Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Elmo · 06-01-2016 06:21PM

Dots1982 wrote: »

The DNA question, is DNA transferable by rubbing an object with the clothes of the person?

He was in custody when they got that DNA?

Mightydrumming · 06-01-2016 06:24PM

This is well worth a watch, Kratz is getting a bit hot under the collar if you ask me :rolleyes:

How can he be allowed to state on live television that there was sweat found underneath the bonnet of the car when absolutely NO evidence points to towards it?

Strang, as per usual, used his words precisely. He is one hell of a lawyer

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4687060804001/lawyers-reveal-the-truth-behind-making-a-murderer/?playlist_id=trending#sp=news-clips

Dots1982 · 06-01-2016 06:27PM

Elmo wrote: »

He was in custody when they got that DNA?

so? the police would have access to his clothes and objects with his DNA on them?

jcsoulinger · 06-01-2016 06:54PM

Bandana boy wrote: »

I do not agree that there is any logic in killing and raping this girl at any point.
Once you have believe the person is capable of this crime , logic around delaying so as not to put at risk a pay out is nonsense.
You and I cannot equate a value on money with a value on commiting this crime , we have no point of reference for this kind of thinking.

I think it is unlikely that you are capable of this crime and then capable of delaying till a later date to secure a pay out , but I do not know this ,but it is certainly not a valid concern for questioning his guilt.

Several other factors yes , this No.

You are wrong, your suggestion is that anyone who who commits this type of crime is incapable of acting logically when it comes to when they commit the crime this is complete rubbish.

Elmo · 06-01-2016 08:00PM

Dots1982 wrote: »

so? the police would have access to his clothes and objects with his DNA on them?

That's my point.

Bandana boy · 06-01-2016 08:09PM

jcsoulinger wrote: »

You are wrong, your suggestion is that anyone who who commits this type of crime is incapable of acting logically when it comes to when they commit the crime this is complete rubbish.

To paraphrase you
He is capable of raping and murdering this woman and burning her in his back garden but not on this date as logic dictates that he would wait for another time to rape and kill this woman because of a cheque he might get in the future.
QED he is innocent

As I said before there are so many problems with this conviction , but the outstanding possible cheque really has no bearing of any kind on likely-hood of his guilt or innocence.

The lack of logic from a person you already admit will do something evil and illogical as a proof they are innocent is clearly absurd . I have never stated that an illogical person will only do illogical things.

The Raptor · 06-01-2016 08:12PM

PaulieBoy wrote: »

Unbelievable! A word I used a lot looking at that show. But the defence have some responsibility for letting that happen?

I don't know whose responsibility it was for allowing it to happen.

Another juror was saying that a few more said guilty based on his history rather than the evidence presented.

It was a shocking documentary. But if they have been jailed for the past 10 years, why is this documentary coming to light now. If it came out five years ago with the publicity its getting, something would have been done by now.

8-10 · 06-01-2016 08:18PM

Mightydrumming wrote: »

How can he be allowed to state on live television that there was sweat found underneath the bonnet of the car when absolutely NO evidence points to towards it?

I wouldn't say "NO evidence points towards it", it was just in the Brendan Dassey Trial rather than Avery's. Calumet County Sheriff's Dept Sergent William Tyson testified in Brendan's trial that he and Jeremy Hawkins did DNA swabs of the Rav4 including under the hood based on Brendan telling investigators that Steven Avery cut the battery cable of the car. This was in the April and they found cell DNA consistent with sweat or skin in the swab under the hood.

So I don't see there being such a big deal with him bringing it up in a Television interview as it's from sworn testimony.

jcsoulinger · 06-01-2016 08:27PM

Bandana boy wrote: »

To paraphrase you
He is capable of raping and murdering this woman and burning her in his back garden but not on this date as logic dictates that he would wait for another time to rape and kill this woman because of a cheque he might get in the future.
QED he is innocent

As I said before there are so many problems with this conviction , but the outstanding possible cheque really has no bearing of any kind on likely-hood of his guilt or innocence.

The lack of logic from a person you already admit will do something evil and illogical as a proof they are innocent is clearly absurd . I have never stated that an illogical person will only do illogical things.

Good work on the straw man lol. No where did I say it was proof of his innocence, I only said it would have been more logical to commit the crime after he had received his compensation. You say that all people who commit these types of crimes would not be capable of applying this type of thinking which is simply not true.

Mightydrumming · 06-01-2016 08:30PM

8-10 wrote: »

I wouldn't say "NO evidence points towards it", it was just in the Brendan Dassey Trial rather than Avery's. Calumet County Sheriff's Dept Sergent William Tyson testified in Brendan's trial that he and Jeremy Hawkins did DNA swabs of the Rav4 including under the hood based on Brendan telling investigators that Steven Avery cut the battery cable of the car. This was in the April and they found cell DNA consistent with sweat or skin in the swab under the hood.

