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 - Documentary Series]

Also Starring LeVar Burton

New 10-Part Documentary on Netflix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgbdYaR_KQ

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Commanchie

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

Imagine the conversation when Walshb and Enfant Terrible arrive into their respective work places this morning. People asking how the bank holiday weekend went, and the two of them having to lie about the fact that they spent the whole bank holiday Monday trying to wind people up on the internet.

And not succeeding onky managing to end up angry telling all those debating with him you all masturbate each other. Think thats a clear sign you lost the debate

Brock Turnpike

Imagine the conversation when Walshb and Enfant Terrible arrive into their respective work places this morning. People asking how the bank holiday weekend went, and the two of them having to lie about the fact that they spent the whole bank holiday Monday trying to wind people up on the internet.

Commanchie

Field east wrote: »

It does not make sence that he knows who did it or even have very strong suspicions and did not share it with his defense team the first time around. That would have provided a major platform for his defense team in the first team to build on

He shared his doubts about who he believed done it.

Field east

Commanchie wrote: »

Why are you assuming we all think SA is a nice guy and has no part to play in this crime.

I think we all know SA isnt a nice guy from his behaviours as a youth.
I also believe he knows something( I dont believe he committed murder) but knows who did.

Just cause he is not a nice guy doesnt warrant being set up for a murder. The evidence is so blatantly fixed up that its laughable. The evidence and process has been tampered with of that I have no doubt.

It does not make sence that he knows who did it or even have very strong suspicions and did not share it with his defense team the first time around. That would have provided a major platform for his defense team in the first team to build on

Field east

Uncharted wrote: »

In my opinion,Stephen Avery is a nasty piece of work. I don't like his personality much,I certainly would not be a cheerleader for him.

That doesn't change the fact* that he was framed for Teresa Halbach's murder by the way.

To be honest,its hard to say which one is worse.

A privileged background and an expensive education is perhaps a more socially acceptable mask than being a barely literate grease monkey redneck.

I believe they are both unpleasant in their own ways.

*imo

A lot of young people can be a bit wild and straighten out when the get older/ get married/ get a job/ copyor follow their elders behavior. So is it fair to base ones perception on a persons behaviour when they were young/ teenagers?
I Wes scratching my head for the words to describe another reason why he might be seen as a very deplorable character and post 1777 provided the very phrase for me ie ‘———being a barely literate grease monkey redneck.’

Field east

enfant terrible wrote: »

What can we call agree about Averys character?

Who between Avery and Kratz is a more deplorable character?

That question is of great interest. The ‘ HIDDEN AGENDA’ in any situation is something which always exercises me. In this case I am at a loss to see what is very deplorable about Avery. It is fairly clear what it very deplorable about Kratz to the ordinary citizen. Re Avery, is it his demeanour ;his looks;his various utterances;the fact that he has repeatedly said that he did not kill Theresa;that the family/ extended family come across as a bit rough rough/very rural/raw; the way they dress ; the fact that he has not cracked up yet OR WHAT?

No matter what situation your typical human being is dealing with there is always the real possibility of a hidden agenda being the real agenda and this case is no exception.

If you like someone it is quiet possible that you will treat them differently to the way that you might treat them if you did not like them.

Based on the above , the prosecution could now have two reasons- hidden agenda wise- to nail Avery , ie he is a deplorable character and he has shown us up re our wrongful conviction of him in a previous case and they are going to ‘get him back’ no matter what it takes. The OFFICIAL AGENDA, of course, is that , he was made the chief/ only suspect with the help of Brendan in the murder of Theresa and was eventually found guilty of it

Commanchie

enfant terrible wrote: »

What can we call agree about Averys character?

Who between Avery and Kratz is a more deplorable character?

Why are you assuming we all think SA is a nice guy and has no part to play in this crime.

I think we all know SA isnt a nice guy from his behaviours as a youth.
I also believe he knows something( I dont believe he committed murder) but knows who did.

Just cause he is not a nice guy doesnt warrant being set up for a murder. The evidence is so blatantly fixed up that its laughable. The evidence and process has been tampered with of that I have no doubt.

Uncharted

enfant terrible wrote: »

What can we call agree about Averys character?

Who between Avery and Kratz is a more deplorable character?

In my opinion,Stephen Avery is a nasty piece of work. I don't like his personality much,I certainly would not be a cheerleader for him.

That doesn't change the fact* that he was framed for Teresa Halbach's murder by the way.

To be honest,its hard to say which one is worse.

A privileged background and an expensive education is perhaps a more socially acceptable mask than being a barely literate grease monkey redneck.

I believe they are both unpleasant in their own ways.

*imo

enfant terrible

Uncharted wrote: »

Im sure the one thing we all can agree on,despite our differing opinions on the case,is that Ken Kratz is a real grade A piece of sh

The guy is almost a caricature of slyness.
He's a sleazy slimeball personified.

