Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

audioslave

Loads of good arguments put forward, which is why I'm on the fence and don't understand how the jury were unanimous. I also don't get how people are so committed to his innocence/guilt when there are so many factors indicating the contrary.

wardides

audioslave wrote: »

Loads of good arguments put forward, which is why I'm on the fence and don't understand how the jury were unanimous. I also don't get how people are so committed to his innocence/guilt when there are so many factors indicating the contrary.

Is exactly where I stand as well. Not sure I could commit to saying he's definitely innocent as you have to factor in some of the evidence and then try to weigh up the bias of the documentary, but there is certainly no way that a jury could deliver a guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, verdict.

CurryFlavoured

wardides wrote: »

Is exactly where I stand as well. Not sure I could commit to saying he's definitely innocent as you have to factor in some of the evidence and then try to weigh up the bias of the documentary, but there is certainly no way that a jury could deliver a guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, verdict.

Agreed. The only thing we can really be sure of is that he shouldn't have been guilty based on the argument placed against him. He might be guilty, but the story put forward was ropy to say the least.

glued

audioslave wrote: »

Loads of good arguments put forward, which is why I'm on the fence and don't understand how the jury were unanimous. I also don't get how people are so committed to his innocence/guilt when there are so many factors indicating the contrary.

What factors are these? There is no material evidence linking Steven Avery to the murder of Theresa Halbach. What's the motive? Murder weapon? Time? etc. The Manitowoc and Calumet County handling of the investigation was never going to lead to the truth. It's obvious that some evidence was planted. It's an extraordinary case with an extraordinary story so I'm not sure why you don't understand how some people are keen to prove his innocence.

All things being equal there is no way 12 sane people could find Steven Avery guilty of this murder. The evidence linking Steven Avery to this crime is extremely poor (The key found by Det. Lenk, the blood in Theresa Halbach's Rav 4, Brendan's confession etc). Never mind the fact that the crime itself makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

There are far too many question marks over the evidence, the investigation and the trial for people not to be interested in this case. Even if Steven Avery is guilty, this case still highlights the massive flaws of the 'American justice' system.

Even ignoring all that you have the complex case of Brendan Dassey, who I believe is entirely innocent, who is in prison because Len Kachinsky didn't do his job and he was a 16 year old with a severe learning disorder.

Joeface

Only five episodes in , addictive in the way its filmed and edited
will probably finish tonight . Cannot recommend it enough.

for others I will spoiler my thoughts so far

Len Kachinsky should have been disbarred and not just replaced , his actions were beyond disgracefully ,
Manitowoc County sheriff should have been removed form office after his press interview , In no way should he have ever been aloud to say any of that whether the person is guilty or not.
The Special Investigator Tom Fassbender (no relation) should have known his questioning method of Brendan Dassey was completely out of line , a rookie Police officer in any country on day one would know that.

Some of the Press members are just awful ,to hear one Reporter comment that murder is what people want and we have to go after it hard to beat our competitors , That's just mental .

There is so much more but I could be here for a week typing

Luckycharms_74

Snake Plisken wrote: »

My suspects for the murder would be her housemate or the ex, one of her colleagues testified that she was getting a lot of nuisance calls and then the ex went into listen to and possibly delete messages when her mailbox was full.
Just want to say this is the best show on Netflix,
I do hope it leads to a retrial for the two of them!

I though the same too. The fact that her online phone account password was "guessed" seems very fishy to anyone. The fact that deleting her voicemail's would raise suspicion in anyone's eyes.

fin12 wrote: »

I think there was something so odd about Theresa's brother. He was constantly smirking, laughing and smiling the whole way through......

I couldn't stand him when he was interviewed or making statements on camera. Such a stupid goofy grin on him doesn't seem normal

You gotta feel for Brendan Dassey, that a boy with low IQ was manipulated by police experts to say what they wanted him to say.

Also regarding Avery, you gotta be beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of the murder charges. Based on what was shown in documentary it could not be the case. There would have to be doubt in the jury's mind.