So I don't see there being such a big deal with him bringing it up in a Television interview as it's from sworn testimony.

The problem traces back to when Kratz sat at that press release and told the whole of America all of the findings and his story on what happened on the day/night of TH's murder. A few months down the line, most of that later turned out to be utter sh!te.

Strang also mentions in the video that the evidence put forward did not find tracings of sweat.

Joeface · 06-01-2016 09:42PM

so I have just finished , as I assume most people on the thread now have.
for those who haven't I will keep my comments in spoliers

If Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey are Guilty of this , I still cannot turn away from the fact that what the Police officers and Prosecution Team members did when gathering the evidence only damages law enforcement.

How Brendan Dassey has failed to get a retrial based the evidence , emails , interviews shown at his post trial hearing amazed me . His appointed attorney LEN and his investigator Michael O Kelly should have had banned from practicing their trade with immediate effect . That was just vile ,and Len's smiley head only makes it worse.

It really just looks like the State Court system is protecting itself. If the evidence was strong enough day one they should have no fear in a second trial. I am sure more will come of it .

There are complete essays one could write on every hole in these cases

Great watch for Tv , It might feel a little bias at times but I think that has more to do with the personalities involved than the editors and directors choices

PowerToWait · 07-01-2016 12:49AM

Glad I left this thread until I had finished the show. Spoilers everywhere.

Anyway, I don't think I'm spoiling anything by saying I really want to find out who the hell killed that girl.

And to my mind the ex-boyfriend and the brother have got to be in on it. There's a scene just after they find the jeep. The two are interviewed together and the ex just keeps correcting the brother, out the side of his mouth, 'shut up, no, it went like this...'

Not very scientific, but as good, if not better, than the prosecution case against Avery. Not to mention that poor bastard Dassey.

Fantastic TV.

The Nal · 07-01-2016 10:35AM

wardides wrote: »

Has that been proven?

My thought on that was that Brendon was told to "go home and tell his mother everything we talked about today before we do".

That was something asked of him constantly by the detectives, and he therefore went home and said this to his mother.

That's the only source I've ever heard it being mentioned?

Read the entire telephone transcripts between Brendan and his mother from prison here. Seems par for the course!

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

Another good article here

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/

runningbuddy · 07-01-2016 11:10AM

I find myself screaming "polygraph them"!! The trial is just so hard to watch. I had to stop watching last night. I'm not sure about Steven's innocence but the case is such a fooking shambles. The two lawyers are just fantastic. The way the one with the glasses (can't remember his name) tore into the forensic lady re: the contaminated DNA.

07-01-2016 11:55AM

runningbuddy wrote: »

I find myself screaming "polygraph them"!! The trial is just so hard to watch. I had to stop watching last night. I'm not sure about Steven's innocence but the case is such a fooking shambles. The two lawyers are just fantastic. The way the one with the glasses (can't remember his name) tore into the forensic lady re: the contaminated DNA.

dean-strang-jerry-buting-making-a-murderer.png?w=769&h=432

The one with the glasses yeah?

sorry for being a pedant

runningbuddy · 07-01-2016 12:15PM

Yeah, read that they are becoming unlikely sex symbols alright!!!

Buer · 07-01-2016 01:11PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

he was on trial for ms halbachs murder,rape,dismemberment,false imprisonment .... nothing else,his past was not on trial..

he was not a nice guy,thats obvious,the rest is not obvious at all

He was also on trial for criminal possession of a firearm which he was rightfully convicted of and sentenced to 5 years for which is completely overlooked.

A lot of evidence that the documentary didn't show which people are very eager to explain away in this trial. Perhaps because it isn't presented in such a persuasive production as Making a Murderer.

Do I think there was tampering and collusion from the prosecution/SD? Yes. Do I think Avery did it? Yes.

I see a lot of people repeatedly wondering why he would have done it and that he had a huge settlement coming to him, citing it as evidence that he has no alibi. The guy had an IQ of 70. That is borderline mental retardation; logic and reasoning aren't really going to be a strong point such as discarding of a truck correctly.

There are massive holes in the prosecution case which makes it very difficult to convict him on the basis of reasonable doubt. However, I do think, given the weight of circumstantial evidence (aside from the dubious evidence presented in the documentary) and his prior transgressions, he's quite likely to have been the perpetrator.

I also suspect there's a lot more to the Avery family than we know. There seems to be quite a divide in the family in terms of those that support him and a large proportion who wanted him locked away.