What can we call agree about Averys character?

Who between Avery and Kratz is a more deplorable character?

Checkmate19

Amazing he was able to get away with the press conference at the start. Shows you how much of a advantage the prosecution has in the us. That press conference made it virtually impossible for either to get a fair trial.

Checkmate19

Ken Krantz comes across as a vile individual. Delighted he was fired.

Uncharted

Im sure the one thing we all can agree on,despite our differing opinions on the case,is that Ken Kratz is a real grade A piece of shìt.

The guy is almost a caricature of slyness.
He's a sleazy slimeball personified.

Mountainsandh

Uncharted wrote: »

A total narcissistic prìck. You should see his Twitter. Pure delusion. His partners is a treasure trove too.

:rolleyes:

I was looking at that too today ! Did you see the pictures he posts of her on his twitter ? "look ! look at her breast ! look at how young she is !(he makes sure to squeeze that in when he says she wasn't born at the time of something) and she is with ME ! "

He's really really mentally sick imo. Really at the extreme end of narcissism. I read somewhere too that he boasted he had a torture chamber in his house, that he was into bdsm, although that could all be BS of course, that's purely Reddit gossip, but I think it would tie in nicely with what we see of him, personally.

I think where he really showed how sick he is, the best evidence we have that he is completely consumed by his own longing to display and exert power, is when he gave that press conference. It was just so completely wrong legally, and morally, on so many levels (Brendan, Teresa's family) but he opted to do it for his gratification. I find it really hard to watch, beyond the horror of the narrative, it's like he was masturbating to his own image in public. Just my opinion and perception of course.

Uncharted

Mam of 4 wrote: »

He is a vile , obnoxious , smug , person .
From holding the press conference in Series1 , to his talks , book, making money off SA's back in the second series , he's despicable imo .

A total narcissistic prìck. You should see his Twitter. Pure delusion. His partners is a treasure trove too.

:rolleyes:

Mam of 4

mikeym wrote: »

Im in the middle of watching Part 2 of Making A Murderer and Wow.

Ken Kratz is some attention seeker.

He has the cheek to release a book on the case and make up stories about Steven Avery, hes delusional.

He is a vile , obnoxious , smug , person .

From holding the press conference in Series1 , to his talks , book, making money off SA's back in the second series , he's despicable imo .

mikeym

Im in the middle of watching Part 2 of Making A Murderer and Wow.

Ken Kratz is some attention seeker.

He has the cheek to release a book on the case and make up stories about Steven Avery, hes delusional.

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Ask him....

Not sure why this scenario cannot be a possibility...

He killed her...what he did is what he did..

His choice...

Raped, shot, murdered a woman.
Shoved her into the boot of her own car.
Drove around the area
Decided to come back to his yard and burn the body
Drove away again and poorly stashed the car despite the fact he could easily have crushed it in his own salvage yard
A few days later, collect the car and bring it to his yard and store it embarrassingly poorly.

Ya, sounds legit.

marklazarcovic

Imagine if it turned out that Brendan was a keyzer soze, or the stutterer from primal fear,and it was in fact him who did it all ..omg.

Mountainsandh

Field east wrote: »

PLEASE see post no 1630. The documentary made absolutely zilch reference - either from the defense or prosecution - to the Kiss The Girls book

I wonder where I heard it then. It was definitely Brendan himself saying it. And I'm kind of thinking it was in an official interview sort of situation, not interview with the media.

Oh, I know sure, it was in his testimony in the trial. https://www.bustle.com/articles/133445-kiss-the-girls-vs-brendan-dasseys-confession-could-he-have-been-inspired-by-the-book

Field east

Checkmate19 wrote: »

It happens regularly

walshb wrote: »

I’ll try watch it...

But many many were convinced after a few biased episodes of season 1...

Folks, the show is designed and made and created to try and sway people to believe that the men were framed. It is NOT balanced..it has its own agenda..

A number of posters have referred to the documentary to date as bias towards the defense and somewhat unbalanced.
Would it not be the case that the defense through this documentary and the groundwork being done is trying to ‘ rebalance’ a situation that apparently has ended up as being very unbalanced in favor of the prosecution . Especially if there is any truth in the very sloppy and the very unprofessional way the overall way the investigation was carried out.
Also the key to S Avery’s conviction was the core of Brendan’s confession re what happened in S Avery’s bedroom. Once the prosecution had this essential jigsaw piece it was then able to build the whole case around it.
PLEASE see post no 1630. The documentary made absolutely zilch reference - either from the defense or prosecution - to the Kiss The Girls book

Mountainsandh

patsman07 wrote: »

I'm open to correction too, but I thought Zellner stated that the killer must have planted the blood and it had to be someone who knew that Steven had cut his finger that day. I also thought that she said that the cops had the car moved to the scrapyard because they knew it was Steven's blood? Although I cant understand why they would risk doing that if they already had proof it was his blood.

