Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

1…1314161819…77

Comments

  • #452
    audioslave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 147 ✭✭audioslave


    Loads of good arguments put forward, which is why I'm on the fence and don't understand how the jury were unanimous. I also don't get how people are so committed to his innocence/guilt when there are so many factors indicating the contrary.


  • #453
    wardides
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭wardides


    audioslave wrote: »
    Loads of good arguments put forward, which is why I'm on the fence and don't understand how the jury were unanimous. I also don't get how people are so committed to his innocence/guilt when there are so many factors indicating the contrary.

    Is exactly where I stand as well. Not sure I could commit to saying he's definitely innocent as you have to factor in some of the evidence and then try to weigh up the bias of the documentary, but there is certainly no way that a jury could deliver a guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, verdict.


  • #454
    CurryFlavoured
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,590 ✭✭✭CurryFlavoured


    wardides wrote: »
    Is exactly where I stand as well. Not sure I could commit to saying he's definitely innocent as you have to factor in some of the evidence and then try to weigh up the bias of the documentary, but there is certainly no way that a jury could deliver a guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, verdict.

    Agreed. The only thing we can really be sure of is that he shouldn't have been guilty based on the argument placed against him. He might be guilty, but the story put forward was ropy to say the least.


  • #455
    glued
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,446 ✭✭✭glued


    audioslave wrote: »
    Loads of good arguments put forward, which is why I'm on the fence and don't understand how the jury were unanimous. I also don't get how people are so committed to his innocence/guilt when there are so many factors indicating the contrary.

    What factors are these? There is no material evidence linking Steven Avery to the murder of Theresa Halbach. What's the motive? Murder weapon? Time? etc. The Manitowoc and Calumet County handling of the investigation was never going to lead to the truth. It's obvious that some evidence was planted. It's an extraordinary case with an extraordinary story so I'm not sure why you don't understand how some people are keen to prove his innocence.

    All things being equal there is no way 12 sane people could find Steven Avery guilty of this murder. The evidence linking Steven Avery to this crime is extremely poor (The key found by Det. Lenk, the blood in Theresa Halbach's Rav 4, Brendan's confession etc). Never mind the fact that the crime itself makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    There are far too many question marks over the evidence, the investigation and the trial for people not to be interested in this case. Even if Steven Avery is guilty, this case still highlights the massive flaws of the 'American justice' system.

    Even ignoring all that you have the complex case of Brendan Dassey, who I believe is entirely innocent, who is in prison because Len Kachinsky didn't do his job and he was a 16 year old with a severe learning disorder.


  • #456
    Joeface
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,906 ✭✭✭Joeface


    Only five episodes in , addictive in the way its filmed and edited
    will probably finish tonight . Cannot recommend it enough.

    for others I will spoiler my thoughts so far
    Len Kachinsky should have been disbarred and not just replaced , his actions were beyond disgracefully ,
    Manitowoc County sheriff should have been removed form office after his press interview , In no way should he have ever been aloud to say any of that whether the person is guilty or not.
    The Special Investigator Tom Fassbender (no relation) should have known his questioning method of Brendan Dassey was completely out of line , a rookie Police officer in any country on day one would know that.

    Some of the Press members are just awful ,to hear one Reporter comment that murder is what people want and we have to go after it hard to beat our competitors , That's just mental .

    There is so much more but I could be here for a week typing


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    Luckycharms_74
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,737 ✭✭✭Luckycharms_74


    Snake Plisken wrote: »
    My suspects for the murder would be her housemate or the ex, one of her colleagues testified that she was getting a lot of nuisance calls and then the ex went into listen to and possibly delete messages when her mailbox was full.
    Just want to say this is the best show on Netflix,
    I do hope it leads to a retrial for the two of them!

    I though the same too. The fact that her online phone account password was "guessed" seems very fishy to anyone. The fact that deleting her voicemail's would raise suspicion in anyone's eyes.
    fin12 wrote: »
    I think there was something so odd about Theresa's brother. He was constantly smirking, laughing and smiling the whole way through......

