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

marklazarcovic

jayo26 wrote: »

Its stupid to think that police did not tamper with any evidence or question could they of framed him.

there is more questions and unanswered suspicions to show that someone has tampered with things then they are to say that everything is as Steven avery left it after killing that girl.

What is the point of joining in a discussion or thread of you think anyone that doesn't go along with your way of thinking is stupid.

All hail tipsy.

some posters have form for stirring sheeet just for the sake of it ,just a heads up

jayo26

marklazarcovic wrote: »

some posters have form for stirring sheeet just for the sake of it ,just a heads up

Oh I've seen before. It's just ridiculous a poster can't give their opinion on a topic without it been called stupid whats the point in having a discussion.

retro:electro

jayo26 wrote: »

Its stupid to think that police did not tamper with any evidence or question could they of framed him.

there is more questions and unanswered suspicions to show that someone has tampered with things then they are to say that everything is as Steven avery left it after killing that girl.

What is the point of joining in a discussion or thread of you think anyone that doesn't go along with your way of thinking is stupid.

All hail tipsy.

This 100%

Drumpot

nc6000 wrote: »

Yes! I couldn't believe that of all the police officers they have that it had to be Colburn bringing Brendan in and out of court. Was there nobody else who could have escorted him.

Consdiering how smug most of the people on the prosectution side of things were, I am guessing it was meant as a show of force and a show of innocence. That is, he was leading away the evil man who accused him of crimes and the police are in some way vindicated by the guilty verdict . .

Some sort of ridiculous statement like Justice is served. You could say it was extremely appropriate because he was at the Centre of the issues most people believe meant justice wasn't served . They don't seem to be too bright in that town . .

Subacio

Things like this make it so difficult for me to watch TV in the traditional one episode per week method. I was hooked from ep 1. So many questions remain unsatisfactorily answered, and I think that's what makes the "beyond reasonable doubt" part of both convictions so hard to take. The complete lack of any DNA evidence in Steven's trailer, where apparently Teresa was raped, stabbed, strangled and had her throat and hair cut seems enough to cause reasonable doubt by itself.

One minor thing that bothered me was in Kratz's closing in Steven's trial, he said "one man and one man alone is responsible for the death of Teresa Halbach, and that man is Steven Avery." How then can he sit in on the prosecution of Brendan and not pipe up and tell the court they've already got their man? Could his statement in the first trial been used as evidence in the second?

TallGlass

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Her phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel. Your theory that the police found her car/body and framed him is so stupid it's not even funny.

We are watching the same documentary?

Just because someone sets the bin on fire outside my house doesn't mean I set the bin on fire nor does it make it 'my bin'.

smurgen

jayo26 wrote: »

Its stupid to think that police did not tamper with any evidence or question could they of framed him.

there is more questions and unanswered suspicions to show that someone has tampered with things then they are to say that everything is as Steven avery left it after killing that girl.

What is the point of joining in a discussion or thread of you think anyone that doesn't go along with your way of thinking is stupid.

All hail tipsy.

I've watched it a twice now and cannot believe the case stayed together.the police were farcical.the state prosecutor couldn't give coherent answers to journalists during the conferences at the end of each day in court.the journalists seemed stunned at his glossing over of details.he tried to play down massive.inconsistencies in the states case.the lack of physical evidence is shocking.

smurgen

I also couldn't believe the police officer saying they could have made avery dissappear instead of framing him.how did a police officer think it appropriate to make such a comment? I'm gobsmacked.

BQQ

This is worth a read.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/making-a-murderer-nancy-grace-856328

afkasurfjunkie

BQQ wrote: »

This is worth a read.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/making-a-murderer-nancy-grace-856328

Nancy Grace is vile though. Have you ever seen her shows? All about generating hysteria and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

brevity

If Avery did do it, why would he have burnt the body right next to his house instead of using a furnace that was on the property? Why didn't he use that car crusher that was also on the property? Where is the blood from the gun shots and the supposed stabbing?

The documentary may well have painted the Avery's in a good light but as far as I could see the prosecution was crooked and determined to pin this on Steven.

