Vodkat wrote: » I just binge watched MaM and feel in a place of limbo after it, completely undecided about whether Steven is guilty or not. I think the way the documentary is depicted is biased towards innocence and they apparently left out some crucial evidence. I know that polygraph tests are inadmissible in court but there are a few people that I would love to see them carry out a polygraph on!
finglashoop wrote: » Ill try this with out trying to spoil What sort of crucial evidence are they leaving out? would they have just left it out to suit theie narrative of innocence. I thought both were brought with circumstantial evidence. I thought it was balanced in as much as both got screen time presenting case in court / press conferences. I was aware of this case through a podcast but the watching of it is surreal to think its possible.
sheep? wrote: » That kept going through my head as well...where was the motive? They had absolutely no physical evidence of sexual assault, or psychological issues. All they had was dodgy evidence and conflicting witness statements. Whether he's innocent or guilty is beyond me, but judging on the evidence presented in this documentary, I can't see how the guilty verdict was given. It's bloody depressing at times, but majorly compelling viewing. Watched it over two days. Could probably have done with an hour or two less. As a slight aside and purely on the aesthetics of the documentary, the intro is magnificent. Especially the music. Highly recommended viewing.
horsebox09 wrote: » Just on the fourth ep now, absolutely terrific so fat, finding it hard not to put my fist through my tele at tines, though! "What happened to her head?", you'll be hard pressed to find a person being more coached into "confessing" to an act than in that video, genuine manipulation of a kid who'd make Forest Gump look like Einstein
Sunflower 27 wrote: » Check out this statement by Kratz. He made my skin crawl throughout. It is clear these men truly thought they were invincible. This clip shows Kratz
ASoberThought wrote: » It's sick to watch this man. You can find the Kratz law firm by searching via Google and many people on reddit have even received a response when mailing him about the case.
Checkmate19 wrote: » Excellent documentary. Very hard to watch at times. Watched it in two sittings just couldn't wait to see what happened. Netflix do some really great stuff. I think this is the best documentary i have ever seen.
lukegriffen wrote: » I watched it in two sittings, riveting stuff. I thought the Avery family were very stoic, they held themselves v.well, always seemed v.composed. If that was me I would have gone out of my mind.I skipped through most of episode 9 I was so sure of the jury verdict in the 1st case, wow. I would have loved to have heard an alternate view from a juror who was convinced of their guilt. For 12 people to convict, there must have been something substantial that wasn't obvious to the viewer
FouxDaFaFa wrote: » That's hilarious, I was distracted by that too. I was trying to work out if it was Hurling or something else like lacrosse. It was nice. Speaking of "did anyone else notice that", in episode 8 or 9, was I halllucinating or was Andy Colburn escorting Brendan Dassey in court? It seems highly inappropriate but I'm pretty sure there was a shot of him sitting behind Brendan in his uniform, on the job.
carter10 wrote: » I think it was hurlers: the top of lacrosse sticks are wider and the players tend to hold the sticks differently than hurlers i.e. one hand down the middle of the shaft. Also that defense lawyer played minor with Wisconsin in the late 80s- good wristy corner forward! Also noticed Andy Colburn in episode 9 definitely seemed inappropriate given the circumstances and only adds to the sense of shadiness of the proceedings. He also seems to be smirking. Really struck me that bit
ASoberThought wrote: » The hacktivist group Anonymous have said they will now involve themselves in an effort to uncover evidence.
Taboola wrote: » I binged watched this on Christmas day. Just couldn't stop watching. I came across this http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php I've put a quote from the link in spoiler tags.In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos. Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach. I was firmly in the innocent camp until I read the above.
PressRun wrote: » I think it's difficult to be certain either way on his guilt, but I still don't know how he was convicted in a court of law. His lawyers did a great job of creating reasonable doubt and I think there's a serious problem among juries who just don't understand what reasonable doubt means. I wouldn't be 100% sure on Avery's innocence, but I'm not 100% sure on his guilt either. On the basis that it's very difficult to say for sure what's true or what's been fabricated by the police, I don't think he should have been convicted. I definitely don't believe Brendan Dassey should be in prison. He didn't even understand what he was doing when he 'confessed'.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c411afd043f38e098261e686a028578e.svg)
