Netflix: Making a Murderer

[Crazy Badger]

I've just finished watching this over 3 days (well 4 really, but I didn't watch any yesterday) and feel genuinely shocked and disturbed.

I know this board is predominantly US based, so was wondering what any Americans who had seen this series thought of it?

I'll give it some more thought over the next day or two and then write a little more, but I just fail to see how this would have happened in the UK justice system. The most striking difference is that media outlets cannot report details of an ongoing trial to avoid influencing any outcome. Clearly this is not the case here. Also, in the UK a jury must be satisfied that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and as I watched felt there was reasonable doubt in almost all of the prosecutions evidence.

If you haven't seen it, I'd really encourage you to watch. It's compelling viewing and very addictive. I always benchmark 24 as the most addictive TV show, as this always left on a cliffhanger leaving you needing to know what happened next. This is very different, but just as addictive, but far more interesting and moving than I felt it would be after the premise was described.

Anyway, time to sleep on it and probably do some further online research tomorrow...

 

[yg17]

Juries in the US are supposed to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt too, when you have a jury made up of uneducated, small town yokels who don't like you or your family, combined with a legal system with a vendetta against you, reasonable doubt doesn't mean a thing.

I'm not 100% convinced of Steven Avery's innocence, but I'm definitely not 100% convinced of his guilt either. There are so many questions and so many doubts. And the poor kid Brendan got absolutely screwed by his lawyer. It was obvious he wasn't the brightest crayon in the box, he would've confessed to murdering Tupac and Biggie if the investigators pushed hard enough.

 

[hallux]

I've just started watching it. The initial conviction seems so outrageously incorrect when you have all the information available as to make it seem ludicrous that he was even found guilty in the first place. As I'm only a few episodes in, I haven't seen the review of the evidence in the second event though the police seemed pretty confident it was him right away.

This brings to mind the West Memphis 3 (I think there was a movie about them recently, I KNOW one of them released a book), they were exonerated and released quite a few years ago after it was found (after DNA analysis) that they were not the guys that committed the crime they were found guilty of.

Now I need to step away from this thread until I finish watching, cue Netflix...

 

[fitshaced]

I was obsessed with this show when i watched it. I was on Google maps trying to solve it. It convinced me of his innocence and I believe that with only watching the show, I am maybe more qualified than the original jury to make a verdict. Not saying I am definitely correct, just that I didn't have bias or an avalanche of carefully worded information/evidence thrown at me by a very dodgy prosecutor (who was clearly all about convictions and promotion).

I don't suggest this as qualifying evidence of his innocence but when the verdict was read, he clearly showed in his reaction that he couldn't believe the same thing had happened to him again.

What really really bothered me was how 'I don't remember' was used as valid testimony by the sheriffs department against their own words which were documented at the time of the first rape conviction and then the blatant lie of Lt Lenk of his arrival time to the Avery Salvage yard which itself could have been enough to point to obvious cover ups which, coupled with the blood vial puncture and broken box seal, could have thrown the case right over to the prosecution to explain something they simply could not.

Also, not being able to show evidence towards another potential suspect made it clear that the judge had some behind the scenes conversations with the DA.

Really unbelievable show. The internet though showed how immature it can be by not being able to react to it as a documentary and trying to identify 'the real killer' and say 'they did it' without there actually being any evidence to point towards them. That's ok with fiction and it's hard to not be like that when watching this. But it's not ok to make these suspicions public when they are towards innocent people.

 

[puma1552]

lenk and colburn should be in jail. kratz too for obvious lies during press conferences, like saying she had her throat slit on the bed yet there was absolutely zero blood in the house. the judges sucked too.

the MOST telling/dusturbing part of the entire thing was - and not sure why a bigger deal wasnt made of it - colburn calling in the plate of theresas car on november 3rd, the same day she was reported missing - and yet the car wasnt "found" until november 5th - on the avery property.

this whole prosecution stank from day one. theres lots out there that says the series is one sided and theres lots of evidence not in the film, but half of the film is actual court/interrogation film, and there absolutely is enough in that alone to provide reasonable doubt if not outright ill will and unethical practices by the police. i think he was clearly framed, the dirty work being done primarily by lenk and colburn.

