Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

runningbuddy

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

The Nal

runningbuddy wrote: »

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

Here you go

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2xz5fs

The other parts are all on there too on the right.

megabantz wrote: »

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

You've confused me. What does that mean?

megabantz

The Nal wrote: »

Here you go

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2xz5fs

The other parts are all on there too on the right.




You've confused me. What does that mean?

I meant that if they can't be set free based on the evidence provided during the trial, having the judge prevent retrial after retrial etc then I don't think the petition will ever hold enough weight to set them on the road to a retrial or set them free

megabantz

Taboola wrote: »

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.

This can easily be planted (that shady cop who never signed in when the car was found and was there with the car after it was declared a crimescene - any ordinary cop knows you log entry and exit from a crime scene as part of continuity of evidence so this detective would have known) as they would have had plenty of stephens dna from the first conviction but what strikes me is the opposite where there wasnt a single shred of theresas DNA found anywhere in the trailer, garage and even on her key of her car!

mind is blown with the whole thing and I would love to just know who (wheter its steven or somebody else) killled her

The Nal

megabantz wrote: »

I meant that if they can't be set free based on the evidence provided during the trial, having the judge prevent retrial after retrial etc then I don't think the petition will ever hold enough weight to set them on the road to a retrial or set them free

Aha, sorry yes of course. The petition is nonsense.

However that amount of scrutiny on the case may change something? I do find it odd that all the appeals have also been exhausted. All the way up through the courts. I don't think theres a conspiracy going that high up, if there is one at all.

The documentary must have missed a few major things surely?

megabantz

The Nal wrote: »

Aha, sorry yes of course. The petition is nonsense.

However that amount of scrutiny on the case may change something? I do find it odd that all the appeals have also been exhausted. All the way up through the courts. I don't think theres a conspiracy going that high up, if there is one at all.

The documentary must have missed a few major things surely?

interesting point alright. again my mind is blown I don't know what to think

Taboola

megabantz wrote: »

This can easily be planted (that shady cop who never signed in when the car was found and was there with the car after it was declared a crimescene - any ordinary cop knows you log entry and exit from a crime scene as part of continuity of evidence so this detective would have known) as they would have had plenty of stephens dna from the first conviction but what strikes me is the opposite where there wasnt a single shred of theresas DNA found anywhere in the trailer, garage and even on her key of her car!

mind is blown with the whole thing and I would love to just know who (wheter its steven or somebody else) killled her

You think they carried around viles of Steven Avery's sweat?

Just because her DNA wasn't found in the trailer or garage doesn't mean he didn't kill her. He could have killed her somewhere else. From the documentary point of view it didn't look like there was enough evidence to convict him and he should be given a re-trial but to say he's 100% innocent is a quite a leap.

megabantz

Taboola wrote: »

You think they carried around viles of Steven Avery's sweat?

Just because her DNA wasn't found in the trailer or garage doesn't mean he didn't kill her. He could have killed her somewhere else.

the prosecution said he shot her twice in the head out in the garage!

the prosecution in the deasey case said she had been raped and had her throat slit.

how can there not be some trace of dna in either location?

there were so many items in the shed that a forensic expert said that not even they could they possibly remove all traces of dna after a gunshot wound to a head in a confined space yet somehow steven did??


you cant convict somebody because you think they might have killed a person somewhere but you dont know where. you can only convict based on the evidence in court. there simply was no solid concrete evidence steven avery killed theresa - there has to be beyond reasonable doubt to convict

Sunflower 27

Taboola wrote: »

You think they carried around viles of Steven Avery's sweat?

Just because her DNA wasn't found in the trailer or garage doesn't mean he didn't kill her. He could have killed her somewhere else. From the documentary point of view it didn't look like there was enough evidence to convict him and he should be given a re-trial but to say he's 100% innocent is a quite a leap.

If that is the case, was it not up to the defence to prove that? They claimed she was killed in the trailer, but there being no evidence of that is very weak defence is it not?

Taboola

megabantz wrote: »

you cant convict somebody because you think they might have killed a person somewhere but you dont know where. you can only convict based on the evidence in court. there simply was no solid concrete evidence steven avery killed theresa - there has to be beyond reasonable doubt to convict

Hence - giving him a re-trial.

Sunflower 27

megabantz wrote: »

the prosecution said he shot her twice in the head out in the garage!

the prosecution in the deasey case said she had been raped and had her throat slit.

how can there not be some trace of dna in either location?

there were so many items in the shed that a forensic expert said that not even they could they possibly remove all traces of dna after a gunshot wound to a head in a confined space yet somehow steven did??