    I couldn't stand him when he was interviewed or making statements on camera. Such a stupid goofy grin on him doesn't seem normal

    You gotta feel for Brendan Dassey, that a boy with low IQ was manipulated by police experts to say what they wanted him to say.

    Also regarding Avery, you gotta be beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of the murder charges. Based on what was shown in documentary it could not be the case. There would have to be doubt in the jury's mind.


  • #458
    Green Peter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭Green Peter


    Joe duffys on the case now!


  • #459
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Green Peter wrote: »
    Joe duffys on the case now!

    He'll be free in days now.

    Dats terrible were ya upset about dat.

    Dean Strang the lawyer answering question about the case from the public.
    https://youtu.be/S9h5C901lGE


  • #460
    Enigma IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭Enigma IE


    Based on the evidence in the documentary, it's mind boggling how they reached a unanimous guilty verdict.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the jury were compromised. I recall the documentary (not sure what part), that an initial count of Not Guilty v Guilty, the majority were Not Guilty... and there was 3 or more very strong on the guilty side that convinced the others to vote that way.

    Regardless if he did it or not, the alleged (seems pretty certain) corruption and planting of evidence, no way he got a fair trial.

    This would not have happened to a middle-class, educated person.


  • #461
    Knockmealdown Shepherd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23 ✭Knockmealdown Shepherd


    BabysCoffee wrote: »
    Feel sorry for Brendan. I truly believe he wasn't involved in the killing. If it happened like he said in his coerced statements there should have been apparent blood all over the bed.

    Steven Avery is a strange one. I think perhaps he did kill her. But I don't think on the evidence presented he should have been convicted.

    I would have liked to have seen the vial of blood being tested for EDTA as a control to indicate that the test did actually work.

    PS. What should I watch next?!

    The Central Park Five. Similar in the way that all the kids were coerced in to false confessions. It's on Netflix


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    audioslave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 147 ✭✭audioslave


    Another thing that was presented by the prosecution and was excluded was that the blood inside the RAV4 was consistent with coming from a seeping wound/scratch and not applied there by any implement or swab etc.
    Definitely did not get a fair trial. I'm still on that fence 


  • #463
    sadie1502
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 666 ✭✭✭sadie1502


    The hair and blood in the back of the RAV 4 made no sense either if he did kill here in his trailer. Why was the matress not sent for testing. It was a shambles from start to finish. The ex boyfriend was asked questions with the housemate there was no interview they never considered anyone else. They were going to make this crime stick to Avery. The police lied manipulated omitted information and bullied Brendan Dassey. The key was found on the 7th search wiped of all DNA only had Averys I mean come on. The blood vile tampered with. I cannot understand how that jury found him guilty it's just mind boggling.


  • #464
    Ageyev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭Ageyev


    noodler wrote: »
    Haven't watched this yet but is knowing the man's final situation a big spoiler?
    No not in my opinion. The story is told throughout and it's the details not the conclusion that is most shocking/interesting.


  • #465
    The Nal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,776 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Finished it yesterday.
    After an unbelievable first 4-5 episodes I got a little bored once the trial started. The series is about 3 or 4 hours too long. It was too one sided for me and the film makers obviously left out a shedload of evidence - which I've since discovered they did. I got more and more frustrated as the show went on.

    But what an incredible collection of characters. And what an incredible story. Made all the more interesting by the fact most of the characters are slightly inbred and borderline simpletons.

    Have to laugh at this petition. Hundreds of thousands of people asking Obama to release them both!

    Good article here if you've watched it all.

    http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

    Enjoyed it but its certainly no "The Jinx"!


  • #466
    Mantis Toboggan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,857 ✭✭✭✭Mantis Toboggan


    audioslave wrote: »
    Another thing that was presented by the prosecution and was excluded was that the blood inside the RAV4 was consistent with coming from a seeping wound/scratch and not applied there by any implement or swab etc.
    Definitely did not get a fair trial. I'm still on that fence 

    But at the same time you could say the lack of fingerprints in the car was excluded! No fingerprints, was he wearing gloves, if so, where did the blood come from?