 

[Shaun.P]

Yes, watched this all in less than 24 hours!

A few questions I have:

1. Brendan during the interview said that they, "got to his head". It was agreed by the the prosecution and defence not to show the entire interview video and him saying this was in the bit not shown.

2. Seems a bit coincidental that there was a "big fire" at Steven's house in the exact same place where they found bone fragments.

I think Steven did murder her AND the police conspired.

 

[fitshaced]

Yes, watched this all in less than 24 hours!

A few questions I have:

1. Brendan during the interview said that they, "got to his head". It was agreed by the the prosecution and defence not to show the entire interview video and him saying this was in the bit not shown.

2. Seems a bit coincidental that there was a "big fire" at Steven's house in the exact same place where they found bone fragments.

I think Steven did murder her AND the police conspired.

I think the defence for Brendan only became strong once he was sentenced. But, same rubbish Judge (which makes no sense for an appeal) and same corrupt prosecution

The remains in the fire only made sense if they were moved from another site. The way they were excavated by police officers only made sense if they were trying to cover up how they got there. Plus, why did it take three days of search before they found human bone in the fire?

 

[rick snagwell]

the whole case was based off brenden dassey confession that they killed her in the bedroom. but they said that avery's case was based off they killed her in the garage. so many holes, this one being the biggest too me.

steven avery 50% innocent i believe.
brenden dassey 100% innocent.

 

[C DM]

I haven't really looked into any of it much, but there's certainly been talk about quite a bit related to it all not being presented in the show and that some of what was presented was done with artistic license essentially to make it appear the way the show's creators wanted it to come off whether or not there was more to it all or it could be seen differently. Not to say that it invalidates everything or even most things, but that it's not quite the full reality or the "documentary" that it tries to come off as. Again, not sure how much of all of that applies and to what degree as I haven't looked into much of it, but just going by a few news items I've come across here and there.

 

[fitshaced]

I haven't really looked into any of it much, but there's certainly been talk about quite a bit related to it all not being presented in the show and that some of what was presented was done with artistic license essentially to make it appear the way the show's creators wanted it to come off whether or not there was more to it all or it could be seen differently. Not to say that it invalidates everything or even most things, but that it's not quite the full reality or the "documentary" that it tries to come off as. Again, not sure how much of all of that applies and to what degree as I haven't looked into much of it, but just going by a few news items I've come across here and there.

I think if the purpose of it was to prove reasonable doubt (as bias as that would be) they succeeded. If it was used as evidence at the time of the trial I think things would have worked out differently.

 

[Tomorrow]

Based only on evidence presented in the documentary, I believe Steven Avery is guilty of the murder. I also believe Brendan Dassey is guilty. But I would have reasonable doubts.

If I consider evidence that I've read about in the press, but was not presented in the documentary, I believe Steven Avery is guilty and I don't have any reasonable doubt. My thoughts on Brendan Dassey is that he probably deserves a new trial based on how he was treated by his public defender and his investigator (I forget their names, but not the ones who worked for him during the trial).

Simply suggesting that the police could have planted evidence, or may have wanted to plant evidence, is not (to me) evidence that they actually did plant evidence. A lot of people are quick to judge the police based on what I feel were unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[samiwas]

I'm way behind on watching this, as we just finished episode 9 tonight. I've been avoiding these threads until I got that far, and I can figure that there's no big "gotcha" moment in the last episode.

This is the part I cannot get my head around, or how any reasonable person could listen to the evidence provided and think that Steven Avery did this beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, the claim is that he had her tied and chained to his bed, then after sexually assaulting her, they slit her throat there on the bed, stabbed her multiple times, beat her, then dragged her outside to the garage where they apparently shot her to death before somehow crushing her body into tiny bits then burning the pieces in two separate locations some half a mile apart.

Now, somehow, Avery, who is not that bright of a guy, and Dassey, who is definitely not very intelligent, were smart enough to completely sanitize the scene to the point that no blood was found inside the house, outside the house, or in the garage; no scratch marks or anything else were on the bed from when he had her chained down struggling for life; and no weapons were ever found. Yet, they just dumped the car fully intact on the property and left the key in the bedroom, when they had access to a crusher???

