nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Making a murderer (Netflix)

Mantis Toboggan

Think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on this seeing as season two arrived on Netflix today.

For me this show brought true crime to the masses and increased my interest in the genre. Thought season 1 was very good if a little biased but it did give good insight into the US criminal justice system.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tipsy McSwagger

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

What info was in the trial that we know was left out of the documentary?

Go research it for yourself, look past the biased documentary and come to your own conclusion

Mantis Toboggan

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Go research it for yourself, look past the biased documentary and come to your own conclusion

Will do.

I thought when you were saying it's biased that you knew of some info which wasn't in the documentary? I've heard things are missing from the doc that were in the trial but I haven't been able to find anything.

What makes you say it's biased?

Tipsy McSwagger

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Will do.

I thought when you were saying it's biased that you knew of some info which wasn't in the documentary? I've heard things are missing from the doc that were in the trial but I haven't been able to find anything.

What makes you say it's biased?

One of the episodes ended on a big cliffhanger. The defense claimed a blood vial was tampered with, it was punctured and Avery’s blood was then planted in Theresa’s car. They made this out to be the smoking gun. Except it’s common to puncture a blood vial and insert/draw blood. This ‘smoking gun’ didn’t even make it to Avery’s appeal hearing it was that laughable.

[Deleted User]

Based on the information we have, we know Theresa didn't die in the manner Steven was convicted of. No blood or DNA to suggest it happened that way. Zellners arguement is much more plausible. The thing is, there is something missing. Why did the police plant the evidence?

1) They were involved in the murder to frame Avery? That seems hugely unlikely, they could have just killed him.

2) They know the real murderer or they know it's not Avery but they went after him anyways to avoid paying him and to restore their reputation. This is way more likely but it's still hard to think that a police force would let a murderer away.

3) They had reason to believe that Steven was guilty and just went with it, planting evidence to secure the conviction. This seems most likely, but what made them so sure it was? This is the part Zellner is missing.

She needs to find out what made them so sure of his guilt that they planted evidence.

That's no easy task.

Boom_Bap

I think the reasoning behind the planting of evidence is because the state were in a battle with him already over his payout for previous false conviction and incarceration.

If he was locked up again, the payout would be cancelled or be drastically reduced. So they planted evidence and tampered to make this happen.

Plus - the family was not liked at all in the county and known to be trouble makers I believe.

Pelvis

Deleted User wrote: »

Based on the information we have, we know Theresa didn't die in the manner Steven was convicted of. No blood or DNA to suggest it happened that way. Zellners arguement is much more plausible. The thing is, there is something missing. Why did the police plant the evidence?

1) They were involved in the murder to frame Avery? That seems hugely unlikely, they could have just killed him.

2) They know the real murderer or they know it's not Avery but they went after him anyways to avoid paying him and to restore their reputation. This is way more likely but it's still hard to think that a police force would let a murderer away.

3) They had reason to believe that Steven was guilty and just went with it, planting evidence to secure the conviction. This seems most likely, but what made them so sure it was? This is the part Zellner is missing.

She needs to find out what made them so sure of his guilt that they planted evidence.

That's no easy task.

Avery was likely about to get a big payout in a civil case against the state for his first wrongful conviction. Think it was mentioned in the first season that the cops involved (Colburn/Lenk and probably others) could be personally liable for those costs.

That alone is more than enough motive. They may have planted evidence because a) they still believed he was guilty for the first crime and wanted in back in jail regardless of his guilt of the second, or b) to have the civil case thrown out to spare themselves the expense of liability and/or any professional ramifications they may have faced.

marklazarcovic

Kratz boils my blood,whooring himself to every tv show available when Brendan could have been released,really was desperate for it not to happen..a deeply untrustworthy individual.

marklazarcovic

Pelvis wrote: »

Avery was likely about to get a big payout in a civil case against the state for his first wrongful conviction. Think it was mentioned in the first season that the cops involved (Colburn/Lenk and probably others) could be personally liable for those costs.

That alone is more than enough motive. They may have planted evidence because a) they still believed he was guilty for the first crime and wanted in back in jail regardless of his guilt of the second, or b) to have the civil case thrown out to spare themselves the expense of liability and/or any professional ramifications they may have faced.

They probably thought it would just be a straight forward conviction,no payout,life goes on...

They had no idea how big and scrutinized this case would become at the time..none of them did

retro:electro

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Kratz boils my blood,whooring himself to every tv show available when Brendan could have been released,really was desperate for it not to happen..a deeply untrustworthy individual.