Yeah I think I remember her saying that towards the end of the season. I'm not convinced by that criss-crossing of planting evidence, some by the killer, some by the cops.

I think the cops after finding the car went searching the quarry, found the bones there, planted the bones at Avery's, and planted the blood in the car.

Ryan Hillegas possibly helped.

Cops returned to the trailer after hours for some other reason (possibly planting something else or collecting something) and happened upon the blood in the bathroom. Any cop a bit versed in forensics would see the value in collecting blood. They also took the toothbrush I think. Maybe that's what they were after, DNA.

Blanco100

walshb wrote: »

Ask him....

Not sure why this scenario cannot be a possibility...

He killed her...what he did is what he did..

His choice...

Walshb you really do amuse me. No matter what the topic is you really enjoy playing the contrarion, you will take the less popular view every single time

If even half the inconsistencies are incorrect as laid out by Zellner then it raises reasonable doubt at the very least.

Not enough credence given to the fact he was knee deep in suing the state also, so he was definitely a marked man 100%.

Uncharted

walshb wrote: »

And there is no credible evidence to show that the cops planted the blood and/or moved the car..so, if it wasn’t the cops, who was it?

Ah here!!! Watch the damn show ffs!!!!!!

deco nate

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Troll? Someone has a different opinion than you and you resort to calling them a troll. There seems to be a gang mentality in this thread where you turn on someone, call them names and then all jerk each other off.

I don't think that is it, the poster has said they only watched the first season, and is only posting his/her views from that.

Season 2 is over now and people are calling him/her out that, the thread is far advanced than that poster's comments.

He/she was asked to watch the 2nd season and then come back and post*.

Btw, I am amazed that so much detail was missed out by his previous lawyers.

* paraphrasing*

walshb

And there is no credible evidence to show that the cops planted the blood and/or moved the car..so, if it wasn’t the cops, who was it?

patsman07

retro:electro wrote: »

My understanding is that Zellner feels the cops had a hunch Avery did it as she was last seen on his property. They just didn’t have anything on him and so had to make it fit. The car was found off the property (as stated by a witness in season 2) then called in by Colburn (as seen in season 1) then subsequently moved back to Avery’s yard (which was by now out of bounds) and cops had access to his trailer where he had recently bled into his sink. It’s her theory that the cops then transferred his blood from the sink to the car when the car was moved back to the yard.
Am willing to be corrected on that if it’s inaccurate.

I'm open to correction too, but I thought Zellner stated that the killer must have planted the blood and it had to be someone who knew that Steven had cut his finger that day. I also thought that she said that the cops had the car moved to the scrapyard because they knew it was Steven's blood? Although I cant understand why they would risk doing that if they already had proof it was his blood.

Tipsy McSwagger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm just starting to watch it again. I have to, I have to shake it out of my system. Might skim a bit alright as it takes time.

It opens with exactly all the doubts and objections you have to it. It literally opens with how biased the documentary was, how it left out some evidence, etc... It validates everything you seem to think about it to start with.

I’ll watch the first episode tomorrow. I would much prefer a 2 hour documentary made by someone like Errol Morris tbh, these Netflix documentaries are just too drawn out.

retro:electro

patsman07 wrote: »

Zellner's theory is that the killer planted Steven Avery's blood in the car. Cops subsequently found the car and had it moved to the junkyard. Why would this be necessary if Avery's blood was in the car?

My understanding is that Zellner feels the cops had a hunch Avery did it as she was last seen on his property. They just didn’t have anything on him and so had to make it fit. The car was found off the property (as stated by a witness in season 2) then called in by Colburn (as seen in season 1) then subsequently moved back to Avery’s yard (which was by now out of bounds) and cops had access to his trailer where he had recently bled into his sink. It’s her theory that the cops then transferred his blood from the sink to the car when the car was moved back to the yard.
Am willing to be corrected on that if it’s inaccurate.

Mountainsandh

patsman07 wrote: »

Zellner's theory is that the killer planted Steven Avery's blood in the car. Cops subsequently found the car and had it moved to the junkyard. Why would this be necessary if Avery's blood was in the car?

They didn't know his blood was in the car, they just found the car.

drkpower

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I've asked this to another poster.
I'll now ask walshb and Tipsy

"If Steven did rape, shoot and murder Teresa that afternoon/early evening. Why did he then throw her in the boot of her car, drive her around for a bit and then return to burn her? Then remove her car which was spotted by a member of the public, it was called in by Colburn only to then bring it back to his yard and cover it with tarp and branches?"

I don’t really believe that narrative, but it is plausible.

Perhaps he initially planned to bury her off his property;packed body into the car, and off he went to find a suitable place in the quarry, couldn’t find a suitable location, and then reverted to plan B;.burn the body. It’s not an outlandish theory.