The Nal · 07-01-2016 01:39PM

Buer wrote: »

He was also on trial for criminal possession of a firearm which he was rightfully convicted of and sentenced to 5 years for which is completely overlooked.

A lot of evidence that the documentary didn't show which people are very eager to explain away in this trial. Perhaps because it isn't presented in such a persuasive production as Making a Murderer.

Do I think there was tampering and collusion from the prosecution/SD? Yes. Do I think Avery did it? Yes.

I see a lot of people repeatedly wondering why he would have done it and that he had a huge settlement coming to him, citing it as evidence that he has no alibi. The guy had an IQ of 70. That is borderline mental retardation; logic and reasoning aren't really going to be a strong point such as discarding of a truck correctly.

There are massive holes in the prosecution case which makes it very difficult to convict him on the basis of reasonable doubt. However, I do think, given the weight of circumstantial evidence (aside from the dubious evidence presented in the documentary) and his prior transgressions, he's quite likely to have been the perpetrator.

I also suspect there's a lot more to the Avery family than we know. There seems to be quite a divide in the family in terms of those that support him and a large proportion who wanted him locked away.

Also, if it was someone else - ex boyfriend, other Avery family members etc - are we to believe that they murdered her (somewhere else) and then snuck into the Avery "compound" undetected, burned a body (or with an already burned body), stashed a truck, scattered bones about the place, left her phone and camera in a burn barrel, planted his sweat on the key and the car.....

Joeface · 07-01-2016 01:56PM

If Avery is Guilty and I kinda believe he might be.....Dassey not really just a fool caught in a sh!t storm

If Avery is guilty is not really a miscarriage of justice , More a complete failing of law enforcement . Its so bad a killer could have or could still go free
Questions that need to be asked of some of the investigators

James Lenk – why did you feel you the need to tamper with the blood sample? ( i think it was his name on the log of the evidence shown at one point
Also why did you feel the need to plant the key , were you that desperate to be sure ye got him

Andrew Colborn –Where did you call in the reg plate from , was it that you had illegally search the lot and found the car , or was it some where else ( this is one of the biggest questions of the whole thing )

Kenneth Peterson – Why would you go on air live and say it would be easier to kill him and hide that if we wanted to .

Tom Fassbender & Mark Wiegert – these 2 need some of there interviews on other cases reviewed just to see if what they were doing to Brendan Dassey is what the do every time. It really shows a lack of respect for the authority they are hold . They had to have known that interviewing with out the lawyer or Parent present was a no from the outset and still proceeded.

Ken Kratz : why did he go on TV and give a full account of the case before a trail date had even been set . makes no sense what so ever. Only looks as if he was trying to bias everyone against Avery . If the evidence is so strong there was no need for this and who advised him that it was a good idea.

And the 2 people I believe should be punished the most regardless of verdicts
Len Kachinsky & Michael O Kelly . These two are just awful people .

bruschi · 07-01-2016 02:41PM

The Nal wrote: »

Also, if it was someone else - ex boyfriend, other Avery family members etc - are we to believe that they murdered her (somewhere else) and then snuck into the Avery "compound" undetected, burned a body (or with an already burned body), stashed a truck, scattered bones about the place, left her phone and camera in a burn barrel, planted his sweat on the key and the car.....

hardly "snuck". Have you seen the size of their property? And with the amount of people coming and going and living there, it doesnt take a whole lot to plant anything. The bones are easily moved. In a barrel, dump them out of the barrel into the pit, and leave the barrel there. It wouldnt take 5 minutes. "stashed" a truck. Hardly stashed. Very badly hidden way away from the properties. Again, hardly that hard to drive something in there and fire some branches over it. scattered bones, left phone and camera, all covered in your same point already.

the sweat in the car and key yes I'd agree, that would not be something that is easily done, but the sweat evidence on the car, as shown by the defence during the trial, is not a conclusive method of dna evidence. Whether this was why the directors left this piece out or not I do not know, but the defence lawyer seemed to suggest it was not a particularly strong piece of evidence, as opposed to blood dna. Also, how does sweat dna of Avery be the only dna on the key, and no other dna at all was found on it. Is that in itself not something that is concerning? They find his sweat dna after him apprently handling it for limited time, but no cells or sweat or anything from the victim who owned the keys and would have had them years.

tok9 · 07-01-2016 02:57PM

Just finished the documentary this morning and like everyone else I found it incredible. I'm going to try and read back through this to see what others thought.

The one thing I do want to say though that really bothered me was

When the judge is giving the sentence I think, he says something along the lines of "As you get older your crimes are escalating in severity".

That really bothered me as even the judge for the case still assumed Avery was guilty of the rape charge which he'd been cleared of. Unless I'm missing some bad behaviour throughout his time in prison and the 2 years following it.