He’s an odious pig. Literally shlt on your shoe in human form

dulux99

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

It’s a completely biased production made to cater for the Facebook generation, lazy arses who just watch the show and scream they are innocent.

Do you conduct your own independent investigation following watching anything crime related on TV?

People watch these things as entertainment. We're not detectives.

You can pick holes in the case, as plenty have, but to say people are lazy because not going in depth into the case is a weird attitude to have.

Tipsy McSwagger

dulux99 wrote: »

Do you conduct your own independent investigation following watching anything crime related on TV?

People watch these things as entertainment. We're not detectives.

You can pick holes in the case, as plenty have, but to say people are lazy because not going in depth into the case is a weird attitude to have.

When I watch a crime documentary I like to research the other side of the case not just a one sided one. It’s not entertainment when lazy arses are starting online petitions to try and get this scumbag freed, here’s a link

https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-free-steven-avery

Ye entertainment me hole, go and say that to Theresa Halbach’s family.

dulux99

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

When I watch a crime documentary I like to research the other side of the case not just a one sided one. It’s not entertainment when lazy arses are starting online petitions to try and get this scumbag freed, here’s a link

https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-free-steven-avery

Ye entertainment me hole, go and say that to Theresa Halbach’s family.

It's literally a TV show on Netflix. It is of course entertainment.

Mantis Toboggan

Well in fairness to the documentary very few on the Hallbach side wanted anything to do with the documentary so it was always going to appear one sided, I don't get the Facebook generation line though, what's that supposed to mean?

dulux99

If anything the "Facebook generation" would be more inclined to do research as they'd have access to more information online. But whatever, we're all idiots for watching this TV show, we should be reading through old police records and trying to solve the crime ourselves.

NabyLadistheman

I thought Laura was poor in the arguments with the three judges. She sounded emotional & nervous when questioned. Especially in comparison to the guy the state put forward.

dulux99

Suarezistheman wrote: »

I thought Laura was poor in the arguments with the three judges. She sounded emotional & nervous when questioned. Especially in comparison to the guy the state put forward.

She was fairly irritating at all points tbh.

SoupyNorman

Season 2 was good, nothing too jaw dropping but a few nuggets.

Overall, Im still on 100% sure of Stevens innocence nor Brendan’s albeit Im leaning that way.

Common sense things like no fingerprints anywhere, ever.
The silly fashion in which the car was hidden.
How ridiculously fast it was found and Pams frankly cringe worthy explanation of how she found it.
Why they would put Theresa in the Rav 4 to go a few feet to the burn pit
Raped and murdered(throat cut) on the bed and not a single fibre or drop of Theresas blood found

They are just a few stand outs for me on the argument for innocence.

I do have trouble with the fact that IF all this evidence was planted then there must be 2, 3 or 10 people in on it? They could never have known just how much attention this was gonna attract so there really should have been something uncovered by now to prove that he was framed. Add to that, nobody talking, nobody confesses anything in the last 14 years. Us humans find it very difficult to keep secrets. I guess that’s a stretch but again, if this is a cover up it’s extremely frightening to see the power law enforcement have over citizens.

retro:electro

Was it the family computer? How are they so sure those search results were Bobby’s?

dulux99

retro:electro wrote: »

Was it the family computer? How are they so sure those search results were Bobby’s?

Apart from the fact that they said Brendan never used the home PC, not alot really. Then again, Kratz had access to that information before the trial. I presume if he thought they may be Brendans searches then he would have used that info himself. I did wonder about that too though.

seligehgit

Suarezistheman wrote: »

I thought Laura was poor in the arguments with the three judges. She sounded emotional & nervous when questioned. Especially in comparison to the guy the state put forward.

I thought she was pretty dismal in arguing Brendan's case before the seventh circuit court of appeal ( en banc).

Zellner fairly slaughtered her (Brendan's legal advisors) re two substantive issues she struggled to answer.

The question re the presence of the casings on the Avery property.

One of a multitude on a property where hunting was a hobby.No evidence that there was shooting in the garage throwing out the window the judge's assumption there was a shooting in the garage.There sure as hell wouldn't be any casing in his garage in the north side of Chicago.

Her bigger failing was in failing to understand that it wasn't the truth they were trying to grasp when the judge enquired re the police's motive for seeking two killers.