I also found it astounding that the first person to search the property for the car just so happened to find it in less than 15 minutes after arriving. A 40 acre property full of thousands of cars, and you find it in 15 minutes? Because the lord led you there? I don't buy that for a second.

I won't even go through all the rest of the stuff (voicemails) which looked like an obvious setup.

Plus, why did it take three days of search before they found human bone in the fire?

Why did it take three days by god knows how many officers searching before the magic key just happened to be found by the very officer who had the biggest beef with Avery right there in the bedroom?

Based only on evidence presented in the documentary, I believe Steven Avery is guilty of the murder. I also believe Brendan Dassey is guilty. But I would have reasonable doubts.

If I consider evidence that I've read about in the press, but was not presented in the documentary, I believe Steven Avery is guilty and I don't have any reasonable doubt. My thoughts on Brendan Dassey is that he probably deserves a new trial based on how he was treated by his public defender and his investigator (I forget their names, but not the ones who worked for him during the trial).

Curious what leads you to this conclusion. Especially if you think he is guilty after watching the documentary. I just cannot fathom how it's possible.

Simply suggesting that the police could have planted evidence, or may have wanted to plant evidence, is not (to me) evidence that they actually did plant evidence. A lot of people are quick to judge the police based on what I feel were unsubstantiated accusations.

There were just too many coincidences to add up to reality. The very same two officers who had issues with Avery from a previous trial coming up with all of the evidence? I just don't buy it. They didn't just "simply suggest it", they had good reason to believe it and a lot of the evidence points to it.

If this trial were more modern, they could go in and find the location that Coburn's call was made from on 11/03 regarding the car. If it was made from the salvage yard, that would bring up a LOT of questions.

 

[puma1552]

Now, somehow, Avery, who is not that bright of a guy, and Dassey, who is definitely not very intelligent, were smart enough to completely sanitize the scene to the point that no blood was found inside the house, outside the house, or in the garage; no scratch marks or anything else were on the bed from when he had her chained down struggling for life; and no weapons were ever found. Yet, they just dumped the car fully intact on the property and left the key in the bedroom, when they had access to a crusher???

Yep, the whole thing was clearly a garbage sham IMO. The part I posted above about Coburn calling in the license plate of Theresa's car on 11/3, and then it not being "found" until 11/5, on the Avery property no less, and being found right away, just shows what scum Coburn and Lenk are. This thing reeked of a set up all the way through.

Regarding this point I'm quoting, remember that part where they chunked up the concrete where there were cracks in the garage floor, and even then there was zero blood evidence, which surely would've shown up in the cracks, no matter how much bleach and stuff was in there. Plus when you consider how much junk was in the garage, it would be impossible to clean everything. And everything in the garage was untouched/filthy anyway.

 

[rick snagwell]

Yep, the whole thing was clearly a garbage sham IMO. The part I posted above about Coburn calling in the license plate of Theresa's car on 11/3, and then it not being "found" until 11/5, on the Avery property no less, and being found right away, just shows what scum Coburn and Lenk are. This thing reeked of a set up all the way through.

Regarding this point I'm quoting, remember that part where they chunked up the concrete where there were cracks in the garage floor, and even then there was zero blood evidence, which surely would've shown up in the cracks, no matter how much bleach and stuff was in there. Plus when you consider how much junk was in the garage, it would be impossible to clean everything. And everything in the garage was untouched/filthy anyway.

but they killed her in the house, she was tied up!!!

 

[SactoGuy18]

There's been a LOT of controversy over this show because the creators tacitly ignored much of the evidence in the first place. Besides, you can forget about getting a new trial, because the case has been adjudicated through the entire Wisconsin court system and unless the Federal government can prove violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Federal government cannot intervene, either.

 

[fitshaced]

There's been a LOT of controversy over this show because the creators tacitly ignored much of the evidence in the first place. Besides, you can forget about getting a new trial, because the case has been adjudicated through the entire Wisconsin court system and unless the Federal government can prove violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Federal government cannot intervene, either.

