Making a Murderer

[SoulMonster]

I have come to think that this forum is full of people who do nothing but watch TV/movies all the time, so it was with some surprise I saw no thread about the Netflix documentary series "Making A Murderer".

Well, you should. It is great. A bit long, and they probably could have cut it with two hours, it sort of just petered out when it could have ended on more of a dramatic note if they had ended it after the verdicts. But still, it is a truly engrossing series about a real-life crime case in Wisconsin, USA. Watch it. Today.

And some spoilers:

- I am not convinced Steven Avery didn't do it. But I think enough was shown for there to be reasonable doubt, and hence he shouldn't have been found guilty and sentenced to life.

- I am confident Brendan Avery is innocent. That's the true horror of the show.

- I think the case for the police planting evidence is plausible and at the very least more investigation into this should have been done.

- The series uncover unprofessionality from the top to the bottom of people involved. Especally damning is Brendan's first lawyer who comes across as hardly any more competent than Brendan himself. Also the prosectors come across as highly unethical people. All in all the series should lead to changes in procedures that would secure better protection for everyone. It was at times shocking to watch.

Edited January 2, 2016 by SoulMonster

[downzy]

I'm two episodes in. My wife watched the whole thing over the holidays and loved it.

[SoulMonster]

I'm two episodes in. My wife watched the whole thing over the holidays and loved it.

From episode 4 and onwards I was completely hooked.

[downzy]

I'm two episodes in. My wife watched the whole thing over the holidays and loved it.

From episode 4 and onwards I was completely hooked.

Yeah, my wife and I were suppose to watch it together, but she polished it off pretty quickly once she got to episode three or four.

[CheapJon]

Dedicated a full day last week to it and finished it in that day. Insane story to say the least.

[SoulMonster]

I'm two episodes in. My wife watched the whole thing over the holidays and loved it.

From episode 4 and onwards I was completely hooked.

Yeah, my wife and I were suppose to watch it together, but she polished it off pretty quickly once she got to episode three or four.

I started it alone, but the story was too insane to not talk to my wife about it, so I showed here various clips while I was watching it, like "look at this, you won't believe it!". She was intrigued and eventually she came down to see it with me, so we saw the last 4-5 episodes together.

[Apollo]

Did you guys do some research outside of just watching the show?

There is some pretty great topics on Reddit about it.

After watching the doc I was incensed and thought both guys were innocent and the police and DA had clearly framed Avery and took advantage of his nephew.

But after looking online......the doc is as biased and manipulative as anything you will ever see (unless it's a Michael Moore documentary).

They show you everything that makes the police look corrupt, that makes the judge look biased, that makes Avery look innocent and that makes the nephew seem like he was forced into confessing.

But if you research and see what all actually happened - then it's pretty clear that Avery and the nephew were clearly involved.

Like Brandon saying that Avery popped the girls hood and disabled the battery. So they then went and checked that area and discovered Avery's DNA on the latch to her vehicle hood.

The lady had refused to do business with Avery after she showed up one day and he answered the door in just a towel and made sexual suggestions to her.

The shown interview with the police interrogating Brandon seemed pretty damning. . Ask yourself why would the prosecution agree to let the jury see it? It's because in court they showed the entire interview. Not just bits and pieces like in the documentary. Brandon freely admitted he and Avery were involved. The doc parts where it looks like the cops were "leading" him to say things were actually much later in the in interview and they were wanting him to repeat what he had already said.

The first statement Brandon made to his mom about what happened - he admitted that he was part of it. His little cousin initially said that Brandon told her he was involved.

The victims bones weren't just found in Avery's burn pile. But a bunch of her stuff was also found burned in another area of the property in one of his burn barrels.

And......the organization that takes on cases for people they think are wrongly convicted, who I think worked on his first case......they studied the actual evidence and court transcripts (not just the select pieces the doc showed us)....and they refused to take his case. Why would they do that if it was such an obvious case of police and court corruption????

And - during his last time in jail, Avery's cell mate said that Avery talked about wishing he had a sex dungeon where he would kidnap girls, rape and kill them. And that burning the bodies was the best way to dispose of them.

The documentary was way too long. But very interesting to watch. But clearly very biased and didn't produce and share what actually happened.

[Georgy Zhukov]

Spoilers? It is a fucking documentary.

