still shouldn't have been convicted on the strength of what we know given there seemed to be fair amount of reasonable doubt. The police interactions with the media prior to the trial also seriously compromised his right to a fair trial, in my opinion. According to the juror who was excused during deliberations, there were a couple of jurors who had their minds made up and refused to participate in deliberations. I wouldn't besurprised in the least if that had something to do with how the case was handled in the media.

PressRun

8-10 wrote: »

I really don't understand why he would have cleaned the garage so meticulously as to not leave any blood DNA yet fail to even wipe the blood from the inside of the car. Why clean the murder scene so carefully and then not clean the place where the body was put right after?

I don't buy the garage theory.

I don't buy anything about the prosecution's version of events. I definitely think it's possible that he killed her, but this thing of holding her captive and raping her with his idiot nephew before stabbing her and shooting her is bs. It's like some cliche hillbilly horror tale and there's no way Avery is sophisticated enough to clean up a crime that messy and leave not a speck of DNA, but still be dumb enough to leave her car on his property to be found when law enforcement inevitably come knocking. If he did kill her, my guess would be that he shot her somewhere on his property and attempted to dispose of the body rather clumsily. The version of events he and his nephew were actually convicted on is bull****.

adox

I'm baffled that people can make absolute decisions based on a few hours of coverage from a clearly one sided documentary.

Wompa1

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

The trial was not about his past, but whether he committed this horrible crime. I don't think there was remotely enough evidence he did. I totally agree he needs a new trial away from that place.

I wonder if people were jealous he was to make so much money. It doesn't seem like the place where people that are successful financially live. Maybe I'm wrong, but there may have been resentment.

PressRun wrote: »

You can't convict someone on prior history though. I don't find Steven Avery an overly nice guy or anything and as I said before I'm not 100% sure either way on his guilt or innocence, but he still shouldn't have been convicted on the strength of what we know given there seemed to be fair amount of reasonable doubt. The police interactions with the media prior to the trial also seriously compromised his right to a fair trial, in my opinion. According to the juror who was excused during deliberations, there were a couple of jurors who had their minds made up and refused to participate in deliberations. I wouldn't besurprised in the least if that had something to do with how the case was handled in the media.

I didn't say he was guilty. I also said he deserves a new trial outside of the state. It should have been a mistrial in the first place.

There was a lot of evidence against him, it's just that the evidence was expertly brought into question by his defense. For me, the biggest piece of evidence that should have lead to a mistrial was the key being in his trailer and only being found days later and with the local force there.

What was really messed up is the fact they went with the timeline from Brendans story in the initial statement. They stuck with it for part of the trial too but then realized they didn't have any physical evidence to support that timeline and story, they changed it. Yet, Brendan is in prison and has been denied on all of his appeals, despite the fact there's zero physical evidence to connect him to the murders and the fact that Steven was prosecuted with a different story to the one he's in prison for.

The whole thing stinks.

Also when his mother didn't know what inconsistencies meant, I wanted to slap her. An idiot in the corner of an idiot.

marklazarcovic

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Was there a scene at the start when Steven's property was being searched and he was sitting with two others, very relaxed? He didn't look concerned at all.

And as for those suggesting he told Teresa's boss 'send the woman you sent before' (or words to that effect). Are these the comments of a man wanting to murder her and then get away with it (by burning her behind his trailor).

Or maybe he thought she was pleasant, easy to deal with, thought she was professional and didn't judge him after all he had gone through. Maybe that us why he insisted she come (if in fact he did).

and they kept them out of the properties for 8 days solid.


it also could easily have been he asked for her because she had been there before and knew exactly how to get there and would therefore be on time,hassle free etc

Thelomen Toblackai

marklazarcovic wrote: »

and they kept them out of the properties for 8 days solid.


it also could easily have been he asked for her because she had been there before and knew exactly how to get there and would therefore be on time,hassle free etc

Again it's one piece that on its own doesn't mean much but when put with the rest adds to the story.

There's a lot of effort here to try play off all this stuff as coincidence while discounting the rest as a conspiracy.