Oh and the other crazy detail which I haven't seen much of since.

Colborn calling regarding the Rav4 2 days before it was found!

Mantis Toboggan · 07-01-2016 03:01PM

tok9 wrote: »

The one thing I do want to say though that really bothered me was
When the judge is giving the sentence I think, he says something along the lines of "As you get older your crimes are escalating in severity".

That really bothered me as even the judge for the case still assumed Avery was guilty of the rape charge which he'd been cleared of. Unless I'm missing some bad behaviour throughout his time in prison and the 2 years following it.

Back in the early 1980's he robbed a pub, threw a cat into a fire and ran his cousin off the road.

Elmo · 07-01-2016 03:37PM

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Back in the early 1980's he robbed a pub, threw a cat into a fire and ran his cousin off the road.

There had to be more. To say it escalated.

Watch the Jinx see what escalation is, but how it works out when your rich.

tok9 · 07-01-2016 03:43PM

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Back in the early 1980's he robbed a pub, threw a cat into a fire and ran his cousin off the road.

That is a pretty significant escalation that it warrants a certain image :pac:

Seriously though, we're talking about a 25 year gap of any crimes, it's pretty obvious what the judge is talking about when he says it.

Blatter · 07-01-2016 03:47PM

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Back in the early 1980's he robbed a pub, threw a cat into a fire and ran his cousin off the road.

Apparently the description of the cat incident (a voice recording from Avery) in the documentary was incorrect. Apparently he didn't just throw it into the fire, he poured oil over it and lit it.

Elmo · 07-01-2016 03:51PM

Blatter wrote: »

Apparently the description of the cat incident (a voice recording from Avery) in the documentary was incorrect. Apparently he didn't just throw it into the fire, he poured oil over it and lit it.

Did he get a new cat and name the same as the old cat and do it again?

Anyone who wants to see an actual sociopath/psychopathy please watch The Jinx, and see the difference between the rich and poor.

PowerToWait · 07-01-2016 04:01PM

Buer wrote: »

The guy had an IQ of 70. That is borderline mental retardation; logic and reasoning aren't really going to be a strong point such as discarding of a truck correctly..

He couldn't dispose of the huge clue. Hadn't the intelligence or cunning.

Yet somehow managed to eliminate ALL traces of the victim's DNA and blood, bone, hair etc from his trailer and the garage. But forgot the key.

The Nal · 07-01-2016 04:33PM

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Back in the early 1980's he robbed a pub, threw a cat into a fire and ran his cousin off the road.

Had a gun when he shouldn't.
Threatened a female relative at gunpoint.
Sent death threats to his ex wife.
Molested family members (both male and female).

And all alleged:

His own kids didnt want him let out the first time.
He raped at least 1 woman previously and threatened to kill her family if she talked.
He drew pictures of torture chambers for women in prison.

Yet the governor of Wisconsin is getting hate mail for not giving him a full pardon!

krattapopov · 07-01-2016 04:50PM

I watched this series before Christmas over 3 days. Fantastically put together documentary. I'm not convinced he is innocent but I do believe he deserves another trial. The states behaviour in prosecution was appalling.

Everything was stacked against having a fair trial.

A new article here, Strang even comments to say that they weren't allowed name 4 alternatives for the murder, because as defence they had to show motive, but the state didn't have to do that for prosecution! The state didn't even investigate anyone else that could have been a suspect. His brothers? Her Ex?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/making-a-murderer-defense-attorney-dean-strang-we-may-represent-steven-avery-again.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

I was more than impressed with the two defence lawyers he had, they were excellent.

Elmo · 07-01-2016 05:31PM

The Nal wrote: »

Had a gun when he shouldn't.
Threatened a female relative at gunpoint.
Sent death threats to his ex wife.
Molested family members (both male and female).

And all alleged:

His own kids didnt want him let out the first time.
He raped at least 1 woman previously and threatened to kill her family if she talked.
He drew pictures of torture chambers for women in prison.

Yet the governor of Wisconsin is getting hate mail for not giving him a full pardon!

Having a gun when you shouldn't isn't much of a crime in the US
I think running her off the road was part of that crime and he served time for it
He was in prison and in a very bad place, considering he was convicted for a major crime he did not commit
Was he imprisoned or arrested for sexual assault against family members?

Even if his children didn't want him out of prison, that's not a crime. I doubt they know their father considering he didn't see them that much when released.
Clearly not right.
Drawing torture chambers and actually building chambers are two very different things.

I really suggest people watch The Jinx and come back to this series with that series in mind.

Allegedly Robert Durst is a nice respectable man, from a nice respectable home, only ever killed someone in self defense, was a good husband, a good son, a good son-in-law etc etc

Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Comments