[Dan H.]

Serial is much much much more objective, but a lot more dry.

I enjoyed the show, but I'm not convinced that any of it is accurate or represents that Avery did not commit the crime. Perhaps 'reasonable doubt' comes into play, but the show doesn't paint a convincing picture either way.

I suppose it's less about Avery and more about poking holes in the logic of the criminal justice system, but I find that Sarah Koenig and Serial does a much better job. But I'm a journalism major so I am attracted to dry facts with less fanfare(not that Serial is perfect; before anyone jumps down my throat)

[Georgy Zhukov]

Serial is much much much more objective, but a lot more dry.

I enjoyed the show, but I'm not convinced that any of it is accurate or represents that Avery did not commit the crime. Perhaps 'reasonable doubt' comes into play, but the show doesn't paint a convincing picture either way.

I suppose it's less about Avery and more about poking holes in the logic of the criminal justice system, but I find that Sarah Koenig and Serial does a much better job. But I'm a journalism major so I am attracted to dry facts with less fanfare(not that Serial is perfect; before anyone jumps down my throat)

This is why I don't hate you.

[Nulla Lex Ink.]

I enjoy what I've seen of it, but there's a definite strong bias in Avery's favor. You'd have to be crazy not to expect that from most documentaries though. After reading some other stuff on the case, I honestly have no idea if he did or didn't do it, but I will say that his history of violence is very alarming all the same. At the same time, the way the case was handled is very fishy. All I can really safely say is that it's a very weird and sad series of events.

[arnold layne]

I believe the directors of this show are attempting to have the viewer question the validity of the justice system, not necessarily the verdict.

I don't know if Steven Avery killed her, but I don't think a reasonable person would conclude he is guilty based on the prosecution. There are too many inconsistencies. The fact that they refused to use Brendan, a supposed witness, to testify bothers me the most. I understand he is a pretty stupid kid, but dismissing him from Avery's trial paints a picture that the prosecution doesn't believe in anything he had to offer.

Scott Tadych is also a moron. His comment, 'This is the greatest thing that has ever happened' or along those lines needs to be looked at. If I remember correctly, he tells Brendan to take the plea deal as well. It looks as though he threw his own brother in law and son under the bus.

[Nulla Lex Ink.]

I felt extremely bad for Dassey. I think that poor kid got railroaded the hardest in all of this. The interview where they were asking him about "what happened to her head" was disgusting.

I also disliked Halbach's brother. I understand everyone has their own way of grieving, but good lord, that guy just seemed like he was enjoying the "fame" that came from it a little bit too much. Might just be me, I don't know, but it's weird.

[downzy]

Finally finished it last week. Deeply disturbing. I think it's naive for anyone to suggest that Avery is definitely innocent or guilty, but at same time, I think it's tough to argue that his case wasn't a terrible miscarriage in judicial procedures. He might very well be guilty, but in no way should he have been found guilty considering all the circumstantial evidence.

I found myself being unable to watch or listen to the lead prosecutor. His high pitched voice drove me nuts and every time he spoke it sounded as though he hadn't had a glass of water in a week. I would fast forward his remarks in court because his voice and speech irritated me to no end. Didn't help that he ended up being a big old creep who seemed less concerned with justice being served properly than winning the case against Avery.

[wasted]

I'm about to go in. I think the title just bored me into avoiding it.

[Ace Nova]

Just finished watching....great documentary, amazing story.

I agree that the show really points out the weaknesses of the criminal justice system. As for them being guilty or not guilty....I wasn't on either jury and didn't see all the evidence, so I can't really judge. Do I think what was shown in the documentary shows reasonable doubt? Yes, absolutely....for both cases. But from my understanding, a lot was left out.

One of the things that bothers me the most is that if they beat, stabbed and raped her in Steve's trailer, there would have been blood and DNA all over that trailer. (They found no blood or DNA inside his trailer)...and no way those two could clean all of that up.....not when their version of hiding the car is parking it on the side of the property and throwing a couple of branches over it. (With a car wrecker a few feet away, that would have turned the car into a metal box).

So the prosecution wants people to believe that they are the real life versions of "Mr. Wolf" from Pulp Fiction when it comes to cleaning up a crime scene but don't have the sense to destroy the biggest piece of evidence in the entire case. Makes absolutely no sense. Zero.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

I will add that Steve's attorney's were as good as it gets when it comes to criminal defense attorneys. Had he not had those two, it would have been an open and shut case....and had Brendan had Steve's attorneys, he would be a free man today.

