Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

northgirl wrote: »

Couldn't agree more re: Halbach's brother... something definitely amiss. Also Halbach's ex acted very oddly IMO.

I'm midway through episode 10 and finding it and the previous episode the most difficult to watch to date. So emotionally fraught.

I actually found myself giving up on episode 7 as I was just unable to continue watching it. I've read this thread and online to see what happened. It raises a lot of emotions inside of you which shows what a great documentary can do. At one point I was certain Steven was innocent however as the evidence was being discussed my certainty began to waiver. It's hard to believe someone you are rooting for may in fact be a killer.

I am still shocked that the police were discussing the case in detail with the media before the trial had even begun. It's so different to here where a blanket is put on the media from discussing criminal cases in such detail (I think). Overall it is a sad, sad case both for the Halbach and the extended Avery family.

How about the room mate who didn't report anything after she had been missing for 4 days, he wasn't spoken to once as far as I remember. They had their man from minute 1 and that was that, the ex, roommate, Brendan's brother etc. were legit suspects but were never questioned.

I think all of the speculation shows how ridiculous it is that jury could somehow be certain Avery did it

The way I see it there's 3 possibilities in order of likelihood, Steven/one of the family did it and the police made sure Steven went down for it getting rid of the lawsuit against them, an outsider did it and the police moved evidence to implicate Steven, and last and least likely but still not impossible ,one of the police did it.

The only thing I'm sure of is the police did something dodgy, too what extent is unclear. How far would people go to save careers which must have been on the line with a multi million dollar lawsuit incoming? He settled for 400k when the media had him down as a monster I wonder how much he would have gotten of that 36 million if he had been clean and still portrayed as the man who had most of his life robbed from him by incompetent police.

Mightydrumming wrote: »

That just sparked something there...

Wasn't there mention of that local police department obviously not being able to compensate the 36 million and something was said about complications with the insurance?

Stand for correction there!

Think they were covered for mistakes and some misconduct but if the cops acted illegally and maliciously set him up the insurance wouldn't cover it. That's the way I took it anyway.

Ageyev wrote: »

That's not always the case. Look at the rancid and salacious writing of people like Paul Williams. Listen to crime or court correspondents say things such as "the suspect is known to Gardai". The media here can be prejudicial too. It's not the same type of circus as shown in Making a Murderer but it's worth asking questions. See also my comment about the Morris Tribunal.

There's a case back in the news of Brian Rossiter which contained very shady practice and possible cover up by the Gardai, so have no no doubt that bad policing practice is not just confined to a wisconsin police force.

Just finished watching this. Fascinating stuff.

Three things that strike me:
1. It's a documentary, which is a poor substitute for the actual evidence heard by the jury on the trial that did convict him. I wouldn't rely on a documentary to decide on his guilt or innocence, and from other stuff I've read online, there does seem to be more to this story than we see in the documentary.

2. I'm shocked at the treatment of Brendan by his own lawyer and doubly shocked that the admission evidence gathered by his own defence team (who appeared to be actively working against him) was allowed to be presented into evidence. And it appears that his own admission was the main evidence that convicted him since we didn't have much in the line of physical evidence.

3. From sitting on juries in Ireland, one thing that juries are told by all the lawyers and by the judge is the presumption of innocence and the high standard of 'reasonable doubt'. The fact that they managed to convince all of the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt in a case that was riddled with problems is almost unbelievable. Had the juror that was excused remained on the jury I think this might have has a very different outcome, which shows the precarious position you are in if you are accused of a crime.

audioslave wrote: »

Google the prosecution evidence that was omitted from the show. It doesn't do Steve any favours, but saying that, its evidence that can be manipulated by a governmental body.

Googled it and it just mentions that he called her phone? Is there anything else?

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Googled it and it just mentions that he called her phone? Is there anything else?

He called her on private a few times, requested to the company that she comes to the house and not anybody else, he answered the door to her in a towel which creeped her out etc., a few other things. Avery is probably the leading suspect but the evidence was too ropy to convict him. There could have been massive clues hinting to other suspects being guilty but we'll never know, because they weren't even questioned!

With that said, and my own opinion placing me on the fence. The very fact that its being debated and each side having their support in the debate shows that there is a lot of reasonable doubt...and unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the jurors have to be decided beyond any reasonable doubt that he is guilty or innocent?... how then were they not subject to the same uncertainty and how were they unanimous in their decision... Many questions

listermint wrote: »

There appears to be no real evidence of this bar some google pages. Which to be quite frank i wouldnt trust the internet as far as i could throw it.

Why would such stark 'evidence' be excluded from such a strong prosecution case ?

Because the documentary was made to try to prove Avery's innocence and show how ridiculous the case was. It wasn't excluded from the prosecution it was excluded from the documentary, or supposedly was.

CurryFlavoured wrote: »

Because the documentary was made to try to prove Avery's innocence and show how ridiculous the case was. It wasn't excluded from the prosecution it was excluded from the documentary, or supposedly was.

I think the creators have come out & outlined that they chose to leave those specific bits out (phone calls that day, alleged meeting of Teresa with Avery just wearing a towel) because the prosecution apparently didn't place much emphasis on it themselves. The trial went on over 2 weeks so impossible to include everything.

justfinishd wrote:

Im not ashamed to say that I did some painful things over the holiday period for which Im now paying a price.

The more I think of it, maybe he did murder her and burned the body in the quarry, he could have hidden the car near the quarry as well, the police may have found both and decided they needed to boost the case against him and moved the car and bones to his property, they planted the blood and key, they probally felt they had to make it rock solid to nail him, the judiciary got sucked in and the media helped turn juries.

I've started watching The Jinx, one of the docs linked in an article earlier with a similar kind of idea to MAM. Only 2 eps in but I'm hooked.

Tyson Fury wrote: »

The trial went on over 6 weeks, hard to get all that in 3 or 4 hours but the camera crew said all the important information was included. I've no problem with Avery ringing her, she had rang him and left a voice mail.
From the start of the trial Avery was a guilty man trying to be proved innocent as opposed to the other way round.

I thought it went on for that long alright, I just didn't want to take a massive guess!

One of the biggest things for me was
My heads a bit fuzzy as I watched about a thousand hours of telly over Christmas and first day back in work has hit me like a brick wall, but am I along the right lines with what I've said above?