Making a murderer (Netflix)

Mantis Toboggan · 19-10-2018 7:43pm #1

Think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on this seeing as season two arrived on Netflix today.

For me this show brought true crime to the masses and increased my interest in the genre. Thought season 1 was very good if a little biased but it did give good insight into the US criminal justice system.

PropJoe10 · 20-10-2018 2:37pm

I enjoyed it. As you said, it's a bit biased and apparently there was a good bit left out from season 1 regarding evidence against Avery, but it definitely kicked a whole genre off!

Looking forward to getting stuck into season 2 later!

Cockadoodledoo · 21-10-2018 7:58pm

I’m on episode 8.... weekend binge

Anybody else in the thick of it? It’s interesting!

PropJoe10 · 22-10-2018 5:49pm

Watched 4 so far, yeah its good. Zellner is pretty sharp!

marklazarcovic · 22-10-2018 6:15pm

It's at a stage like zellner said, even a confession from someone else and proof they did it.. Brendan and Steven would still not be let out.

Powers that be are just too far down a rabbit hole.

minzabud · 22-10-2018 7:12pm

Finished over the weekend, Zellner is inpressive and to me makes a lot of good points and raises some really good questions.

Cockadoodledoo · 22-10-2018 7:52pm

I thought she was great but I agree, doesn’t seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel no matter what they produce.

23-10-2018 12:22pm

How anybody could find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt is baffling to me.

I think he is not guilty. And definitely not guilty in the manner he was convicted of.

Boom_Bap · 23-10-2018 1:20pm

I'm trying to make it through season 2 of this. I think I'm on episode 3 at the moment.
The first season was very 1 sided I thought, this seems to be continuing in that manner but maybe a bit more open.

Kratz didn't build a solid case in the original trial, it looks like he had some evidence and tried to make it stick.

I think that Zellner is so far looking at trying to discredit Kratz' evidence such as the blood splatter in the door of the jeep......but it's fundamentally saying the way you described the murder is wrong, but she is still saying there was a murder and not clearing Brendan or Avery.

There's an interesting theory unfolding about how the Rav 4 was brought to the place it was found, but again that doesn't say anything about who brought it there, just how it got there.

I'll need to watch the rest, but at the end of the day, both are still locked up.

Boom_Bap · 24-10-2018 9:28am

Watched a bit more, still no evidence to prove that Avery didn't do it.

Just some more doubt as to the prosecutions original trial and the story they painted. Also possibly withholding evidence.

Still none of this is proving innocence for me.

Cockadoodledoo · 24-10-2018 9:31am

It gets a bit more detailed in the later episodes. I found the first episodes a bit slow to progress.

Also, they included the list of people who declined to participate at the end of each episode because they were accused of being biased in the first season.

24-10-2018 12:22pm

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Watched a bit more, still no evidence to prove that Avery didn't do it.

Just some more doubt as to the prosecutions original trial and the story they painted. Also possibly withholding evidence.

Still none of this is proving innocence for me.

To be found guilty, you need to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone could say there isn't reasonable doubt after season 2

Boom_Bap · 24-10-2018 12:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

To be found guilty, you need to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone could say there isn't reasonable doubt after season 2

I need to finish it all

PropJoe10 · 24-10-2018 9:33pm

Deleted User wrote: »

To be found guilty, you need to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone could say there isn't reasonable doubt after season 2

That whole bit in the last episode about the coroner being excluded is crazy stuff. It really does look like the police had this all sewn up against Avery and didn't want anyone to interfere. Mental.

Mantis Toboggan · 24-10-2018 10:57pm

Would love to know what really happened to Theresa Hallbach, looks very like a cover up.

yaboya1 · 24-10-2018 11:03pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To be found guilty, you need to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think anyone could say there isn't reasonable doubt after season 1

FYP

Boom_Bap · 25-10-2018 1:20pm

Poor Brendan, got all his hopes up about getting out and then dashed. I remember the noise about that in the media a while back, but only now do I actually think of the impact on Brendan and his family in all that.