If you put the same effort into looking at the case on its merits in am unbiased way there's a hell of a lot of things pointing to Stephen Avery as the killer.

And there's really not much to suggest it's a conspiracy. Only that it was mishandled by the police.

Wompa1

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

If you put the same effort into looking at the case on its merits in am unbiased way there's a hell of a lot of things pointing to Stephen Avery as the killer.

And there's really not much to suggest it's a conspiracy. Only that it was mishandled by the police.

In fairness there's a lot to suggest that the investigator conspired against Avery. The fact they asked if Steven Avery was in custody when the RAV was found. The blood sample from 1985 being tampered with and the lab contracted by the department claiming they would never do such a thing. The key showing up days later when the Lenk was on the property. The leading questions put to Brendan and that being put out into the media before a trial was even set.

The forensic evidence that suggests bones were moved from the quarry to the fire pit. The fact they coerced an un-true account from Brendan and didn't find fault with the fact he didn't comprehend the severity of what he was saying (e.g. he asked if he'd be back in class by 1:30pm. He was hoping to get out on time to watch Wrestlemania!)

The public defender for Brendan was working with the prosecution for Steven. Alternate suspects could not be put forward during the trial.

The whole thing stinks of a conspiracy in the true definition of the word. They conspired against Avery. They didn't like anybody else for the crime, they didn't investigate anybody else. They put all of their time and resources into ensuring a conviction against Avery. That was their prerogative.

Sunflower 27

Wompa1 wrote: »

I didn't say he was guilty. I also said he deserves a new trial outside of the state. It should have been a mistrial in the first place.

There was a lot of evidence against him, it's just that the evidence was expertly brought into question by his defense. For me, the biggest piece of evidence that should have lead to a mistrial was the key being in his trailer and only being found days later and with the local force there.

What was really messed up is the fact they went with the timeline from Brendans story in the initial statement. They stuck with it for part of the trial too but then realized they didn't have any physical evidence to support that timeline and story, they changed it. Yet, Brendan is in prison and has been denied on all of his appeals, despite the fact there's zero physical evidence to connect him to the murders and the fact that Steven was prosecuted with a different story to the one he's in prison for.

The whole thing stinks.

Also when his mother didn't know what inconsistencies meant, I wanted to slap her. An idiot in the corner of an idiot.

What is the 'lot of evidence against him'? Because her bones were on his premises? The key and blood were very dodgy.

No fingerprints but blood in the car. And the key was found after was it 4 searches? I don't think it was 4 days into the search. I'd need to clarify that though, but I think it was a long time after the first search.

Thelomen Toblackai

Interesting post on Reddit. Some additional details and clarifications in the thread too. The show glosses over a lot of details that would paint Avery in a different light.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ytjy8/does_anyone_else_think_the_documentary_film/

PressRun

Wompa1 wrote: »

Also when his mother didn't know what inconsistencies meant, I wanted to slap her. An idiot in the corner of an idiot.

To be fair, I think a big point the documentary was making was the position of lower class, poorly educated people in a system that is rigged against them. The people involved barely have the vocabulary to properly defend themselves, nevermind being well-educated enough to understand how the legal system works.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Interesting post on Reddit. Some additional details and clarifications in the thread too. The show glosses over a lot of details that would paint Avery in a different light.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ytjy8/does_anyone_else_think_the_documentary_film/

Nothing there at all that links him to Teresa's death. It's like 'if he could do that he could murder someone'. OK. I can see why it wasn't allowed in court.

Sunflower 27

PressRun wrote: »

To be fair, I think a big point the documentary was making was the position of lower class, poorly educated people in a system that is rigged against them. The people involved barely have the vocabulary to properly defend themselves, nevermind being well-educated enough to understand how the legal system works.

I agree. You could see Brendan was afraid of those in senior positions. He was so intimidated he allowed them to get into his head. Most of us would not allow that to happen, but they knew what they were doing.