They were'nt,they were seeking Brendan's confession to corroborate the wafer thin case they had to convict Steven based on arguably refutable forensic evidence.

retro:electro

seligehgit wrote: »

Her bigger failing was in failing to understand that it wasn't the truth they were trying to grasp when the judge enquired re the police's motive for seeking two killers.

They were'nt,they were seeking Brendan's confession to corroborate the wafer thin case they had to convict Steven based on arguably refutable forensic evidence.

I was willing her to say something like this. What a missed opportunity. How could she say they were after the truth when they bent and manipulated so much in order to manufacture a story and avoid the truth. I felt for her because she was clearly nervous and I believe this was her first assigned case out of college. She was good but totally out of her depth.

seligehgit

retro:electro wrote: »

I was willing her to say something like this. What a missed opportunity. How could she say they were after the truth when they bent and manipulated so much in order to manufacture a story and avoid the truth. I felt for her because she was clearly nervous and I believe this was her first assigned case out of college. She was good but totally out of her depth.

I'm afraid to say she was somewhat out of her depth.

Her colleague Steven Drizin might have been better suited to arguing the case as he appeared to be more experienced.

She did seem to enjoy the limelight.

That's a very mild criticism as those guys at the centre for post conviction relief are true heroes and great advocates for those who possibly suffer miscarriages of justice and don't have the financial wherewithal to continue the fight.

retro:electro

Just watching the final episode now and it’s on the phone call between Barb, Scott and Steven.
You’d wonder is Brendan better off locked away from these freaks.

seligehgit

retro:electro wrote: »

Just watching the final episode now and it’s on the phone call between Barb, Scott and Steven.
You’d wonder is Brendan better off locked away from these freaks.

TBF Steven was very reasoned in the course of that phone call.

Of course love is blind and Barbara couldn't countenance that her husband could be involved in this hideous crime.

Scott really let himself down.

From season one himself and Bobby's evidence really hung Steven out to dry.

dulux99

That phoencall was damming. When he brings up the possibility that the father in law did it, the guys response was "I hate him!!!

Is that the default response of someone who's being implicated as being involved in a murder? Surely you'd be a bit more... Incredulous? Rather than defaulting to " I hate you!!! "

retro:electro

Interesting that none of Avery’s fingerprints were found in the Rav or on the key, only his blood and DNA. Fingerprints are the only source of identification that you cannot manipulate, duplicate or reproduce. You can plant DNA and blood and other matter but you can’t plant a fingerprint. It’s only true authentic marker of knowing whether or not someone was where they’re accused of being.
The prosecution argue this is down to him wearing gloves, well then how did his blood get there?

kev1.3s

I haven't watched season 2 tho after watching season 1 I find it difficult to like Steven which doesn't make him guilty, but although I can possibly see he would be capable the state didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Given the evidence presented by Netflix the evidence was shaky at best, that is of course if Netflix offered up a balanced argument.
Brendan on the other hand I find very difficult to take, it's very difficult to watch two very minliputive police officers coerce a very intellectually limited teenager into a confession that suits the narrative they are trying to build to convict Steven is nothing short of criminal.
On top of that it seems very likely that there was some cooperation between the police and his own council. If as I believe that brendan is innocent I hope the men involved are haunted for the rest of there lives over stealing the life of a young boy.

[Deleted User]

Another baffling thing in this case is the jury. Not only did they have so much information withheld from them but at the end of the trial most of them were leaning towards not guilty. Wonder what changed?

kev1.3s

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Another baffling thing in this case is the jury. Not only did they have so much information withheld from them but at the end of the trial most of them were leaning towards not guilty. Wonder what changed?

The thing that baffles me is that Steven was convicted on the basis that the murder was in the garage and brendan was convicted on his confession which states the murder happened in the trailer.
How can two people be found guilty of the same crime in two different crime scenes? Surely one scenario at least cannot be true.

Boom_Bap

kev1.3s wrote: »

The thing that baffles me is that Steven was convicted on the basis that the murder was in the garage and brendan was convicted on his confession which states the murder happened in the trailer.
How can two people be found guilty of the same crime in two different crime scenes? Surely one scenario at least cannot be true.

I believe that it's all from Brendan's 'confession'.
Brendan says that they stabbed her in the trailer and cut her throat, but she wasn't dead. The detectives then led the story to the garage where the spend casing was found.
Brendan initially says it happened outside but was then persuaded that it happened inside which puts the final bullet in the garage near the casing.