Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 04:23PM

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Maddog = Jerry Buting

Enfant terrible = Ken Kratz

Seriously though, no need to de-rail the thread, can't you post your opinions and leave it at that!?!

Is that not what we're doing?

I answered all his questions now just looking for some evidence of the amazing conspiracy Maddog laid out.

runswithascript · 31-01-2016 04:37PM

dusf wrote: »

There was a programme on this yesterday, supposedly releasing new evidence, on Discovery Investigation. The name of the programme is 'Steven Avery: Innocent or Guilty'. I have checked my usual sources for content but there is no sign of it.

Does anyone know where this can be downloaded or streamed from?

MadDog76 wrote: »

It's repeated 22 times in the coming week on ID.

Less than helpful remark.

MrMac84 wrote: »

Some people can't record their tv source

If it was not clear from my question I do not receive a broadcast of the channel Investigation Discovery.

kippy · 31-01-2016 04:42PM

There are a number of unanswered questions here and a lot more I'd like to know. Very strange stuff and I don't believe Avery should have been convicted based on the facts presented in the series.
I can't figure out why more wasn't made of the voicemail access, the policemans admission around the timelines of calling in the license plates of the car, the very obvious tampering with the blood sample or the pre trial comments by the prosecutor.
Serious questions remain around those and other areas and I cannot see how any logical thinking person could convict based on the evidence presented.

runswithascript · 31-01-2016 04:46PM

Here is a link for the new programme about the case that was aired yesterday:

http://www.investigationdiscovery.com/tv-shows/steven-avery-innocent-or-guilty/steven-avery-innocent-or-guilty-video/steven-avery-innocent-or-guilty/

I use a DNS service to get around geo-blocking so I am not sure if this will work for those without same or not...

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 04:50PM

kippy wrote: »

There are a number of unanswered questions here and a lot more I'd like to know. Very strange stuff and I don't believe Avery should have been convicted based on the facts presented in the series.
I can't figure out why more wasn't made of the voicemail access, the policemans admission around the timelines of calling in the license plates of the car, the very obvious tampering with the blood sample or the pre trial comments by the prosecutor.
Serious questions remain around those and other areas and I cannot see how any logical thinking person could convict based on the evidence presented.

There is his blood in the car, his sweat on her car hood latch, her body in his burn pit, a bullet with her DNA in his garage that was fired from his gun and your worried about voicemail access and tampering with blood that never happened.

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

kippy · 31-01-2016 05:23PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

kippy wrote: »

There are a number of unanswered questions here and a lot more I'd like to know. Very strange stuff and I don't believe Avery should have been convicted based on the facts presented in the series.
I can't figure out why more wasn't made of the voicemail access, the policemans admission around the timelines of calling in the license plates of the car, the very obvious tampering with the blood sample or the pre trial comments by the prosecutor.
Serious questions remain around those and other areas and I cannot see how any logical thinking person could convict based on the evidence presented.

There is his blood in the car, his sweat on her car hood latch, her body in his burn pit, a bullet with her DNA in his garage that was fired from his gun and your worried about voicemail access and tampering with blood that never happened.

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

The blood evidence was very obviously accessed after it has been sealed initially.
The absense of evidence is more of a worry for me and the apparent issues with the stories of key investigators who had access to the alleged crime scene are worrying

MadDog76 · 31-01-2016 05:26PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Because he admitted it and all the evidence points there.

What evidence points to this incredible conspiracy you believe in?

That alone is enough for me to discount your opinion as in any way relevant to this discussion I'm afraid ...... but I'll leave you with this advise, actually watch the documentary yourself then go and do your own research ........ you might then be able to come back here with an informed opinion.

MadDog76 · 31-01-2016 05:28PM

dusf wrote: »

Less than helpful remark.

If it was not clear from my question I do not receive a broadcast of the channel Investigation Discovery.

Sorry, I can't offer you any advise as to how to watch illegally I'm afraid.

Unearthly · 31-01-2016 05:32PM

For those with Sky, it's channel 522 at 9pm

I'll give it a watch

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 05:34PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

That alone is enough for me to discount your opinion as in any way relevant to this discussion I'm afraid ...... but I'll leave you with this advise, actually watch the documentary yourself then go and do your own research ........ you might then be able to come back here with an informed opinion.

Ha I did watch it and Brendan's confessions which made me believe he was guilty.

I thought he might have been innocent before watching his confessions.

Good luck with the conspiracy theory would make an exciting movie.

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 05:40PM

kippy wrote: »

The blood evidence was very obviously accessed after it has been sealed initially.

Why?

MadDog76 · 31-01-2016 05:47PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Why?