Ignoring evidence is surely not as bad as fabricating or tampering evidence or removing assumption of innocence before a trial. I don't buy that the creators of Making a Murderer tried to show blatant bias as they could definitely have done a much better job of that. None of the 'evidence' argued by the prosecution made sense. They were just lucky to have some influential people on the jury. They had it lost after closing arguments.

 

[samiwas]

There's been a LOT of controversy over this show because the creators tacitly ignored much of the evidence in the first place. Besides, you can forget about getting a new trial, because the case has been adjudicated through the entire Wisconsin court system and unless the Federal government can prove violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Federal government cannot intervene, either.

I haven't done a whole lot of outside research since I just finished the show last night, but what other damning evidence was there?

I just cannot get past the fact that after a supposed multiple-stabbing and throat-slitting incident in the bedroom that there was not a drop of blood anywhere. None. That simply does not make sense.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I haven't done a whole lot of outside research since I just finished the show last night, but what other damning evidence was there?

I just cannot get past the fact that after a supposed multiple-stabbing and throat-slitting incident in the bedroom that there was not a drop of blood anywhere. None. That simply does not make sense.

I cannot get past that either. Like the DA said, if the police planted evidence, it was because they thought Avery was guilty and they wanted to make sure he was convicted; they weren't planting evidence on what they presumed to be an innocent man. So even if they planted evidence, he still could've done it.

But the argument that the murder was committed in the garage or trailer? Bull. You're telling me Avery was able to remove all minuscule traces of blood in the garage (or trailer) but he couldn't remove that big glaring blood stain of his own in the car? That does make no sense.

 

[Gregg2]

Followed the Avery case on local news as it was happening. I was pretty convinced that he was guilty.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

I watched it a couple of weeks ago...I usually take documentaries with a grain of salt, though I saw some reasonable doubt in the series, I also wonder if they left out some conclusive details about his guilt. That being said now I found this, and it makes me wonder. Read the article and watch the youtube video.

http://distractify.com/news/2016/01/22/beth-edward-wayne-edwards-serial-killer

 

[rick snagwell]

Followed the Avery case on local news as it was happening. I was pretty convinced that he was guilty.

what about brenden dassey?

when you get framed by the police, its pretty easy to look guilty in the media.

 

[Tomorrow]

So, the claim is that he had her tied and chained to his bed, then after sexually assaulting her, they slit her throat there on the bed, stabbed her multiple times, beat her, then dragged her outside to the garage where they apparently shot her to death before somehow crushing her body into tiny bits then burning the pieces in two separate locations some half a mile apart.

This was Dassey's claim. The prosecutors argued that she was shot outside.

There were just too many coincidences to add up to reality. The very same two officers who had issues with Avery from a previous trial coming up with all of the evidence? I just don't buy it. They didn't just "simply suggest it", they had good reason to believe it and a lot of the evidence points to it.

The production, and the defense team, did a good job of presenting a timeline that suggests the police could have planted evidence.

Could have. They didn't present a single shred of evidence that shows that they did.

Here's why I came to the conclusion I did - between two scenarios, I decided which of the two was more likely:

Scenario 1 - Avery killed Hallbach and burned her body.

Scenario 2 - Someone else killed Hallbach, then the police burned her body in Avery's fire pit without him or anybody else noticing, the police planted her vehicle on Avery's property without him or anybody else noticing, the police acquired some of Avery's blood (not from the evidence room; it tested negative for EDTA) and planted it in her vehicle, then the police acquired some of Avery's perspiration, prior to taking him into custody, and planted it on the latch of Hallbach's car hood; then took some of that same perspiration and planted it on her car key, then planted the key in Avery's house. Then, the police somehow got hold of Avery's .22 and fired a shot, keeping the slug (since it was ballistically matched to the gun), put some of Hallbach's blood on it, and planted it in Avery's garage; somewhere along the way, they managed to convince Dassey that he should tell his cousin (in December) that he helped Avery murder Hallbach, then have him tell detectives the same story again in March; all while taking advantage of the "good fortune" that Hallbach just happened to have been murdered by someone other than Avery on the day she went to Avery's house.

The production of "Making a Murder" is biased, which is fine; that's their prerogative. But they intentionally omitted key bits of evidence that, for me, completely seal the deal. That's not responsible, in my opinion.