Green Peter

Joe duffys on the case now!

20Cent

Green Peter wrote: »

Joe duffys on the case now!

He'll be free in days now.

Dats terrible were ya upset about dat.

Dean Strang the lawyer answering question about the case from the public.
https://youtu.be/S9h5C901lGE

Enigma IE

Based on the evidence in the documentary, it's mind boggling how they reached a unanimous guilty verdict.

I wouldn't be surprised if the jury were compromised. I recall the documentary (not sure what part), that an initial count of Not Guilty v Guilty, the majority were Not Guilty... and there was 3 or more very strong on the guilty side that convinced the others to vote that way.

Regardless if he did it or not, the alleged (seems pretty certain) corruption and planting of evidence, no way he got a fair trial.

This would not have happened to a middle-class, educated person.

Knockmealdown Shepherd

BabysCoffee wrote: »

Feel sorry for Brendan. I truly believe he wasn't involved in the killing. If it happened like he said in his coerced statements there should have been apparent blood all over the bed.

Steven Avery is a strange one. I think perhaps he did kill her. But I don't think on the evidence presented he should have been convicted.

I would have liked to have seen the vial of blood being tested for EDTA as a control to indicate that the test did actually work.

PS. What should I watch next?!

The Central Park Five. Similar in the way that all the kids were coerced in to false confessions. It's on Netflix

audioslave

Another thing that was presented by the prosecution and was excluded was that the blood inside the RAV4 was consistent with coming from a seeping wound/scratch and not applied there by any implement or swab etc.
Definitely did not get a fair trial. I'm still on that fence 

sadie1502

The hair and blood in the back of the RAV 4 made no sense either if he did kill here in his trailer. Why was the matress not sent for testing. It was a shambles from start to finish. The ex boyfriend was asked questions with the housemate there was no interview they never considered anyone else. They were going to make this crime stick to Avery. The police lied manipulated omitted information and bullied Brendan Dassey. The key was found on the 7th search wiped of all DNA only had Averys I mean come on. The blood vile tampered with. I cannot understand how that jury found him guilty it's just mind boggling.

Ageyev

noodler wrote: »

Haven't watched this yet but is knowing the man's final situation a big spoiler?

No not in my opinion. The story is told throughout and it's the details not the conclusion that is most shocking/interesting.

The Nal

Finished it yesterday.

After an unbelievable first 4-5 episodes I got a little bored once the trial started. The series is about 3 or 4 hours too long. It was too one sided for me and the film makers obviously left out a shedload of evidence - which I've since discovered they did. I got more and more frustrated as the show went on.

But what an incredible collection of characters. And what an incredible story. Made all the more interesting by the fact most of the characters are slightly inbred and borderline simpletons.

Have to laugh at this petition. Hundreds of thousands of people asking Obama to release them both!

Good article here if you've watched it all.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

Enjoyed it but its certainly no "The Jinx"!

Mantis Toboggan

audioslave wrote: »

Another thing that was presented by the prosecution and was excluded was that the blood inside the RAV4 was consistent with coming from a seeping wound/scratch and not applied there by any implement or swab etc.
Definitely did not get a fair trial. I'm still on that fence 

But at the same time you could say the lack of fingerprints in the car was excluded! No fingerprints, was he wearing gloves, if so, where did the blood come from?

Ageyev

Enigma IE wrote: »

Based on the evidence in the documentary, it's mind boggling how they reached a unanimous guilty verdict.

I wouldn't be surprised if the jury were compromised. I recall the documentary (not sure what part), that an initial count of Not Guilty v Guilty, the majority were Not Guilty... and there was 3 or more very strong on the guilty side that convinced the others to vote that way.

Regardless if he did it or not, the alleged (seems pretty certain) corruption and planting of evidence, no way he got a fair trial.

This would not have happened to a middle-class, educated person.

The jury took an initial vote with 7 voting 'not guilty', 3 hard-line 'guilty' and the rest undecided.