The assumption that bleach would have got rid of all blood is baffling to me. How would avery have been able to spot every speck and even if he did, there are ways of seeing blood that has been cleaned away. Luminol would have lit that garage up as bright as the bonfire.

megabantz

Taboola wrote: »

You think they carried around viles of Steven Avery's sweat?

Just because her DNA wasn't found in the trailer or garage doesn't mean he didn't kill her. He could have killed her somewhere else. From the documentary point of view it didn't look like there was enough evidence to convict him and he should be given a re-trial but to say he's 100% innocent is a quite a leap.

you edited your reply so only seeing this now but I never stated I think he is 100% innocent. but i dont believe the story the prosecution used

megabantz

Taboola wrote: »

Hence - giving him a re-trial.

this would be the best outcome

megabantz

Taboola wrote: »

You signed a petition to let him out of prison! That implies you think he's innocent.

when did i say i signed a petition?

Taboola

megabantz wrote: »

when did i say i signed a petition?

Sorry I misquoted you.

Penn

Taboola wrote: »

Just because her DNA wasn't found in the trailer or garage doesn't mean he didn't kill her. He could have killed her somewhere else. From the documentary point of view it didn't look like there was enough evidence to convict him and he should be given a re-trial but to say he's 100% innocent is a quite a leap.

The bullet with her blood was found in the garage. If she wasn't shot in the garage, that would mean that Avery would have had to have picked up the bullet from wherever he did shoot her, and place it in the garage himself.

I agree that no-one should be saying he's definitely innocent, as the documentary was clearly biased and even though they say the main bits of evidence were shown in the documentary, the minor bits of evidence can add up too. But there's definitely a lot of inconsistencies in terms of where they say the murder happened and the lack of DNA evidence to support it. Unless Avery had either the trailer or garage completely covered in plastic sheeting, then didn't spill so much as a drop of DNA material (blood, hair etc), he simply couldn't have killed her in either of those places. And if he didn't kill her in either of those places at the prosecution claimed, there's reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction on that point alone, regardless of whether he is actually guilty or not.

megabantz

Penn wrote: »

The bullet with her blood was found in the garage. If she wasn't shot in the garage, that would mean that Avery would have had to have picked up the bullet from wherever he did shoot her, and place it in the garage himself.

I agree that no-one should be saying he's definitely innocent, as the documentary was clearly biased and even though they say the main bits of evidence were shown in the documentary, the minor bits of evidence can add up too. But there's definitely a lot of inconsistencies in terms of where they say the murder happened and the lack of DNA evidence to support it. Unless Avery had either the trailer or garage completely covered in plastic sheeting, then didn't spill so much as a drop of DNA material (blood, hair etc), he simply couldn't have killed her in either of those places. And if he didn't kill her in either of those places at the prosecution claimed, there's reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction on that point alone, regardless of whether he is actually guilty or not.

completely agree but does it not seem odd that the bullet was found on a second search months later?? the first search they said they bagged something like 900 odd pieces of evidence and pulled the shed apart. I cant see this bullet being dropped in the shed after the first search by steven.

Joeface

Retrial is not an option either in this case , Way too much media spot light now and you can not say we have been influenced by what we have seen .

Only got one more episode in last night so 6 seen now .

I am at 1 lawyer to be disbarred , 2 sheriffs to be charged with abuse of a power , Mr Lenk and Andrew Colborn need to be investigated . Fassbender should be removed as a special agent if he still is one . His Performance on this would bring other cases into question if that his normal manner of operation.

IF Steve Avery did do the crime along with his Nephew , 2 people with the level of intelligence they have should not be able out smart the system and get away with it . And Police officers messing with info to make sure they get their man is only making it worse.

Not sure what the state lawyers can do , They can only work with the evidence that is provided by the investigating officers and in this case it is pretty poor from what I can see and feels like stretching . the Defense seem to be able pick holes with out even breaking a real sweat.

4 eps to go I will see which side I come down on when I finish the series

Sunflower 27

Penn wrote: »

The bullet with her blood was found in the garage. If she wasn't shot in the garage, that would mean that Avery would have had to have picked up the bullet from wherever he did shoot her, and place it in the garage himself.

I agree that no-one should be saying he's definitely innocent, as the documentary was clearly biased and even though they say the main bits of evidence were shown in the documentary, the minor bits of evidence can add up too. But there's definitely a lot of inconsistencies in terms of where they say the murder happened and the lack of DNA evidence to support it. Unless Avery had either the trailer or garage completely covered in plastic sheeting, then didn't spill so much as a drop of DNA material (blood, hair etc), he simply couldn't have killed her in either of those places. And if he didn't kill her in either of those places at the prosecution claimed, there's reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction on that point alone, regardless of whether he is actually guilty or not.