[Georgy Zhukov]

The trial of Casey Anthony displays the weakness of the criminal justice system. A woman murders her only little girl and she goes free.

[Conor]

I will add that Steve's attorney's were as good as it gets when it comes to criminal defense attorneys. Had he not had those two, it would have been an open and shut case....and had Brendan had Steve's attorneys, he would be a free man today.

They were by far the best people in the whole thing, and the only people I could really get behind.

[wasted]

The guy just had kids and was picking them up just like 39 mins after raping the woman? 

Is the doc worth finishing. They framed him because they backwoods hicks and thats what they do. 

[Gracii Guns]

On 1 February 2016 at 10:18 AM, Conor said:

They were by far the best people in the whole thing, and the only people I could really get behind.

I really liked the tapings of the 'private' conversations his lawyers shared. That really made the series biased, as we never had that from the other side. But it was nice to see that his lawyers genuinely believe he is innocent.

 

What was with the whole thing regarding Brendan Dassey being convicted of party to mutilation of a corpse, but Steven was cleared of that? You can't be party to an event which was legally declared, didn't happen. 

 

Finally, I adore Steven's parents commitment to him. They're really sweet, his Dad's a hoot.

[Dazey]

To be fair this guy is guilty as hell no matter the technicalities of the case. "Oh yes your honour, the burned up body of the woman who came to visit me? The one whose blood and car keys were found in my trailer? Oh, yeah that was nothing to do with me!" 

[Dan H.]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

To be fair this guy isQuote guilty as hell no matter the technicalities of the case. "Oh yes your honour, the burned up body of the woman who came to visit me? The one whose blood and car keys were found in my trailer? Oh, yeah that was nothing to do with me!" 

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The case is shady and skewed, and possibly has grounds to be thrown out due to the behavior of the police and the shoddy evidence at times, but honestly it's pretty clear to me that there are only about three probable situations that lead to the victims death

 

1. There was some kind of intricate and ridiculously convoluted frame job that was nearly perfectly pulled off by officers and politicians who had proven to be stupid and sloppy at multiple points in the case.

2. Avery is just the unluckiest human being on the planet and it was all just a bizarre coincidence

3. He did it, but not to the extent that was described(the gang rape etc) and it just got muddled up with all the other issues going on with the cops and his past conviction

 

If I was a juror on the case, I would have probably went with a guilty verdict as well

[Apollo]

On February 3, 2016 at 5:59 AM, wasted said:

The guy just had kids and was picking them up just like 39 mins after raping the woman? 

Is the doc worth finishing. They framed him because they backwoods hicks and thats what they do. 

He did it 

The amount of people in completely different organizations that would have had to be involved in a framing situation is ridiculous. 

Avery did it - 100% 

The documentary is done Michael Moore style. Ignore facts and just present and twist evidence to prove your own point. 

They could have presented both sides and had a tremendous five episode doc that didn't drag on so long. 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Apollo said:

He did it 

The amount of people in completely different organizations that would have had to be involved in a framing situation is ridiculous. 

Avery did it - 100% 

The documentary is done Michael Moore style. Ignore facts and just present and twist evidence to prove your own point. 

They could have presented both sides and had a tremendous five episode doc that didn't drag on so long. 

But the documentary makes light of two different questions:

1) Did Avery do it?

2) Were Avery and his nephew's constitutional and legal rights violated during or as a result of the investigation and/or trial?

With respect to the first question, absolutely no one can know with any certainty.  There is no 100 percent.  Is it beyond a reasonable doubt?  Maybe.  If you fall into that group, then you still have to answer question two.

I'm not sure how anyone watches this documentary and concludes that Avery's rights, and particularly the rights of his nephew, were not trampled upon as a result of the decisions made by the police, the judge, and the prosecution.  There are wholesale instances where protocols were not followed, questionable evidence being deemed admissible, defense denied the opportunity to raise the prospect of another killer, and in the case of the nephew, a suspect's legal representation actively working against the best interests of his client.  It doesn't matter whether you think he's guilty or not.  Was due process followed?  Is the appeals process too cumbersome and biased towards the found guilty in this case?