The not-guilty verdict on the charge of mutilating a corpse is somewhat inconsistent with the prosecution's theory or certainly suggests they didn't believe all of the physical evidence - what sort of idiot murderer leaves human bones outside his bedroom window?

I've seen it suggested that the jury entered into a secret pact agreeing not to speak about the verdict, guilty on the murder charge and as compromise a not-guilty on the charge of mutilating a corpse.

Taboola

Tyson Fury wrote: »

But at the same time you could say the lack of fingerprints in the car was excluded! No fingerprints, was he wearing gloves, if so, where did the blood come from?

Could it have dripped out of the gloves?

What i find baffling is that Teresa's DNA wasn't on the car key.

Joeface

Another point that needs more looking at after only five episodes

Andrew Colborn calling the vehicle reg and then describing the make of the vehicle 2 days before it was found and the not been able to recall the event even after hearing his own voice Identify the vehicle as a 99 Toyota and too state the dispatcher told him ....

Mightydrumming

Joeface wrote: »

Another point that needs more looking at after only five episodes

Andrew Colborn calling the vehicle reg and then describing the make of the vehicle 2 days before it was found and the not been able to recall the event even after hearing his own voice Identify the vehicle as a 99 Toyota and too state the dispatcher told him ....

100% agreed, there should have been more of an investigation into that - vital piece of the trial if you ask me!

bigbaz

beyond reasonable doubt is the overriding factor for me.it was all too convienient for an embarrassed sheriffs dep. that this murder turned up,all wrapped in a bow to make stephen avery go away.the phone voicemail evidence that was ruled inadmissable because it wasnt relevant,possibly the most relevant thing in the case,i mean the guy guessed her password???compelling and frustrating!

megabantz

Mightydrumming wrote: »

100% agreed, there should have been more of an investigation into that - vital piece of the trial if you ask me!

It's worth taking a look at the link posted above (defence lawyer answering questions the other day about the series on youtube) where he says that with something like this the job here isn't to pursue the witness (in this case the police officer calling the reg in) and try nail him for his own wrongdoing but to expose the witness statement as unreliable in the jury eyes and this is what they do. They expose the witness and put doubt in the jury mind as to the credibility of the prosecution story.

I hope I have explained this correctly and how I understand it in my head :P)

glued

People keep mentioning that there was evidence left out of the documentary.

Can they elaborate what this is?

AFAIK the only evidence against Steven Avery that was left out of the documentary was the three phone calls to Theresa Halbach. Which doesn't change the narrative at all.

Anyone with half a brain can work out that something isn't right here at all. The prosecution case was extremely weak and that's being generous yet he was still convicted - unanimously.

Elmo

glued wrote: »

People keep mentioning that there was evidence left out of the documentary.

Can they elaborate what this is?

AFAIK the only evidence against Steven Avery that was left out of the documentary was the three phone calls to Theresa Halbach. Which doesn't change the narrative at all.

Anyone with half a brain can work out that something isn't right here at all. The prosecution case was extremely weak and that's being generous yet he was still convicted - unanimously.

Accusations of sexual assault against the Dassey boys.

His other convictions that cause incarceration (animal cruelty and his attacks against his cousin).

Though only goes to character.

Also this buying of handcuffes which may have been used against Halback.... Though did they have any DNA on them?

adox

Knockmealdown Shepherd wrote: »

The Central Park Five. Similar in the way that all the kids were coerced in to false confessions. It's on Netflix

The Central Park five is a more definitive piece of work, it's about a mis-carriage of justice and all the better for it, as opposed to a perceived mis-carriage of justice by the producers of Making A Murderer.

Wompa1

glued wrote: »

People keep mentioning that there was evidence left out of the documentary.

Can they elaborate what this is?

AFAIK the only evidence against Steven Avery that was left out of the documentary was the three phone calls to Theresa Halbach. Which doesn't change the narrative at all.

Anyone with half a brain can work out that something isn't right here at all. The prosecution case was extremely weak and that's being generous yet he was still convicted - unanimously.