Where I am, I think finished Ep5, they have gone back to look at the ex-boyfriend. After S1, his behaviour didn't add up to me. But I still don't think that he would drive her car back to the Avery place and hide the car there after murdering her....but it still doesn't add up. How would he know she was there?

I do have a theory though, I think that there were a few people involved in the murder of Theresa. Here's my wild idea.

The ex boyfriend was stalking her, he followed her to the Avery place. When she was leaving the property, she spotted him and there was some sort of confrontation. Avery heard it and got involved, Brendan and his step dad got involved, Theresa ended up being killed by accident and they all tried to cover it up.

It's my wild theory, given that the evidence doesn't point to any one person, or was made to look to point to 1 person, that makes me think there were more than 1 person involved.

Seve OB · 25-10-2018 1:32pm

I watched season 1 when there was loads of hype about it.

Quite probably the worst show I've ever endured. Watched the whole season waiting for some kind of twist to the tale or something.

I didn't find the show any way gripping. I only watched it through because everyone was talking about how good it was so I figured that at some stage or was going to grab me...... But it didn't.

The fella is as guilty as they come. But that's not why I didn't like it. Apart from the show clearly being driven at proving his innocence (not a hope haha) it was really just a terrible boring production.

Plenty of true crime stuff much much better. Do yourselves a favour and skip this muck, I certainly won't be watching season 2. Watch that one Trevor McDonald had on the other evening (am I a murderer) or the one Fiona Bruce did last week (parachute killer) they were both excellent.

retro:electro · 25-10-2018 2:01pm

I think Kathleen has done an amazing job. She’s exactly who you’d want on your side if you found yourself in their position. She doesn’t have to prove that Steven didn’t do it, just that someone else could have, and that she did.
Having said that, and despite all of her efforts, I’m still not convinced of his innocence. A lot of her theories seem a tad far fetched. My personal belief is that Avery did it, or was certainly involved in some way, and I’ve not yet heard or seen anything to convince me otherwise. However, I do not believe he did it in the manner he was accused of doing it. There is no evident suggesion of rape or murder in either the garage or the bedroom and so I would probably acquit him if I was on the jury.

I’m only really interested in the fight for Brendan. It’s actually scary how far down the legal rabbit hole his case has gone. What seems so straightforward to most of us has been bandied about and appealed and overturned so much that at this stage I’m not sure he has any hope of ever getting early release.

I still have two episodes to go so not finished it all yet. It’s a great addition to season one, kind of ties most things up and explains the court process really well.

minzabud · 25-10-2018 2:31pm

Aside from everything else the two phone calls Avery made on the day of the murder to his ex girlfriend do not sound like the a man in the middle of murdering somebody and burning a body.

PropJoe10 · 25-10-2018 6:01pm

Seve OB wrote: »

I watched season 1 when there was loads of hype about it.

Quite probably the worst show I've ever endured. Watched the whole season waiting for some kind of twist to the tale or something.

I didn't find the show any way gripping. I only watched it through because everyone was talking about how good it was so I figured that at some stage or was going to grab me...... But it didn't.

The fella is as guilty as they come. But that's not why I didn't like it. Apart from the show clearly being driven at proving his innocence (not a hope haha) it was really just a terrible boring production.

Plenty of true crime stuff much much better. Do yourselves a favour and skip this muck, I certainly won't be watching season 2. Watch that one Trevor McDonald had on the other evening (am I a murderer) or the one Fiona Bruce did last week (parachute killer) they were both excellent.

What an odd post. You managed to sit through 10 hours of something you obviously hated? Not sure why anyone would bother doing that.

PropJoe10 · 25-10-2018 6:02pm

minzabud wrote: »

Aside from everything else the two phone calls Avery made on the day of the murder to his ex girlfriend do not sound like the a man in the middle of murdering somebody and burning a body.

After watching season 2, I'm more convinced than ever that Avery didn't commit the crime. There's no way either him or Dassey are intelligent enough to clean up a crime scene to that extent. All the State's evidence is dodgy in my eyes.

dulux99 · 25-10-2018 6:04pm

Seve OB wrote: »

I watched season 1 when there was loads of hype about it.