I think the minor bits of evidence really don't add up to much but sweet fa. If you are going to put a man away for commiting a crime, you have to have evidence he did it. Not what he said, wore or didn't wear, bought or didn't buy.

Why, as you say, would anyone remove a bullet from somewhere else?

There was Teresa's dna on the bullet. I think, correct me if I am wrong, it was cell dna.

Could that have not been put on there from the bone fragments? I remember Steve's gf saying part of her tissue was still on some bones. If it was rubbed on, maybe the defense were not so sure it would 'stick' hence saying to the analyst 'put Teresa in the garage'.

Also, I think the brother and the cops had a cosy little arrangement. The brother was also determined to nail Avery and Brendan. He never questioned anything which is odd, when everyone else is.

Could he have put something on a bullet for the cops if they asked him "just to make sure Avery doesn't get away with it". It isn't like that would be shocking given the other underhand carry-on.

pearsquasher

Truly gripping doc and well produced - no commentary voice-overs, no long-winded recaps and full of high drama and cliffhangers.

As for the case... jesus i've no clue. All parties seem oddly unemotional to me but maybe that cos we're blasted my over-emotion on normal tv/film dramas?

Lets say Avery didn't do it... then that's one hell of a cover-up/planting of evidence... never mind the requirement to "obtain" the body.

- was she killed by a cop who foresaw the ease at which he could frame Avery? That's doubtful given all the steps required and also the atrocious idea of murder-to-frame

- was she simply found dead somewhere and then her and her car handled in a very complex way to frame Avery? Moving them, hiding them, planting evidence, destroying the body etc. It just seems utterly crazy.

It actually seems more likely that Avery killed her out of lust and had a sort of psychological dependency on incarceration/notoriety . Could it be possible? Could he have found some weird meaning in his life, from his previous experiences, that led him to actual murder? Fascinating stuff.

I totally disagree with signing a petition based on a tv show. I'd leave further avenues to the innocence project people who seem keen on exploring options given the lack of care in the hands of the cops/courts.

gordongekko

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?

Latex gloves cut easily but would still cover his fingers.

Sunflower 27

megabantz wrote: »

completely agree but does it not seem odd that the bullet was found on a second search months later?? the first search they said they bagged something like 900 odd pieces of evidence and pulled the shed apart. I cant see this bullet being dropped in the shed after the first search by steven.

I think that bullet was found the day after they told Brendan someone shot her in the head. Not 100%.

Brendan coerced to say she was shot and boom! Bullet appears in garage. Bullet was found march 1 or 2, around the time Brendan was questioned, I think.

Penn

megabantz wrote: »

completely agree but does it not seem odd that the bullet was found on a second search months later?? the first search they said they bagged something like 900 odd pieces of evidence and pulled the shed apart. I cant see this bullet being dropped in the shed after the first search by steven.

Oh absolutely, and given the number of photos I presume would have been taken on the first few searches and how the bullet was found under the compressor which was fairly open underneath, it's bizarre that either the bullet wasn't seen or that area wasn't photographed which would show the bullet wasn't there when searched previously. Same way with the key being found on the 7th search, not exactly hidden (lying under a shoe).

All I'm saying is that whether or not he did kill her, he's simply not capable of having killed her in either the garage or the trailer and cleaning up absolutely all of the DNA evidence. Especially not with a gunshot, as blood would have went everywhere. And especially considering that if he did so, he then left traces of his own DNA and her blood in her car for no apparent reason.

If he killed her somewhere else, the bullet shouldn't have been in the garage. That essentially dismisses it as evidence.

Penn

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I think that bullet was found the day after they told Brendan someone shot her in the head. Not 100%.

Brendan coerced to say she was shot and boom! Bullet appears in garage. Bullet was found march 1 or 2, around the time Brendan was questioned, I think.

And chances are they coerced him to say she was shot because the analysis of the skeletal remains from the fire showed that she had been shot.

They find out she was shot.
They coerce Brendan to say she was shot.
They find the bullet in the garage despite not finding it on previous searches.

Sunflower 27

Also, you could not see Teresa's blood on the bullet, so it wasn't blood. It was cells. I remember that being clarified by Strang.