There was an interview with Dean Strang who represented Steven Avery. He said all significant evidence in the case was included in the documentary. In his recollection he believed that he had made 1 or 2 calls using the *67 feature but that it didn't change the narrative. Steven valued his privacy after getting out of prison was his take on it.

He said there was more defense related evidence left out of the documentary than prosecution evidence and said that they couldn't possibly fit everything into the documentary and that what was cut in his opinion is of less significance than what was shown. Granted he may be a little bias.

glued

Elmo wrote: »

Accusations of sexual assault against the Dassey boys.

His other convictions that cause incarceration (animal cruelty and his attacks against his cousin).

Though only goes to character.

Also this buying of handcuffes which may have been used against Halback.... Though did they have any DNA on them?

The convition for animal cruelty was included.

Do you think those points added anything to the documentary? We know Steven was stupid growing up. He's not a very bright guy in general. I think the documentary painted Steven's unkind side well with the death threats he made to his ex wife and his animal cruelty. What are the allegations in relation to the Dassey boys? Bobby Dassey and Brendan Dassey wouldn't exactly be reliable witnesses.

The mud being slinged against the documentary is largely from the prosecution team. None of whom have any credibility whatsoever. Kratz being the main source.

glued

adox wrote: »

The Central Park five is a more definitive piece of work, it's about a mis-carriage of justice and all the better for it, as opposed to a perceived mis-carriage of justice by the producers of Making A Murderer.

It would be impossible to to have a definite documentary about this case. I would assume that's an obvious point.

Ageyev

Taboola wrote: »

Could it have dripped out of the gloves?

What i find baffling is that Teresa's DNA wasn't on the car key.

The car key was the spare key.

ThunbergsAreGo

Bottom line I just don't see either of them being smart enough to pull it off the way it was described. There was reasonable doubt

Really feel for the parents

Wompa1

glued wrote: »

The convition for animal cruelty was included.

Do you think those points added anything to the documentary? We know Steven was stupid growing up. He's not a very bright guy in general. I think the documentary painted Steven's unkind side well with the death threats he made to his ex wife and his animal cruelty. What are the allegations in relation to the Dassey boys? Bobby Dassey and Brendan Dassey wouldn't exactly be reliable witnesses.

The mud being slinged against the documentary is largely from the prosecution team. None of whom have any credibility whatsoever. Kratz being the main source.

Also, so was the attack, right? Wasn't that his cousin that he rammed off the road and pulled a gun on? That was in the first episode or second episode.

Not sure of the sexual assault by the Dassey's and was that Brendan?...his brother and the father seemed to be suspicious to me... There was an accusation that Avery came out wearing a towel to Holdback and made her feel uncomfortable. There was also the accusation that he was masturbating in public.

20Cent

Ageyev wrote: »

The car key was the spare key.

Doesn't that make it even weirder that it was found in SA's trailer?

bridgettedon

Taboola wrote: »

Could it have dripped out of the gloves?

What i find baffling is that Teresa's DNA wasn't on the car key.

Maybe the keys were cleaned by bleach so Teresa fingerprints weren't on them but they were later touched by Avery.

In relation to the sexual touching of Brendan. This was only mentioned to his mother after questioning by detectives where they kept probing him about Steven touching him inappropriately. They told Brendan to tell his Mom everything they had discussed so in the next phone call with his mom, Brendan mentions that. But this was just information I got through reddit.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

For me Steven's lawyers Dean & Jerry were the heroes of the documentary - Q+A with one half of that superteam right here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9h5C901lGE

fin12

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/heres-the-key-evidence-left-out-of-netflixs-making-a-murderer-34333405.html

Dots1982

Also Starring LeVar Burton wrote: »

For me Steven's lawyers Dean & Jerry were the heroes of the documentary - Q+A with one half of that superteam right here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9h5C901lGE

Main thing I took from that was revelation of who the two members of the jury were.