Lorne Malvo

He done it himself in such a simplistic fashion to try and frame the cops, trying to frame him.

hawkwind23

Lorne Malvo wrote: »

He done it himself in such a simplistic fashion to try and frame the cops, trying to frame him.

This is my only logical train of thought when debating the "guilty" scenarios

brevity

Incidentally, I was watching Primal Fear the other night and I had a thought that Brendan could be hiding something

20Cent

If he did do it how and where?
Couldn't have been the way he was convicted.

TallGlass

Lorne Malvo wrote: »

He done it himself in such a simplistic fashion to try and frame the cops, trying to frame him.

This theory also crossed my mind. Was there any massive blood or signs of blood loss found on the site, finding such blood loss would kind of swing my mind. But again it's quite a serious risk to take, when he had some many options to make this problem go away if he did commit the crimes.

There's no real proof that is in my mind deciding to me to say yes he is or no he isn't guilty. Unless I am missing something.

The only evidence is the kid, but he is swings and roundabouts and watching them videos of his interrogations are nothing short of telling him what to say.

I said it from the start, and will continue to say. That the ex boyfriend there is something that doesn't sit right with me about him, the first time I seen him and the footage I instantly said to myself he done something. I still think this.

Dr. Bre

Halbach boss said she was getting calls from someone hassling her. Felt this wasn't talked bout enough. Who the hell was this!

myshirt

If a pedo was shanked in the prison yard, would anyone care? Would they?

Probably not. Including yours truly.

But there's the issue isn't it... when you don't give a sh!... dangerous things happen. And we have an awful problem with this in Ireland; social welfare recipients, disabled people, people with mental health issues, kids growing up in socioeconomic disadantage killing each other, water charge protestors, the unemployed, the homeless, f"ck um all.

No one gives a flying f*ck about anything unless it crosses their door. Just another scumbag, another unemployed scrote, another messed up kid in the river, who cares. When that politician comes to the door its all about what he can do to sort you out personally.

Fundamentally what happened here is no one gave a damn, the kid fit the bill, he was an Avery. He messed with 'important' people. We'd want to change our attitude here and allow people a fair shake regardless of socioeconomic background. If we don't, we continue allow injustice to perpetuate.

mystic86

Just finished watching this, 2 questions:

1) How come we never see the defence talk about the vile of blood having a syringe hole and the styrofoam thing having a broken seal? They made such a big deal of this initially

2) How come Brendan's lawyers didn't show more clearly how the investigators were putting words in Brendans' mouth, the way we were shown that in this documentary?

enfant terrible

mystic86 wrote: »

Just finished watching this, 2 questions:

1) How come we never see the defence talk about the vile of blood having a syringe hole and the styrofoam thing having a broken seal? They made such a big deal of this initially

2) How come Brendan's lawyers didn't show more clearly how the investigators were putting words in Brendans' mouth, the way we were shown that in this documentary?

1) I wondered about that too, seemed like the eureka moment where I started to believe he was innocent, then we heard no more about it, shows the mindset of the filmmakers.

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/makingamudererbloodvial.html

Explains vial and seal.

2) I wondered about that too, I was expecting a stream of experts explaining how the confession was forced out of him.

So i went back and watched the full confession videos.

They don't look forced at all IMO, he just spiels out in intimate and disturbing details what they did to her on that day.

I found the testimony of Brendan's cousin interesting too, the one she recanted on the stand, she look conflicted to me, like she was asked to lie by her grandparents.

mewe

enfant terrible wrote: »

1)I found the testimony of Brendan's cousin interesting too, the one she recanted on the stand, she look conflicted to me, like she was asked to lie by her grandparents.

It looked the opposite to me. When she was answering questions relating to what she had told the detectives already she was very upset and then was more relaxed and had stopped crying when relaying how she had lied previously and made up stuff when talking to the detectives. I perceived this as another vulnerable person who was leaned on by the detectives to add to their case.