    Free Palestine 🇵🇸



  • #467
    Ageyev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭Ageyev


    Enigma IE wrote: »
    Based on the evidence in the documentary, it's mind boggling how they reached a unanimous guilty verdict.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the jury were compromised. I recall the documentary (not sure what part), that an initial count of Not Guilty v Guilty, the majority were Not Guilty... and there was 3 or more very strong on the guilty side that convinced the others to vote that way.

    Regardless if he did it or not, the alleged (seems pretty certain) corruption and planting of evidence, no way he got a fair trial.

    This would not have happened to a middle-class, educated person.

    The jury took an initial vote with 7 voting 'not guilty', 3 hard-line 'guilty' and the rest undecided.

    The not-guilty verdict on the charge of mutilating a corpse is somewhat inconsistent with the prosecution's theory or certainly suggests they didn't believe all of the physical evidence - what sort of idiot murderer leaves human bones outside his bedroom window?

    I've seen it suggested that the jury entered into a secret pact agreeing not to speak about the verdict, guilty on the murder charge and as compromise a not-guilty on the charge of mutilating a corpse.


  • #468
    Taboola
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,052 ✭✭✭Taboola


    Tyson Fury wrote: »
    But at the same time you could say the lack of fingerprints in the car was excluded! No fingerprints, was he wearing gloves, if so, where did the blood come from?

    Could it have dripped out of the gloves?

    What i find baffling is that Teresa's DNA wasn't on the car key.


  • #469
    Joeface
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,906 ✭✭✭Joeface


    Another point that needs more looking at after only five episodes
    Andrew Colborn calling the vehicle reg and then describing the make of the vehicle 2 days before it was found and the not been able to recall the event even after hearing his own voice Identify the vehicle as a 99 Toyota and too state the dispatcher told him ....


  • #470
    Mightydrumming
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭Mightydrumming


    Joeface wrote: »
    Another point that needs more looking at after only five episodes
    Andrew Colborn calling the vehicle reg and then describing the make of the vehicle 2 days before it was found and the not been able to recall the event even after hearing his own voice Identify the vehicle as a 99 Toyota and too state the dispatcher told him ....

    100% agreed, there should have been more of an investigation into that - vital piece of the trial if you ask me!


  • #471
    bigbaz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭bigbaz


    beyond reasonable doubt is the overriding factor for me.it was all too convienient for an embarrassed sheriffs dep. that this murder turned up,all wrapped in a bow to make stephen avery go away.the phone voicemail evidence that was ruled inadmissable because it wasnt relevant,possibly the most relevant thing in the case,i mean the guy guessed her password???compelling and frustrating!


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    megabantz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭megabantz


    Mightydrumming wrote: »
    100% agreed, there should have been more of an investigation into that - vital piece of the trial if you ask me!


    It's worth taking a look at the link posted above (defence lawyer answering questions the other day about the series on youtube) where he says that with something like this the job here isn't to pursue the witness (in this case the police officer calling the reg in) and try nail him for his own wrongdoing but to expose the witness statement as unreliable in the jury eyes and this is what they do. They expose the witness and put doubt in the jury mind as to the credibility of the prosecution story.

    I hope I have explained this correctly and how I understand it in my head :P)


  • #473
    glued
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,446 ✭✭✭glued


    People keep mentioning that there was evidence left out of the documentary.

    Can they elaborate what this is?

    AFAIK the only evidence against Steven Avery that was left out of the documentary was the three phone calls to Theresa Halbach. Which doesn't change the narrative at all.

    Anyone with half a brain can work out that something isn't right here at all. The prosecution case was extremely weak and that's being generous yet he was still convicted - unanimously.


  • #474
    Elmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,641 ✭✭✭✭Elmo


    glued wrote: »
    People keep mentioning that there was evidence left out of the documentary.

    Can they elaborate what this is?

    AFAIK the only evidence against Steven Avery that was left out of the documentary was the three phone calls to Theresa Halbach. Which doesn't change the narrative at all.

    Anyone with half a brain can work out that something isn't right here at all. The prosecution case was extremely weak and that's being generous yet he was still convicted - unanimously.