Padster90s

My mind is not well at all after finishing this! Up to episode 4 I was actually convinced Steven Avery was guilty. Now, I'm convinced he's innocent.
No DNA linking him to the crime apart from the small spatter of blood in the RAV 4, no hair, no skin, no sperm or saliva. No DNA in his house at all.
The cop called in Holbach's number plates something like 2 days before the car was found at his yard?
He made no attempts to hide the RAV4 or bones knowing a search party was out for the woman that was last seen by him. The police letting the search party onto his property.
The ex boyfriend "guess" her voicemail/phone records password and deleting some of them. The ex also organising and taking charge of the search party.
The blood vile having a syringe mark in the cork indicating blood from Avery's sample was taken.
The co worker saying Holbach was getting nuisance calls and this was deemed unimportant.
Dassey, there is 100% no DNA linking him to the crime. The way he was questioned as a minor was crazy! How no judge threw that case out is beyond me...

enfant terrible

Was this posted already

...When Brendan Dassey returned to his own home, his mother, Barb Janda, who is Steven Avery’s sister, noticed bleached-out splotches on her son’s jeans and asked how that had happened. Dassey told her that he had been helping his uncle clean the floor of his garage. [...] State DNA expert Sherry Culhane testified that no traces of Teresa’s DNA were found on Dassey’s clothing, but she also pointed out that his clothes had extensive bleach stains as a result of the garage cleaning that Dassey and his uncle had performed. Bleach, Culhane said, destroys DNA.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xys6a/dasseys_jeans_were_stained_from_bleaching_the/

Mightydrumming

enfant terrible wrote: »

Was this posted already

...When Brendan Dassey returned to his own home, his mother, Barb Janda, who is Steven Avery’s sister, noticed bleached-out splotches on her son’s jeans and asked how that had happened. Dassey told her that he had been helping his uncle clean the floor of his garage. [...] State DNA expert Sherry Culhane testified that no traces of Teresa’s DNA were found on Dassey’s clothing, but she also pointed out that his clothes had extensive bleach stains as a result of the garage cleaning that Dassey and his uncle had performed. Bleach, Culhane said, destroys DNA.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xys6a/dasseys_jeans_were_stained_from_bleaching_the/

I haven't seen nor heard of that before and I'll take it with a pinch of salt until proven otherwise.

I'm pretty sure if this was the case, Kratz would have made it known publicly as that would play a big role in the trial/investigation.


It was also mentioned that forensics would of found it near impossible to clean that garage and strip it of all DNA, let alone Steven & Brendan combined.

thelad95

Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey both had very shady alibis (each other) and I have an odd feeling they might have been involved.

However, my gut tells me it may have been the ex boyfriend, why did he delete her voicemails? It's also likely he was the one who was annoying her with all the calls.

The key was a plant, I have zero doubt in that, and you'd have to feel the car was too. I mean Steven and Brendan were both thick as two short planks but Steven knew how to work the car crusher and regularly had bonfires, so why not just destroy the car? Surely he had enough about him to know destroying the car would be a good idea.

However, Steven was far from an angel and he seems like he may have had a split personality disorder. Also, am I right in saying (although the documentary only touched briefly on it I think) that he sexually abused Brendan?

There were numerous occasions the case should have been thrown out as well, that judge had his mind made up about Steven.

enfant terrible

More details about Brendan's abilities from defense closing arguments, day 9:
"On Exhibit 220, this was completed September of 2005. It describes various tests that were given to Brendan.
Recalling sentences as a subtest. Age-equivalent, five years and eight months.
Formulating sentences; nine years, nine months.
Number repetition. Mr. Fallon, during the cross-examination of Brendan, talked to him about how well he did in math. Number repetition forward; age-equivalent, five years, three months. Backwards; six years, three months. His percentile ranks are so low that it's sad."

Rayne Wooney

The buildings were like something out of Hoarders with stuff everywhere and dirt he wouldn't have been able to explain away him scrubbing the place down with bleach days after a woman is murdered that he was the last to see.

They searched those buildings well and didn't find a murder scene, if an area had been bleached it would have been a big piece of evidence.