If you watched the documentary, or even knew anything about the case, you'd know that the evidence seal on the blood sample package had been broken without anybody knowing, or admitting, who did it or why that was done ........ which means??? :rolleyes:

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 05:52PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

If you watched the documentary, or even knew anything about the case, you'd know that the evidence seal on the blood sample package had been broken without anybody knowing, or admitting, who did it or why that was done ........ which means??? :rolleyes:

You need to do your research

"The defense team also presented evidence that the tape sealing the package was legitimately broken on June 19, 2002, by then-district attorney E. James Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald and members of Avery's defense team recorded breaking into the package during Avery's appeal against his rape conviction while deciding what to send for additional testing.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3400603/Key-Making-Murderer-evidence-disputed-Puncture-hole-blood-vial-allegedly-used-frame-Steven-Avery-standard-practice.html#ixzz3yqFBddNP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Let me guess Fitzgerald is in on framing Avery too. Conspiracy just keeps getting bigger :pac:

MadDog76 · 31-01-2016 06:00PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

You need to do your research

"The defense team also presented evidence that the tape sealing the package was legitimately broken on June 19, 2002, by then-district attorney E. James Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald and members of Avery's defense team recorded breaking into the package during Avery's appeal against his rape conviction while deciding what to send for additional testing.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3400603/Key-Making-Murderer-evidence-disputed-Puncture-hole-blood-vial-allegedly-used-frame-Steven-Avery-standard-practice.html#ixzz3yqFBddNP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Let me guess Fitzgerald is in on framing Avery too. Conspiracy just keeps getting bigger :pac:

That extraction of the Blood Sample was done unofficially with an attempt to conceal it having been done until it was questioned, ie. a new evidence seal was never logged and placed back onto the packaging as per Standard Operating Procedures when removing evidence from the Evidence Locker ........ now, using reason and logic, can you think of any reason why Law Enforcement would want to remove evidence from the Evidence Locker without anybody knowing about it officially?

31-01-2016 06:01PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Yeah, imagine that ......... the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department fabricating evidence to incriminate Steven Avery and refusing to investigate evidence which might prove Steven Avery's innocence ......... all to frame him and put him away for the rest of his life for a horrendous crime he did not commit??? Ridiculous!!!

Oh wait .......... that's exactly what they did do to Mr. Avery in 1985 and it took 18 years behind bars before he was exonerated.

I don't believe he was framed in 1985, unless I'm mistaken he was wrongfully convicted. There's a massive difference there. The injured party identified him as the culprit.
Convicted wrongly.
Not framed.

MadDog76 · 31-01-2016 06:03PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't believe he was framed in 1985, unless I'm mistaken he was wrongfully convicted. There's a massive difference there. The injured party identified him as the culprit.
Convicted wrongly.
Not framed.

Really? Look into that case a little deeper and come back to me ......... you might be surprised with what you will find.

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 06:13PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

That extraction of the Blood Sample was done unofficially with an attempt to conceal it having been done until it was questioned, ie. a new evidence seal was never logged and placed back onto the packaging as per Standard Operating Procedures when removing evidence from the Evidence Locker ........ now, using reason and logic, can you think of any reason why Law Enforcement would want to remove evidence from the Evidence Locker without anybody knowing about it officially?

You're ridiculous, we can add that to the conspiracy theory so.

Can you do me out a full time line of this conspiracy and everyone involved?

Arghus · 31-01-2016 06:18PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Really? Look into that case a little deeper and come back to me ......... you might be surprised with what you will find.

MadDog I posted two links to articles here yesterday, you didn't happen to give them a read did you?

31-01-2016 06:27PM

MadDog76 wrote: »

Really? Look into that case a little deeper and come back to me ......... you might be surprised with what you will find.

Nope. I know about the case. Wrongly convicted.
Unless you know something different??

Flint Fredstone · 31-01-2016 06:36PM

bubblypop wrote: »

Nope. I know about the case. Wrongly convicted.
Unless you know something different??

He was wrongly convicted but he became the number 1 suspect for seemingly no reason at all. Then he could have been released earlier but for the purposeful ignoring of the real offender actually trying to tell them they had the wrong man. You can throw in the artist impression and that too to make it look an extremely dodgy process by the local law enforcement, as bad as framing really.

31-01-2016 06:51PM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

He was wrongly convicted but he became the number 1 suspect for seemingly no reason at all. Then he could have been released earlier but for the purposeful ignoring of the real offender actually trying to tell them they had the wrong man. You can throw in the artist impression and that too to make it look an extremely dodgy process by the local law enforcement, as bad as framing really.

