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

The Nal

Elmo wrote: »

My point really was anything Avery did in the past goes to character yet if you look a Robert Durst's past it makes out to be a normal rich man.

Dunno about that! Hes clearly as mad as a bicycle from the first episode. Rich yes, but a wild man.

Elmo wrote: »

IMO Making the Murder drags at its mid point, and picks up again.

Agree with that yeah.

cathalj

Anachrony wrote:

If polygraphs actually worked reliably, then that would make trials just a formality. Unfortunately they don't.

What ?????? .... You mean Jeremy Kyle can't conclusively tell me who's sleeping with who's friends granny ??!!

irishguy1983

Am I the only one who found the series incredibly long winded and boring??! Have 2 episodes left and I can't wait to wrap it up.

I can't see what the big deal is really - I am not exactly convinced he is innocent.

jcsoulinger

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Am I the only one who found the series incredibly long winded and boring??! Have 2 episodes left and I can't wait to wrap it up.

I can't see what the big deal is really - I am not exactly convinced he is innocent.

Are you convinced he got a fair trial?

Elmo

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Am I the only one who found the series incredibly long winded and boring??! Have 2 episodes left and I can't wait to wrap it up.

I can't see what the big deal is really - I am not exactly convinced he is innocent.

First 2 episodes deal largely with his wrongful conviction. I agree it drags at points.

What I found about the series was that it did lead you down the idea that he is guilty on several occasions and then it suggests he's innocent before being unsure again.

For this reason I am still on the fence. I think the prosecution and law enforcement were wrong in their handling of the case, I even go as far to say that they should be investigated.

It is also for this reason that I don't believe that the Prosecution aren't given a fair hearing in the documentary.

Documentaries aren't necessarily balanced they aren't reporting the news. Even though the filmmakers are clearly on Avery's side, I believe that they gave the prosecution a fair hearing.

Also why do you think he is guilty? Is it just the look of him, his family or the type of guy he is?

irishguy1983

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Are you convinced he got a fair trial?

I don't think he did to be honest....

I just think this has been somewhat overblown and I found the series very long winded - however it appears I am very much in the minority....

The use of the 16 year was the thing that stood out for me.

irishguy1983

Elmo wrote: »

First 2 episodes deal largely with his wrongful conviction. I agree it drags at points.

What I found about the series was that it did lead you down the idea that he is guilty on several occasions and then it suggests he's innocent before being unsure again.

For this reason I am still on the fence. I think the prosecution and law enforcement were wrong in their handling of the case, I even go as far to say that they should be investigated.

It is also for this reason that I don't believe that the Prosecution aren't given a fair hearing in the documentary.

Documentaries aren't necessarily balanced they aren't reporting the news. Even though the filmmakers are clearly on Avery's side, I believe that they gave the prosecution a fair hearing.

Also why do you think he is guilty? Is it just the look of him, his family or the type of guy he is?

I don't think he is guilty - if I was a betting man I would say he innocent - I just wouldn't put my mortgage on it.

It would have been better if they could find another potential murderer but I believe they were seriously prohibited there.

I suppose I just wasn't as blown away as everyone else was really!

PressRun

irishguy1983 wrote: »

It would have been better if they could find another potential murderer but I believe they were seriously prohibited there.

To be honest, it doesn't look as thought they even bothered investigating anyone else in order to find another potential murderer. They didn't even ask her ex-boyfriend for an alibi.

youtube!

Just finished it, utterly compelling from start to end, a lot of the characters boiled my blood but none more so that that bastard O'Kelly and his interview with the poor sod Dassey. I wanted to smash up my TV when he was questioned about the whole interview set-up and he started to cry (twice ) about the Blue Ribbon, what a ****ing weirdo. Total creep.

runningbuddy

O'Kelly is one nasty individual. I'm almost finished but find it so difficult to watch at times. When I mention polygraph earlier..I know it wouldn't be admissible but it's killing ME not knowing

.

I'm just not convinced of Avery's innocence. I find myself hoping he's not and justice is done.

PressRun

runningbuddy wrote: »

O'Kelly is one nasty individual. I'm almost finished but find it so difficult to watch at times. When I mention polygraph earlier..I know it wouldn't be admissible but it's killing ME not knowing .

I'm just not convinced of Avery's innocence. I find myself hoping he's not and justice is done.

On a slightly unrelated note, I was following the James Holmes trial in the US last year (Batman theatre shooter) as I was living in the US when that shooting took place, so I took a bit of interest. The families of victims in that shooting took issue with the fact that Holmes managed to avoid the death penalty and many were claiming that justice had not been done. The judge presiding over the case made a pretty compelling counter-point which basically stated that it is not in the outcome that you find justice, but in the process. That someone should stand trial, have their case prosecuted and defended and finally be found innocent or guilty by a jury of their peers is really how you know justice has been done, because it takes into account the rights of all involved. If we were to apply that thought to Steven Avery's case, even if he did murder Teresa Hallbach, the manner in which he was convicted would suggest that justice wasn't done.