Quite probably the worst show I've ever endured. Watched the whole season waiting for some kind of twist to the tale or something.

I didn't find the show any way gripping. I only watched it through because everyone was talking about how good it was so I figured that at some stage or was going to grab me...... But it didn't.

The fella is as guilty as they come. But that's not why I didn't like it. Apart from the show clearly being driven at proving his innocence (not a hope haha) it was really just a terrible boring production.

Plenty of true crime stuff much much better. Do yourselves a favour and skip this muck, I certainly won't be watching season 2. Watch that one Trevor McDonald had on the other evening (am I a murderer) or the one Fiona Bruce did last week (parachute killer) they were both excellent.

Why, oh why would a person watch season 2 of a show where you felt season 1 was the worst show you've ever seen? That is some amount of hours to dedicate to something you hated.

Anyways, I really enjoyed season 2. Going against the trend now but I just have my reservations about some things. How convenient that whoever set Avery up happened to find blood on his sink. What are the chances of that?

marklazarcovic · 25-10-2018 6:27pm

Brendan can't get out now unless pardoned.. not till he's 58 , ... His only hope is Stephens case is found to be false conviction and someone else gets done, proving Brendan's story was fed to him.. other than that he's not leaving prison,which to me, someone who never met the guy,is gut wrenchingly sick, that could be any 16 yr old low iq kid with social issues put away for 40 yrs after being convinced to agree with what those fckers were feeding him.. agreeing to anything just to go home ...

"They got in my head" .. he was so vurnerable. Even 3 supreme Court judges cannot believe what was allowed to happen,highest judges in the land.

Cockadoodledoo · 25-10-2018 11:34pm

I did find the blood in the sink story a bit convenient but maybe it was a pot luck find if they did enter to find something to use.

The wound didn’t look that fresh though in the photo

26-10-2018 8:29am

minzabud wrote: »

Aside from everything else the two phone calls Avery made on the day of the murder to his ex girlfriend do not sound like the a man in the middle of murdering somebody and burning a body.

Thats one of the biggest things for me. To be able to rape, murder and mutilate a person and then have a casual conversation with your girlfriend...

It would take a serious psychopath lacking all empathy or emotion to be able to do that. And thats not Steven, he seems like an emotional guy.

I do think Kathleen is wrong about the blood in the sink though. That seems a bit too convenient. Then again, the state owing a guy 36M dollars and the police having their reputations questioned and suddenly a girl that was on his property gets murdered with evidence clearly planted... convenient for the state and the police how that worked out.

The evidence is planted for sure. By who and how though is harder to say.
Colborn is 100% involved in the car ending up on the property. He is standing in front of it the night before its found. Then Ryan gives Pam the camera and sends her to almost the exact location of the car.

Lenk plants the key in the trailer.

Not sure who moves the bones or plants the blood but probably Lenk / Colborn are involved.

The police are still concerned though. How can a jury be convinced if there is no blood or DNA in either the trailer or garage. Thats when they decide to breakdown Brendan. What better evidence than having a person confess on camera?

Tipsy McSwagger · 26-10-2018 9:23am

Seve OB wrote: »

I watched season 1 when there was loads of hype about it.

Quite probably the worst show I've ever endured. Watched the whole season waiting for some kind of twist to the tale or something.

I didn't find the show any way gripping. I only watched it through because everyone was talking about how good it was so I figured that at some stage or was going to grab me...... But it didn't.

The fella is as guilty as they come. But that's not why I didn't like it. Apart from the show clearly being driven at proving his innocence (not a hope haha) it was really just a terrible boring production.

Plenty of true crime stuff much much better. Do yourselves a favour and skip this muck, I certainly won't be watching season 2. Watch that one Trevor McDonald had on the other evening (am I a murderer) or the one Fiona Bruce did last week (parachute killer) they were both excellent.

It’s a completely biased production made to cater for the Facebook generation, lazy arses who just watch the show and scream they are innocent.

marklazarcovic · 26-10-2018 9:24am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thats one of the biggest things for me. To be able to rape, murder and mutilate a person and then have a casual conversation with your girlfriend...