He didn't become a suspect for no reason. Just because the programme makers made you believe he was a good guy didn't mean he was.
There was reason to suspect him for the rape & the reason must have been right because the injured party identified him as the culprit. That's police doing their job. It's not them framing someone.

Yep, the rape should have been looked at again, before it was. But that was one guy, one guy that ignored a phone call. Not a whole police force setting someone up.

8-10 · 31-01-2016 06:56PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Good luck with the conspiracy theory would make an exciting movie.

It's already been made! The whole show is a conspiracy theory! The entire premise is built on the theory that there was a police conspiracy. What did you think you were watching?

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 07:01PM

8-10 wrote: »

It's already been made! The whole show is a conspiracy theory! The entire premise is built on the theory that there was a police conspiracy. What did you think you were watching?

Ya your right, guess that's why its so popular people love conspiracy theories.

The movie version should be better though, seeing the evil cops in action.

8-10 · 31-01-2016 07:08PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Ya your right, guess that's why its so popular people love conspiracy theories.

The movie version should be better though, seeing the evil cops in action.

Yep. As somebody in the US media said recently: murder sells. The rights to a movie of Serial has been sold. With this I don't see a movie, but I reckon knock off documentaries will keep popping up for a while. Follow up if he does get another hearing or anything due to his new lawyer.

I have absolutely no problem however in people discussing and musing on the possible police conspiracy in this case. It's exactly what type of discussion this documentary tried to start. And this is 1 of thousands of questionable cases around the world so why not point the finger at the system and if it's as fair as it could be? A jury's word is not final

Flint Fredstone · 31-01-2016 07:12PM

bubblypop wrote: »

He didn't become a suspect for no reason. Just because the programme makers made you believe he was a good guy didn't mean he was.

What was the reason?
Don't make wild assumptions btw, I'm far from convinced he's innocent. I am convinced the police acted dreadfully throughout though so you can drop the condescending nonsense.

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 07:12PM

8-10 wrote: »

Yep. As somebody in the US media said recently: murder sells. The rights to a movie of Serial has been sold. With this I don't see a movie, but I reckon knock off documentaries will keep popping up for a while. Follow up if he does get another hearing or anything due to his new lawyer.

I have absolutely no problem however in people discussing and musing on the possible police conspiracy in this case. It's exactly what type of discussion this documentary tried to start. And this is 1 of thousands of questionable cases around the world so why not point the finger at the system and if it's as fair as it could be? A jury's word is not final

So you can't question the defenses conspiracy theory?

8-10 · 31-01-2016 07:17PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

So you can't question the defenses conspiracy theory?

Huh? Of course! But you have to accept that the whole show is a conspiracy theory and it's not just posters here that are coming up with them. I might be reading you wrong but it seems like you've made up your mind and don't want to entertain alternative theories. If I have it wrong - apologies

enfant terrible · 31-01-2016 07:21PM

8-10 wrote: »

Huh? Of course! But you have to accept that the whole show is a conspiracy theory and it's not just posters here that are coming up with them. I might be reading you wrong but it seems like you've made up your mind and don't want to entertain alternative theories. If I have it wrong - apologies

No its true I've made up my mind he's guilty based on the evidence I've seen so far, can you only post here if you believe in the conspiracy theory?

8-10 · 31-01-2016 07:28PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

No its true I've made up my mind he's guilty based on the evidence I've seen so far, can you only post here if you believe in the conspiracy theory?

Is that a question for me?

Liamo08 · 31-01-2016 07:28PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

Ha I did watch it and Brendan's confessions which made me believe he was guilty.

I thought he might have been innocent before watching his confessions.

Good luck with the conspiracy theory would make an exciting movie.

If you believe Brendan's confession was what actually happened how do you explain the following:

- no blood, DNA or any other evidence from the victim found in the house/garage where she was allegedly raped, strangled, throat slit and shot 10/11 times. I find it incredible to think that these guys could clean up that scene completely and leave not a shred of evidence behind just using some bleach.

- Despite searching the house for several days no one was able to spot the key that was just sitting on the ground in one of the rooms. Even if you believe it was behind the cabinet that no one thought to look there for several days seems ridiculous. Also how was there no DNA from the victim on the key? Also no one was able to find the bullet with his DNA until months later despite days of searching the house/garage?

- if he burned her body outside his house why did he need to put her into the boot of her car (where her blood was found) to drive her from his garage to the burn pit?

- how come no fingerprints were found in the car despite his blood being found there?

- did no one see/smell the burning body outside the house or here the multiple rifle shots that were fired in his garage?

Just to clarify I've no idea if Steven Avery is guilty or not but if you believe Brendan's account I find it hard to not have huge questions about the evidence backing it up.

Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Comments