Ageyev

The producer/directors, Dean Strang and Ken Kratz have been giving many interviews recently. In this interview with the directors an extraordinary claim is made that jurors traded votes and came to an agreement on the murder charge and the "mutilation of a corpse" charge. That (at least one juror it seems) thought a split vote would "send a signal" to the appellate court to overturn the verdict.

Amazing and awful if true.

https://youtu.be/z7Zesmp6eOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Zesmp6eOE

Ageyev

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Having finished it a few days ago, the way the show was put together made me feel a tad uneasy. I know this is probably heresy for the thousands of people who became engrossed in the documentary over very short periods time, but I'm going to be honest: I found the decision to position it as a 'binge-watch' courtroom thriller detracted from the piece both journalistically and artistically. If the outcome of the trail had been made clear at an earlier stage, I believe the filmmakers would have put the viewers in a stronger position to analyse and engage with the material. Yeah, I say this aware of the fact that it would likely have lacked the cultural crossover appeal in that case, but IMO it would have made for a stronger documentary. I also think the structural decisions sort of downplay the tragedy of Teresa Halbach - somebody was really murdered here, and compared to similarly themed documentaries I feel that's something that's handled somewhat carelessly. And in the 'internet detective' age, I continue to find it unfortunate the almost witch-hunt impact documentaries like this have - although that, to be be fair, is not necessarily a problem with the production itself.

The selective perspective is also something I found problematic. Strangely, I found that Steven remained an enigma - which made me less willing to get on the directors' and lawyer's argument that he was innocent. Don't get me wrong - in terms of portraying the class and prosecution-favouring biases inherent in the US court system, it does a good job, and it's a subject worth constantly exploring (if well covered already in IMO a number of superior productions - but the problem hasn't gone away, and is unlikely to anytime soon). I also believe that there was more than enough reasonable doubt to make the verdicts seem quite outrageous, especially in Brendan's case, assuming definitive evidence wasn't held back in the series. In that sense there was a potential miscarriage of justice here worth documenting. But perhaps ironically the decision to spend so much time with Steven's defence and efforts to humanise him left me on the fence, despite the filmmakers' IMO clear position on said fence. In the end, I didn't feel that I got a good grasp on Avery as an individual, so I didn't fully buy into some of the arguments being presented.

Would agree with many of your criticisms in para 1 - it is on Netflix for entertainment purposes largely since that's what Netflix is for. To see people devoting their time to try and re-investigate the case such as the stuff on Reddit blowing up is a bit sad. Avery's former lawyer has all but said he hasn't a hope. Certainly no hope of a presidential pardon. The directors have argued that it ought to be looked at as a document of the system and this kinda stuff happens in 100s of places all over but again, most people seem adamant about the minutiae of the case. I tried previously to direct the conversation that route but noone bit (and I guess my above post just feeds into the feedback loop

)

Fwiw, they weren't allowed access to Steven Avery for an interview hence there's a bit of a hole there in the narrative. They used telephone interviews nd cut out the questions. I'm not sure what good a more thorough examination of his character would have achieved tbh. It seems like the family weren't much liked in the town andat least some of the jurors had prejudicial views toward him. There his stuff about him there that you can judge him on if you wish - the cat incident, he doesn't wear underwear(!), the threatening letter to his ex, there's intimate conversations with his gf and so on. I can't imagine what more than a decade in prison for a wrongful conviction would do to you at such a young age and he only ad two years of freedom before he was back inside.

In Serial iirc Koenig often passes comment on Adnan, his character, what a person he is etc. The directors of this stayed away from that but for sure presented a narrative from the defense's point of view.

The Raptor

PowerToWait wrote: »

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.

Also left the receipt and auto trader book on his desk for all the world to see, which the prosecution made everyone believe was proof that she was in his trailer. I dont think he was hiding anything and didnt indicate she was inside. What was he meant to do, leave it on his doorstep.

Destroyed all dna, but leave the receipt and autotrader book in view as well, that could have went into the fire that Halloween night. But then while that receipt and autotrader book was on his desk, he hid the key?

The whole thing never added up. There were questions in every episode.

Checkmate19

One thing for me that really doesn't make sense.

They said the kid confessed to Avery and him killing her in the bedroom and burning her outside. However Avery was conficted on shooting her in the garage. It can't be both.

Ageyev

Checkmate19 wrote: »

One thing for me that really doesn't make sense.
They said the kid confessed to Avery and him killing her in the bedroom and burning her outside. However Avery was conficted on shooting her in the garage. It can't be both.

Dean Strang has addressed this in various interviews he gave in the past week. Some jurisdictions allow the prosecution to argue incompatible theories of the one crime in separate prosecutions.

Checkmate19

Yes i know this but it doesn't make sense. It shows serious flaws in the case against them.

Checkmate19

Think i'm going to have to watch this again soon. What really struck me was Dassey lawyer at the start. He was a pure and utter slime ball. I think if he behaved like he did here or in england he would be struck off. The smiling to the media after he was shafting the poor kid was sickening. I really hope his practice suffers and he personally suffers due to this. Allowing police to interview the kid without him their was shocking. The kid would have been better off at the start having no lawyer than having that piece of filth.