It would take a serious psychopath lacking all empathy or emotion to be able to do that. And thats not Steven, he seems like an emotional guy.

I do think Kathleen is wrong about the blood in the sink though. That seems a bit too convenient. Then again, the state owing a guy 36M dollars and the police having their reputations questioned and suddenly a girl that was on his property gets murdered with evidence clearly planted... convenient for the state and the police how that worked out.

The evidence is planted for sure. By who and how though is harder to say.
Colborn is 100% involved in the car ending up on the property. He is standing in front of it the night before its found. Then Ryan gives Pam the camera and sends her to almost the exact location of the car.

Lenk plants the key in the trailer.

Not sure who moves the bones or plants the blood but probably Lenk / Colborn are involved.

The police are still concerned though. How can a jury be convinced if there is no blood or DNA in either the trailer or garage. Thats when they decide to breakdown Brendan. What better evidence than having a person confess on camera?

And the ex boyfriend having her notepad in his possession,which had been updated that day as confirmed by what was in it,a time after her supposed last sighting at Stephens house, could only have been gotten from her vehicle. Boggles the mind .

Pelvis · 26-10-2018 10:17am

A few things stand out to me, but one the most serious ones is the affidavit of the witness who saw Theresa's Rav 4 parked on the side of the road, who tells Officer Colburn about it on the same day Colburn calls dispatch to run the plates. You could say the witness may not be independent, given that he is friends with the family, but there are texts to Scott Tadych which corroborate it.

That one fact alone should be enough for a re-trial. Not to mention:

The bullet not supporting the hypothesis that Theresa was shot in the head
The question marks over the chain of custody of the hood latch swab
The additional human bone fragments with cut marks found in the quarry which seem to have been completely ignored, in addition to Katz misrepresenting the pelvic bone fragments, saying they are not reliable
The perjury committed by Bobby Dassey, supported by testimony of his brother
Finally, and insanely, the contents of Bobby Dassey's hard drive..... INSANE.

I think Zellner has been brilliant, but she needs to clean up her version of events. She points the finger at Bobby/Scott for the murder, and the ex boyfriend/police for the cover up. That doesn't seem plausible to me.

Pelvis · 26-10-2018 10:22am

In regards to Brendan Dassey's appeals, we obviously only heard snippets of the arguments with the judges. But I feel more emphasis should have been placed on the lack of forensic evidence supporting Dassey's confession. Namely the fact that no blood or DNA evidence at all supports that she was in the bedroom.

It's a crying shame that those judges can't show some basic common sense, and see what everyone else sees when they see that confession tape. Fact of the matter is, now Brendan's only hope of getting out of prison is Zellner getting Avery's conviction overturned.

Mantis Toboggan · 26-10-2018 10:48am

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

It’s a completely biased production made to cater for the Facebook generation, lazy arses who just watch the show and scream they are innocent.

What info was in the trial that we know was left out of the documentary?

Tipsy McSwagger · 26-10-2018 11:01am

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

What info was in the trial that we know was left out of the documentary?

Go research it for yourself, look past the biased documentary and come to your own conclusion

Mantis Toboggan · 26-10-2018 11:13am

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Go research it for yourself, look past the biased documentary and come to your own conclusion

Will do.

I thought when you were saying it's biased that you knew of some info which wasn't in the documentary? I've heard things are missing from the doc that were in the trial but I haven't been able to find anything.

What makes you say it's biased?

Tipsy McSwagger · 26-10-2018 11:46am

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Will do.

I thought when you were saying it's biased that you knew of some info which wasn't in the documentary? I've heard things are missing from the doc that were in the trial but I haven't been able to find anything.

What makes you say it's biased?

One of the episodes ended on a big cliffhanger. The defense claimed a blood vial was tampered with, it was punctured and Avery’s blood was then planted in Theresa’s car. They made this out to be the smoking gun. Except it’s common to puncture a blood vial and insert/draw blood. This ‘smoking gun’ didn’t even make it to Avery’s appeal hearing it was that laughable.