 

[Moyank24]

This was Dassey's claim. The prosecutors argued that she was shot outside.



The production, and the defense team, did a good job of presenting a timeline that suggests the police could have planted evidence.

Could have. They didn't present a single shred of evidence that shows that they did.

Here's why I came to the conclusion I did - between two scenarios, I decided which of the two was more likely:

Scenario 1 - Avery killed Hallbach and burned her body.

Scenario 2 - Someone else killed Hallbach, then the police burned her body in Avery's fire pit without him or anybody else noticing, the police planted her vehicle on Avery's property without him or anybody else noticing, the police acquired some of Avery's blood (not from the evidence room; it tested negative for EDTA) and planted it in her vehicle, then the police acquired some of Avery's perspiration, prior to taking him into custody, and planted it on the latch of Hallbach's car hood; then took some of that same perspiration and planted it on her car key, then planted the key in Avery's house. Then, the police somehow got hold of Avery's .22 and fired a shot, keeping the slug (since it was ballistically matched to the gun), put some of Hallbach's blood on it, and planted it in Avery's garage; somewhere along the way, they managed to convince Dassey that he should tell his cousin (in December) that he helped Avery murder Hallbach, then have him tell detectives the same story again in March; all while taking advantage of the "good fortune" that Hallbach just happened to have been murdered by someone other than Avery on the day she went to Avery's house.

The production of "Making a Murder" is biased, which is fine; that's their prerogative. But they intentionally omitted key bits of evidence that, for me, completely seal the deal. That's not responsible, in my opinion.

For the most part, I agree. I think it's hard to conclude anything other than he killed her.

I think that Avery must have to be the unluckiest person on the planet if he really didn't kill her. I think the prosecution really clinched it in their closing when they said that the only way the jury can find him not guilty is if they think the police killed her. She was at his house. Her bones were at his house.

That said, I think that the Manitowoc police officers invited a lot of this on themselves. They should have been nowhere near the scene of the crime, at any point. And I truly do believe that they planted the key. It was found during the 7th search. 7th! Do you honestly believe that they missed the key the first 6 times? And why was only a single key found in there? And not her whole keychain? And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't only his DNA on the key and not hers? That seems odd as well. I don't think that means that he didn't do it, but I do think that they wanted to make sure he didn't get out this time.

 

[thewap]

The production of "Making a Murder" is biased, which is fine; that's their prerogative. But they intentionally omitted key bits of evidence that, for me, completely seal the deal. That's not responsible, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]

None of the mentioned alleged *evidence* omitted in the documentary are or were *key* to the case or a *smoking gun* that would definitely incriminate Steve Avery beyond a shadow of doubt for the murder. The significantly relevant key evidence used by the prosecution and defense were the topics at hand in the documentary. It is also simply not possible to put in all presented *evidence and arguments* in a 10 hour documentary. It is also important to note that the prosecution would not allow filming of their point of view . Maybe the prosecutor should make a documentary of his own?.

What I have a problem with, is the fact that there is no clear logical rebuilding of the murder by the prosecution, and conflicting scenarios and theories of the murder scene(s) were used to incarcerate Steven and Brandon - it seems with extreme prejudice on the part of the court.

Most of the evidence presented is questionable as to how any of it got on the property, and there is no forensic evidence of a *murder site* that corroborates the prosecution's multiple conflicting arguments of the murder scene theory (which murder scene is it??).

The other fact that hit me a very strange was the extent of the fractured pulverized bones by fire, as a bonfire of tires and body could never burn bones to that extent, it would have been done at much more elevated heat such as an oven/crematorium type of set up.

There is also as of recent it seems allegations of the jury having been threatened, and two of the jurors now are revealed as related to the sheriff's dept.

At the least IMO a re-trial was definitely called for, in a separate county not related to both counties who seem to have ignored the clear conflict of interest of having the deposed investigators in the civil litigation being the ones that *found* all of the problematic evidence found.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

The other fact that hit me a very strange was the extent of the fractured pulverized bones by fire, as a bonfire of tires and body could never burn bones to that extent, it would have been done at much more elevated heat such as an oven/crematorium type of set up.

Look at the link I posted above and watch the video. There was a criminal in the area that has destroyed bones like that in the past.