    Accusations of sexual assault against the Dassey boys.

    His other convictions that cause incarceration (animal cruelty and his attacks against his cousin).

    Though only goes to character.

    Also this buying of handcuffes which may have been used against Halback.... Though did they have any DNA on them?


  • #475
    adox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,038 ✭✭✭✭adox


    Knockmealdown Shepherd wrote: »
    The Central Park Five. Similar in the way that all the kids were coerced in to false confessions. It's on Netflix

    The Central Park five is a more definitive piece of work, it's about a mis-carriage of justice and all the better for it, as opposed to a perceived mis-carriage of justice by the producers of Making A Murderer.


  • #476
    Wompa1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,270 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    glued wrote: »
    People keep mentioning that there was evidence left out of the documentary.

    Can they elaborate what this is?

    AFAIK the only evidence against Steven Avery that was left out of the documentary was the three phone calls to Theresa Halbach. Which doesn't change the narrative at all.

    Anyone with half a brain can work out that something isn't right here at all. The prosecution case was extremely weak and that's being generous yet he was still convicted - unanimously.

    There was an interview with Dean Strang who represented Steven Avery. He said all significant evidence in the case was included in the documentary. In his recollection he believed that he had made 1 or 2 calls using the *67 feature but that it didn't change the narrative. Steven valued his privacy after getting out of prison was his take on it.

    He said there was more defense related evidence left out of the documentary than prosecution evidence and said that they couldn't possibly fit everything into the documentary and that what was cut in his opinion is of less significance than what was shown. Granted he may be a little bias.


  • #477
    glued
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,446 ✭✭✭glued


    Elmo wrote: »
    Accusations of sexual assault against the Dassey boys.

    His other convictions that cause incarceration (animal cruelty and his attacks against his cousin).

    Though only goes to character.

    Also this buying of handcuffes which may have been used against Halback.... Though did they have any DNA on them?

    The convition for animal cruelty was included.

    Do you think those points added anything to the documentary? We know Steven was stupid growing up. He's not a very bright guy in general. I think the documentary painted Steven's unkind side well with the death threats he made to his ex wife and his animal cruelty. What are the allegations in relation to the Dassey boys? Bobby Dassey and Brendan Dassey wouldn't exactly be reliable witnesses.

    The mud being slinged against the documentary is largely from the prosecution team. None of whom have any credibility whatsoever. Kratz being the main source.


  • #478
    glued
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,446 ✭✭✭glued


    adox wrote: »
    The Central Park five is a more definitive piece of work, it's about a mis-carriage of justice and all the better for it, as opposed to a perceived mis-carriage of justice by the producers of Making A Murderer.

    It would be impossible to to have a definite documentary about this case. I would assume that's an obvious point.


  • #479
    Ageyev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭Ageyev


    Taboola wrote: »
    Could it have dripped out of the gloves?

    What i find baffling is that Teresa's DNA wasn't on the car key.

    The car key was the spare key.


  • #480
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    Bottom line I just don't see either of them being smart enough to pull it off the way it was described. There was reasonable doubt

    Really feel for the parents


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    Wompa1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,270 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    glued wrote: »
    The convition for animal cruelty was included.

    Do you think those points added anything to the documentary? We know Steven was stupid growing up. He's not a very bright guy in general. I think the documentary painted Steven's unkind side well with the death threats he made to his ex wife and his animal cruelty. What are the allegations in relation to the Dassey boys? Bobby Dassey and Brendan Dassey wouldn't exactly be reliable witnesses.

    The mud being slinged against the documentary is largely from the prosecution team. None of whom have any credibility whatsoever. Kratz being the main source.

    Also, so was the attack, right? Wasn't that his cousin that he rammed off the road and pulled a gun on? That was in the first episode or second episode.

    Not sure of the sexual assault by the Dassey's and was that Brendan?...his brother and the father seemed to be suspicious to me... There was an accusation that Avery came out wearing a towel to Holdback and made her feel uncomfortable. There was also the accusation that he was masturbating in public.


Advertisement