26-10-2018 12:46pm

Based on the information we have, we know Theresa didn't die in the manner Steven was convicted of. No blood or DNA to suggest it happened that way. Zellners arguement is much more plausible. The thing is, there is something missing. Why did the police plant the evidence?

1) They were involved in the murder to frame Avery? That seems hugely unlikely, they could have just killed him.

2) They know the real murderer or they know it's not Avery but they went after him anyways to avoid paying him and to restore their reputation. This is way more likely but it's still hard to think that a police force would let a murderer away.

3) They had reason to believe that Steven was guilty and just went with it, planting evidence to secure the conviction. This seems most likely, but what made them so sure it was? This is the part Zellner is missing.

She needs to find out what made them so sure of his guilt that they planted evidence.

That's no easy task.

Boom_Bap · 26-10-2018 12:52pm

I think the reasoning behind the planting of evidence is because the state were in a battle with him already over his payout for previous false conviction and incarceration.

If he was locked up again, the payout would be cancelled or be drastically reduced. So they planted evidence and tampered to make this happen.

Plus - the family was not liked at all in the county and known to be trouble makers I believe.

Pelvis · 26-10-2018 12:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Based on the information we have, we know Theresa didn't die in the manner Steven was convicted of. No blood or DNA to suggest it happened that way. Zellners arguement is much more plausible. The thing is, there is something missing. Why did the police plant the evidence?

1) They were involved in the murder to frame Avery? That seems hugely unlikely, they could have just killed him.

2) They know the real murderer or they know it's not Avery but they went after him anyways to avoid paying him and to restore their reputation. This is way more likely but it's still hard to think that a police force would let a murderer away.

3) They had reason to believe that Steven was guilty and just went with it, planting evidence to secure the conviction. This seems most likely, but what made them so sure it was? This is the part Zellner is missing.

She needs to find out what made them so sure of his guilt that they planted evidence.

That's no easy task.

Avery was likely about to get a big payout in a civil case against the state for his first wrongful conviction. Think it was mentioned in the first season that the cops involved (Colburn/Lenk and probably others) could be personally liable for those costs.

That alone is more than enough motive. They may have planted evidence because a) they still believed he was guilty for the first crime and wanted in back in jail regardless of his guilt of the second, or b) to have the civil case thrown out to spare themselves the expense of liability and/or any professional ramifications they may have faced.

marklazarcovic · 26-10-2018 2:49pm

Kratz boils my blood,whooring himself to every tv show available when Brendan could have been released,really was desperate for it not to happen..a deeply untrustworthy individual.

marklazarcovic · 26-10-2018 2:51pm

Pelvis wrote: »

Avery was likely about to get a big payout in a civil case against the state for his first wrongful conviction. Think it was mentioned in the first season that the cops involved (Colburn/Lenk and probably others) could be personally liable for those costs.

That alone is more than enough motive. They may have planted evidence because a) they still believed he was guilty for the first crime and wanted in back in jail regardless of his guilt of the second, or b) to have the civil case thrown out to spare themselves the expense of liability and/or any professional ramifications they may have faced.

They probably thought it would just be a straight forward conviction,no payout,life goes on...

They had no idea how big and scrutinized this case would become at the time..none of them did

retro:electro · 26-10-2018 2:53pm

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Kratz boils my blood,whooring himself to every tv show available when Brendan could have been released,really was desperate for it not to happen..a deeply untrustworthy individual.

He’s an odious pig. Literally shlt on your shoe in human form

dulux99 · 26-10-2018 3:11pm

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

It’s a completely biased production made to cater for the Facebook generation, lazy arses who just watch the show and scream they are innocent.

Do you conduct your own independent investigation following watching anything crime related on TV?

People watch these things as entertainment. We're not detectives.

You can pick holes in the case, as plenty have, but to say people are lazy because not going in depth into the case is a weird attitude to have.

Tipsy McSwagger · 26-10-2018 5:35pm

dulux99 wrote: »

Do you conduct your own independent investigation following watching anything crime related on TV?

People watch these things as entertainment. We're not detectives.

You can pick holes in the case, as plenty have, but to say people are lazy because not going in depth into the case is a weird attitude to have.