The clip of his attorney, the one that looks like the actor in Fargo, being questioned was classic. I had to rewind that a few times. He was chewing on his bottom lip he was so scared. He made a total fool of himself, same with O'Kelly and the sob, blue ribbon, sob. They were serious wtf moments for me.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Nothing there at all that links him to Teresa's death. It's like 'if he could do that he could murder someone'. OK. I can see why it wasn't allowed in court.

Did you read the title of the post ? You do realise this thread is about the show ? Not everything has to be he's guilty or innocent.

It's a post highlighting the degree with which the show excluded details which portrayed him in a negative light. All the while doing the exact opposite when talking about the police.

The show itself isn't anything close to a realistic and unbiased story of what happened. Seems to have influenced a hell of a lot of people into believing he's the victim all the same.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Did you read the title of the post ? You do realise this thread is about the show ? Not everything has to be he's guilty or innocent.

It's a post highlighting the degree with which the show excluded details which portrayed him in a negative light. All the while doing the exact opposite when talking about the police.

The show itself isn't anything close to a realistic and unbiased story of what happened. Seems to have influenced a hell of a lot of people into believing he's the victim all the same.

You can post what you like, I merely pointed out it means nothing. That's allowed.

We all get that parts of the trial were excluded from the documentary. Of course there was information ommitted.

However, we saw all of those caught out in inconsistencies; failure to show every word does not discredit what we did see and hear. And it was very clear that there was a huge movement to frame this on Avery from the get go. That says a lot. The unethical actions of many is crystal clear. We don't need to have been at the trial to know that.

And the police portrayed themselves in a negative light. No help was needed there. Maybe if they had been above board they wouldn't be facing such a backlash.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

You can post what you like, I merely pointed out it means nothing. That's allowed.

We all get that parts of the trial were excluded from the documentary. Of course there was information ommitted.

However, we saw all of those caught out in inconsistencies; failure to show every word does not discredit what we did see and hear. And it was very clear that there was a huge movement to frame this on Avery from the get go. That says a lot. The unethical actions of many is crystal clear. We don't need to have been at the trial to know that.

You seen what the makers of the show wanted you to see. It was clear they were pushing the frame angle but it's not at all clear there was any framing.

gavmcg92

Absolutely loved the show. Didn't have the opportunity to binge watch like the rest of you as I would have been falling asleep in work for the week! Have also spent the last hour going through this and reading all of your comments. Definitely makes for a more interesting read that we have opinions on both sides of the aisle.

As far as I see it, it's hard to see how a jury member can without reasonable doubt, say that Avery killed her. Even when you take into consideration the information that some people say was missing from the doc.

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion so far (as far as I can see) is an explanation for the blood in the back of her car that would be indicative of her body being transported. Why would Avery put her in the boot if she was burned a few feet from his house?

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

You seen what the makers of the show wanted you to see. It was clear they were pushing the frame angle but it's not at all clear there was any framing.

Correction, I heard the words that were spoken and the lies told. The documentary makers did not change spoken words.

Not clear there was framing? That was the one thing that was clear. Can you explain why colburn called in tbe licence plates days before the car was found? Or why it was Lenk that found the key after so many previous searches? Or that inconclusive dna on a bullet was allowed, or why Brendan had a confession taken without a lawyer present... There is so much there.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Correction, I heard the words that were spoken and the lies told. The documentary makers did not change spoken words.

Not clear there was framing? That was the one thing that was clear. Can you explain why colburn called in tbe licence plates days before the car was found? Or why it was Lenk that found the key after so many previous searches? Or that inconclusive dna on a bullet was allowed, or why Brendan had a confession taken without a lawyer present... There is so much there.

How can you say it was clear? It was clear enough they were hell bent on convicting him and possibly interfered with the crime scene to do that but there's no evidence pointing to a frame. The dna on the bullet was Teresa's, call it what you like but at best it'd be a loophole. It's still a bullet from his gun with the victims dna on it. The blood in the van was his, consistent with a cut he had and effort to argue it was planted weren't successful. At best on that they had its not impossible it may have been planted if you ignore the results of the fbi test. Not rock solid evidence by any stretch. His dna was also on he hood latch.

So there's pretty good evidence that puts him in the victims car where her blood was also found. A bullet from his gun with her dna matching a bullet would to her skull. Her remains on his property.