RGDATA!

mystic86 wrote: »

Just finished watching this, 2 questions:

1) How come we never see the defence talk about the vile of blood having a syringe hole and the styrofoam thing having a broken seal? They made such a big deal of this initially

2) How come Brendan's lawyers didn't show more clearly how the investigators were putting words in Brendans' mouth, the way we were shown that in this documentary?

been a few weeks since i watched it so I'm open to correction

1) i thought somebody mentioned that vials can have holes in the stoppers simply because the blood is sometimes inserted by syringe in the first place. Of course the outer seal on the box was still broken which is still suspicious. At the same time, if you'd gone to all the trouble of cracking open the box, why not just take out the stopper before extracting the blood anyway? I don't think the hole in the stopper is a smoking gun in the way the film maybe portrays it for dramatic purposes.

2) i think Brendan's lawyers did try to argue this to a point. There was issue taken in the doc that they didn't get to show the jury the last portion of the first confession which we saw in the film where he recants/tells his mother they "got inside my head" etc.

However, the jury also saw a second confession he made to police, (transcript available online) where he goes through events more or less as per the state's timeline. This confession reads as him volunteering all the details unprompted (you could argue he'd had time to learn the story required of him by then of course). That confession wasn't shown at all in the documentary.

Sunflower 27

afkasurfjunkie wrote: »

Nancy Grace is vile though. Have you ever seen her shows? All about generating hysteria and appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Over and above that, if you read info about her career as a prosecutor, you'd wonder how anyone listens to her at all. She was found to be so dodgy, she would have fit right in at Manitowoc. Her ethics are dodgy to say the least.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4959451

TallGlass

What I would like to maybe see come to think of it is a second series, more from the police perspective on the investigation.

shaunn

I've been very skeptical since episode one - and I'm finished now. It's definitely a bumpy ride, and to determine that he's innocent or guilty without exact proof is a risk in itself and I do follow the DNA being planted theory. The investigators had every chance to do so, the Averys were forced out of their home for nearing a week, and then the pierced blood vial. The key could've easily been planted, that Lenk guy makes me scratch my head too, not like any of them are any better but what makes it so much worse is that he served eighteen years prior for something that his doppelganger done, and that rapist was still on the streets while Steven was serving his term. The law shouldn't be like that, and if that happens then it just makes you think for a minute about how 'safe' you really are, albeit not Ireland but what if it's going on here too? You never really know. Albeit I've been defending Steven, his ex-fiancée has stated in an interview how she was made say good things about him because he was abusing her, and that they had 'about two' good times in their entire time together. She says that he's 100% guilty, and one of the things she said is how he threatened to throw a blow dryer into the bath which she was in and that he said that he'd be 'able to get away with it'.. definitely worth a watch; although people are skeptical about what she's said too as it's just one person's word against another.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u91VsLcu30Y

Midnight Sundance

What were averys 3 charges? He was found guilty on 2?? Yet dassey was guilty of all 3? Was he guilty of a crime Avery was found not guilty of?

toadfly

Midnight Sundance wrote: »

What were averys 3 charges? He was found guilty on 2?? Yet dassey was guilty of all 3? Was he guilty of a crime Avery was found not guilty of?

Yes - mutilation of a corpse. Talk about the jury contradicting themselves.

TallGlass

Midnight Sundance wrote: »

What were averys 3 charges? He was found guilty on 2?? Yet dassey was guilty of all 3? Was he guilty of a crime Avery was found not guilty of?

Avery's charges, Homicide in the 1st degree, Possession of a firearm and Kidnapping. He had mutilation and sexual assault removed against him along with one other charge.

Dassey was charged/convicted with, Homicide, Mutilation of a Corpse and Sexual Assault (Rape).

Ageyev

toadfly wrote: »

Yes - mutilation of a corpse. Talk about the jury contradicting themselves.

The directors have suggested (based on what one juror told them since the doc has been released) that the jury came to an agreement where they traded votes on the charges with a view that the appellate court would overrule the verdicts and maybe a new trial could be set. This juror said they were fearful of their safety.

[Deleted User]

From You Laugh, You Lose.