When I watch a crime documentary I like to research the other side of the case not just a one sided one. It’s not entertainment when lazy arses are starting online petitions to try and get this scumbag freed, here’s a link

https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-free-steven-avery

Ye entertainment me hole, go and say that to Theresa Halbach’s family.

dulux99 · 26-10-2018 5:41pm

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

When I watch a crime documentary I like to research the other side of the case not just a one sided one. It’s not entertainment when lazy arses are starting online petitions to try and get this scumbag freed, here’s a link

https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-free-steven-avery

Ye entertainment me hole, go and say that to Theresa Halbach’s family.

It's literally a TV show on Netflix. It is of course entertainment.

Mantis Toboggan · 26-10-2018 5:43pm

Well in fairness to the documentary very few on the Hallbach side wanted anything to do with the documentary so it was always going to appear one sided, I don't get the Facebook generation line though, what's that supposed to mean?

dulux99 · 26-10-2018 5:48pm

If anything the "Facebook generation" would be more inclined to do research as they'd have access to more information online. But whatever, we're all idiots for watching this TV show, we should be reading through old police records and trying to solve the crime ourselves.

NabyLadistheman · 26-10-2018 5:54pm

I thought Laura was poor in the arguments with the three judges. She sounded emotional & nervous when questioned. Especially in comparison to the guy the state put forward.

dulux99 · 26-10-2018 6:01pm

Suarezistheman wrote: »

I thought Laura was poor in the arguments with the three judges. She sounded emotional & nervous when questioned. Especially in comparison to the guy the state put forward.

She was fairly irritating at all points tbh.

SoupyNorman · 26-10-2018 6:01pm

Season 2 was good, nothing too jaw dropping but a few nuggets.

Overall, Im still on 100% sure of Stevens innocence nor Brendan’s albeit Im leaning that way.

Common sense things like no fingerprints anywhere, ever.
The silly fashion in which the car was hidden.
How ridiculously fast it was found and Pams frankly cringe worthy explanation of how she found it.
Why they would put Theresa in the Rav 4 to go a few feet to the burn pit
Raped and murdered(throat cut) on the bed and not a single fibre or drop of Theresas blood found

They are just a few stand outs for me on the argument for innocence.

I do have trouble with the fact that IF all this evidence was planted then there must be 2, 3 or 10 people in on it? They could never have known just how much attention this was gonna attract so there really should have been something uncovered by now to prove that he was framed. Add to that, nobody talking, nobody confesses anything in the last 14 years. Us humans find it very difficult to keep secrets. I guess that’s a stretch but again, if this is a cover up it’s extremely frightening to see the power law enforcement have over citizens.

retro:electro · 26-10-2018 6:01pm

Was it the family computer? How are they so sure those search results were Bobby’s?

dulux99 · 26-10-2018 6:10pm

retro:electro wrote: »

Was it the family computer? How are they so sure those search results were Bobby’s?

Apart from the fact that they said Brendan never used the home PC, not alot really. Then again, Kratz had access to that information before the trial. I presume if he thought they may be Brendans searches then he would have used that info himself. I did wonder about that too though.

seligehgit · 26-10-2018 8:26pm

Suarezistheman wrote: »

I thought Laura was poor in the arguments with the three judges. She sounded emotional & nervous when questioned. Especially in comparison to the guy the state put forward.

I thought she was pretty dismal in arguing Brendan's case before the seventh circuit court of appeal ( en banc).

Zellner fairly slaughtered her (Brendan's legal advisors) re two substantive issues she struggled to answer.

The question re the presence of the casings on the Avery property.

One of a multitude on a property where hunting was a hobby.No evidence that there was shooting in the garage throwing out the window the judge's assumption there was a shooting in the garage.There sure as hell wouldn't be any casing in his garage in the north side of Chicago.

Her bigger failing was in failing to understand that it wasn't the truth they were trying to grasp when the judge enquired re the police's motive for seeking two killers.

They were'nt,they were seeking Brendan's confession to corroborate the wafer thin case they had to convict Steven based on arguably refutable forensic evidence.

Making a murderer (Netflix)

Comments