The lack of murder scene is really baffling if you take it Avery or one of the family did it.

8-10

Ageyev wrote: »

The car key was the spare key.

I thought somebody on Reddit confirmed that the key was the master and not the spare? The spare would have had a stump at the end

Where did you see the information that it was the spare?

8-10

The Nal wrote: »

Enjoyed it but its certainly no "The Jinx"!

I agree with this. Excellent documentary which I got recommended as 'better than The Jinx'

Very glad I watched it but its not better for me either

enfant terrible

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

The buildings were like something out of Hoarders with stuff everywhere and dirt he wouldn't have been able to explain away him scrubbing the place down with bleach days after a woman is murdered that he was the last to see.

They searched those buildings well and didn't find a murder scene, if an area had been bleached it would have been a big piece of evidence.

The lack of murder scene is really baffling if you take it Avery or one of the family did it.

They raped her in the trailer and murdered her in the garage.

Stabbed her once each then Avery shot her, as per Brendan's confession.

You can read his full confession here

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zwkqpsq58wio3cm/dassey_okelly_5_12_06.pdf?dl=0

Anachrony

enfant terrible wrote: »

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3xys6a/dasseys_jeans_were_stained_from_bleaching_the/

Interesting point, but the rebuttal also seems pretty thorough.

If they did bleach the crime scene, the police would have had to totally botch the investigation not to have figured it out right away. Of course since they were so incompetent at every step, it's entirely possible that this is another thing they messed up.

I don't think the defense or this documentary came close to proving Steven's innocence, but it's not the defense's job to prove innocence. It's the state's job to prove a lack of reasonable doubt, and they completely failed at that. If they'd done their job properly, maybe they could have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe they would have investigated the other suspects and found a more plausible explanation for what actually happened.

However shady Steven might be, and despite the fact that he may be guilty of this crime, there's no way that a jury should have been able to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the prosecution's case. It was full of gaping holes in the narrative, inexcusable mistakes, and blatant police misconduct. Maybe there was a strong case that could have been made if everyone hadn't failed at their jobs, but it's too late now, and we'll never properly know what happened.

enfant terrible

Anachrony wrote: »

Interesting point, but the rebuttal also seems pretty thorough.

If they did bleach the crime scene, the police would have had to totally botch the investigation not to have figured it out right away. Of course since they were so incompetent at every step, it's entirely possible that this is another thing they messed up.

I don't think the defense or this documentary came close to proving Steven's innocence, but it's not the defense's job to prove innocence. It's the state's job to prove a lack of reasonable doubt, and they completely failed at that. If they'd done their job properly, maybe they could have proven it beyond a reasonable doubt, or maybe they would have investigated the other suspects and found a more plausible explanation for what actually happened.

However shady Steven might be, and despite the fact that he may be guilty of this crime, there's no way that a jury should have been able to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the prosecution's case. It was full of gaping holes in the narrative, inexcusable mistakes, and blatant police misconduct. Maybe there was a strong case that could have been made if everyone hadn't failed at their jobs, but it's too late now, and we'll never properly know what happened.

It's funny when I watched the documentary I felt he was coerced into a confession but when watching the unedited footage, I don't feel he was coerced at all, but was just very guilty.

Interesting he says Avery was thinking of disposing of the body with the car crusher but then decided to burn the body.

He also describes the clothes she was wearing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTipx6RfTC0

The Nal

So should we all sign the petition and set them free?!

megabantz

The Nal wrote: »

So should we all sign the petition and set them free?!

After the shocking trial these lads went through, there are not enough signatures in the world to set these boyos free

Taboola

I find it bizarre that people would sign a petition to let people free after watching a very biased* documentary. A retrial yes, but to just let them walk?

*The reason I say biased is because of all the stuff they left out of the documentary i.e. non blood DNA belonging to Steven in Teresa's car.

runningbuddy

Slightly off topic...I'm only on episode 4 and loving it...where did ye guys watch the Jinx??