If you're saying it was a frame what's your likely chain of events ? Who else can be linked to the victim, the car or the remains? Do the police kill her ? Do they burn her ? Move the remains to his property? Along with the car? Plant his blood in the car in line with a cut on his right hand, dna under the hood, the key with added dna and the bullet fired from his gun or similar with dna planted on it.

Thats an incredible amount if stuff to try explain with not much to even back up the story.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

How can you say it was clear? It was clear enough they were hell bent on convicting him and possibly interfered with the crime scene to do that but there's no evidence pointing to a frame. The dna on the bullet was Teresa's, call it what you like but at best it'd be a loophole. It's still a bullet from his gun with the victims dna on it. The blood in the van was his, consistent with a cut he had and effort to argue it was planted weren't successful. At best on that they had its not impossible it may have been planted if you ignore the results of the fbi test. Not rock solid evidence by any stretch. His dna was also on he hood latch.

So there's pretty good evidence that puts him in the victims car where her blood was also found. A bullet from his gun with her dna matching a bullet would to her skull. Her remains on his property.

If you're saying it was a frame what's your likely chain of events ? Who else can be linked to the victim, the car or the remains? Do the police kill her ? Do they burn her ? Move the remains to his property? Along with the car? Plant his blood in the car in line with a cut on his right hand, dna under the hood, the key with added dna and the bullet fired from his gun or similar with dna planted on it.

Thats an incredible amount if stuff to try explain with not much to even back up the story.

Would you not call interfering with a crime scene part of a plan to frame someone? Because that screams framing to me. Why else do it unless you had a target you wanted to pin the crime on.

You know, there is not much that backs up Steven killed Teresa. There is plenty that backs up the crooked cops throughout this entire thread.

I don't know how they did it, if I did for a fact I'd hardly be on boards with my information. There was so much under-hand carry-on. I wouldn't put anything past those cops. Surely you also saw them crumble time and time again on the stand. I only wish I knew the truth.

Oh, and tbe bullet dna was inconclusive, you forgot that.

Tbe blood in his car without a trace of fingerprints and knowing his blood was available to police.... And tbe container appeared to have been tampered with.

You seem to keep forgetting these oddities in your posts.

I'm heading out now so don't see my failure to respond further as ignoring you. Happy New Year!

Ageyev

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

.

From what I seen as one sided as it was I'd be surprised if Avery wasn't the killer. So the poor family not only has a bunch of idiots locking up their son for 18 years but then they have to go through it all again because he was actually a psycho but being innocent the first time people bought into his lies this time. That's the cruellest part of it, how he exploits all that to string his family along and ruins lives all over the place.

This is one aspect that disturbed me - either he was the dumbest criminal in the world by leaving so much evidence around or he was actually evil enough to think he could get away with it.

Mightydrumming wrote: »

You have to put your hands up to Steven's defence team, tremendous job considering the outcome. I still can't work out how the $400,000 lasted the duration!!

Steven didn't get all the $400k as some of it went towars legal costs for the civil suit. You can find Buting and Strang's websites. I assume that they arrange a flat fee upfront to cover all work up until sentencing.

JaMarcusHustle wrote: »

.

Ultimately, I would echo Avery's lawyer. I just really hope they are both guilty and all this sympathy is unwarranted.

Dean Strang said that about Steven Avery not Brendan Dassey. Strang also said that he doesn't know if Steven is innocent but is also not convinced he is guilty.

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

And a lot of people seem to be glossing over the fact a poor girl was violently murdered. The police mangled the investigation but theres enough to know Avery more than likely killed her and ****ed up a lot of lives including his own.

True. I was reminding myself half way through that a woman was murdered in an appalling crime. That the investigation and prosecution was so bad is an insult and unjust. Dean Strang said that the documentary ought to encourage people to ask questions about the system and the workings of the State rather than focusing on Steven's guilt or innocence as public exposure and pressure is highly unlikely to help. But the Internet has lit up with amateur investigators and I've seen very little discussion focusing on the systemic aspects that Strang mentioned.