Phoebas

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Think i'm going to have to watch this again soon. What really struck me was Dassey lawyer at the start. He was a pure and utter slime ball. I think if he behaved like he did here or in england he would be struck off. The smiling to the media after he was shafting the poor kid was sickening. I really hope his practice suffers and he personally suffers due to this. Allowing police to interview the kid without him their was shocking. The kid would have been better off at the start having no lawyer than having that piece of filth.

It looks like his law firm have already moved against him.

Here it is - Sisson Law.
http://sissonlaw.com/

Up to a couple of months ago it was Sisson and Kachinsky.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151215030702/http://sissonlaw.com/

Internet Ham

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Think i'm going to have to watch this again soon. What really struck me was Dassey lawyer at the start. He was a pure and utter slime ball. I think if he behaved like he did here or in england he would be struck off. The smiling to the media after he was shafting the poor kid was sickening. I really hope his practice suffers and he personally suffers due to this. Allowing police to interview the kid without him their was shocking. The kid would have been better off at the start having no lawyer than having that piece of filth.

He reminded me of William H. Macy from Fargo so much. I found myself struggling with the fact that people like him are out there, taking up oxygen.

Phoebas

upinthesky wrote: »

All i can say is wow, i actually had to google was making a murder real after watching it.

I had the same feeling about half way through.
It all seemed so far fetched that I wondered if it was a mockumentary and the laugh was on any audience who thought that any of this could actually be real.

Sunflower 27

Internet Ham wrote: »

He reminded me of William H. Macy from Fargo so much. I found myself struggling with the fact that people like him are out there, taking up oxygen.

Haha, I agree. He was so like him. In episode 10 especially, on the stand, chewing his lip. He looks so out of his depth.

What I don't understand is, as has been shown, there were so many things wrong with this case, so many things that should never been allowed to happen.

Under such circumstances, that trial should be dismissed.

The fact that county were involved in the investigation at all discredits the whole case.

Whether you believe he did it or not, neither got a fair trial, not even close. A new one, outside that corrupt county should be a priority.

Judge willis was never going to be impartial. The whole thing is a sick joke. On the plus side, if there is one, I'm really glad the world is seeing this and these aholes are getting everything they deserve.

Another thing I noticed, Steven's attorneys were intelligent, capable and fair men. The other side were nothing but crooks through and through, and not very bright either.

Checkmate19

Can't see Avery getting a retrial to many people's rep at stake. Dassey may however i think given the publicity around the trial i'd say the parties involved will do all in their power to keep these two in jail.

Thepoet85

The only thing I can see preventing Dassey gettinga retrial, is the fact that his testimony (wrongly) was used as a large part of the prosecutions case against SA.

If BD gets a retrial and is found innocent, what would the ramifications be for SA?

Flint Fredstone

Thepoet85 wrote: »

The only thing I can see preventing Dassey gettinga retrial, is the fact that his testimony (wrongly) was used as a large part of the prosecutions case against SA.

If BD gets a retrial and is found innocent, what would the ramifications be for SA?

Unless I'm remembering wrongly, they didn't use Dassey's "confessed" version of events in the Avery case. It was put out there in the media by the State prosecutor in what seemed like a bid to prejudice the people before it went to court.

The Raptor

Just finished another three and a half hours of Brendan's 'confession'. The whole thing is up on youtube. It was heartbreaking to watch. He told it how it was at first, came home from school and played games and went to his uncle's for the bonfire. Then they fed him questions and wouldn't give up telling him they knew what happened and to tell the truth.

The poor kid hadn't a clue what was happening and told his mother towards the end, when she was allowed in that they got to his head. He just wanted it to end. He probably thought he would have been in more trouble for not having his project in. It was heartbreaking.

Mightydrumming

The Raptor wrote: »

He probably thought he would have been in more trouble for not having his project in. It was heartbreaking.

That was the saddest part of the interview for me, he hadn't a clue

marklazarcovic

Phoebas wrote: »

It looks like his law firm have already moved against him.

Here it is - Sisson Law.
http://sissonlaw.com/

Up to a couple of months ago it was Sisson and Kachinsky.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151215030702/http://sissonlaw.com/

he is a judge now so cant have a private practise,think he has cancer aswell

The Raptor

marklazarcovic wrote: »

he is a judge now so cant have a private practise,think he has cancer aswell

Good enough for him. He deserves it. I believe in karma and nothing good will ever come from their actions.

And they were all in it from the start. Each and every single one of them.

Ageyev

Thepoet85 wrote: »

The only thing I can see preventing Dassey gettinga retrial, is the fact that his testimony (wrongly) was used as a large part of the prosecutions case against SA.

If BD gets a retrial and is found innocent, what would the ramifications be for SA?

The Dassey confession tape wasn't used as evidence. The prosecution up until the 11th hour hadn't confirmed whether or not they would call Brendan as a witness (they didn't). Kratz used some of the details in the March 2006 press conference. Bobby Dassey gave testimony however and the tape was played at Brendan's trial.