Joeface

my own generated Theory is , and it is as far fetched as CSI: Miami episode

X-boyfriend killed her (lots of cases both sides of the Atlantic will look at those most helpful in the crime as the murderer is Usually someone you know , They cannot help themselves they have to know if they are going to get away with it )

Andrew Colborn found the vehicle after she was reported missing and spotted Avery was the last port of call

Lenk gets involved & believes it must have been Avery and disposed of the body in the quarry burn site and during the 8 day search they Andy Dufresne'd her bones into the burn pit . Which explains the use of a burn burn barrel for transport and in Averys defense why the hell would you burn the body three times in three different places ....and then not crush or destroy the vehicle .

It's a great piece of Television is the only real conclusion you can draw form all of it.

Sunflower 27

Penn wrote: »

And chances are they coerced him to say she was shot because the analysis of the skeletal remains from the fire showed that she had been shot.

They find out she was shot.
They coerce Brendan to say she was shot.
They find the bullet in the garage despite not finding it on previous searches.

They were struggling. They did not have enough evidence. They needed Brendan to say she was shot so they could plant the bullet.

They deliberately took him out of school, deliberately kept his mum out of it. She would have not allowed that conversation to happen. Nor would Brendan's solicitor, if indeed he actually had one working for, not against him.

megabantz

Another interesting part is that on the first jury deliberation there was 7 of the 12 voted innocent!

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for this!

lolokeogh

fantastic TV and a great thread here,i watched it all in 2 days,taking it all on face value as in what we seen there is no way he could have been done beyond reasonable doubt..factors that i think sent him down were

jury all from his home town,far to close to home for a fair trial
the juror that was taking off the panel said he thought there was at least 3 that had there mind made up before the trial,he said it the same 3 were the stubborn one,the rest quite,so maybe there were easy led,at first there was 7 said he was was innocent,but ofcourse that changed
the lack of evidence alone is shocking,how they went with the theory that she was killed where they say she was etc etc is mind boggling

we are going to hear a lot more of this no doubt,but as far as this series goes,it deserves top marks.

c_meth

Great TV. Watched it all in 2 sittings. It was compelling.

However, even at first glance, it's very obviously biased on the defence side. The fact that we're embedded with the Avery family naturally makes us sympathise with them.

All lot of posters here seem to hang a lot on the absence of Albach DNA in the trailer/the garage. DNA is great when it is found but it is not as resilient as people may think. For example, getting a DNA profile from a wet piece of clothing is very difficult. I wouldn't read too much into the fact that Albach DNA wasnt found in the garage/trailer.

megabantz

c_meth wrote: »

Great TV. Watched it all in 2 sittings. It was compelling.

However, even at first glance, it's very obviously biased on the defence side. The fact that we're embedded with the Avery family naturally makes us sympathise with them.

All lot of posters here seem to hang a lot on the absence of Albach DNA in the trailer/the garage. DNA is great when it is found but it is not as resilient as people may think. For example, getting a DNA profile from a wet piece of clothing is very difficult. I wouldn't read too much into the fact that Albach DNA wasnt found in the garage/trailer.

Ah im not so sure I believe what you say about the DNA


She was supposidly shot twice in the head in the garage.

her head would have been like a burst watermelon. all the spray from that alone would have peppered the room and you say don't be surprised theres no DNA??

Am i missing something? They said she was shot in the garage and they found a bullet in the shed with her dna on it!

jcsoulinger

megabantz wrote: »

Ah im not so sure I believe what you say about the DNA


She was supposidly shot twice in the head in the garage.

her head would have been like a burst watermelon. all the spray from that alone would have peppered the room and you say don't be surprised theres no DNA??

Am i missing something? They said she was shot in the garage and they found a bullet in the shed with her dna on it!

The really crazy thing is they clean up every spec of blood but manage to leave behind the remains of a bullet, I guess Brendan was unsure so he just cleaned around it.

bcklschaps

Mike Guide 69 wrote: »

Its not on Netflix unfortunately, the episodes are available on youtube, it's repeated the odd time on BBC3 / BBC4.

"The staircase" is on Youtube for free. Its by far the best documentary I have ever watched.

If "Making a murderer" is even in the same league, then really looking forward to watching it, might wait till its free-to-view though :rolleyes:

megabantz

jcsoulinger wrote: »

The really crazy thing is they clean up every spec of blood but manage to leave behind the remains of a bullet, I guess Brendan was unsure so he just cleaned around it.

hahahaha

runningbuddy

The nal...cheers for that link:D

I'm only 4 episodes in so can't say too much. It's frustrating...I find it hard to believe that there can be that much corruption. The local sheriff office, fair enough. I'm assuming avery and nephew appealed to the Supreme Court ...and they were still convicted. Jesus Christ though...Dassey...what a bloody liability!!!

Penn

megabantz wrote: »

Ah im not so sure I believe what you say about the DNA


She was supposidly shot twice in the head in the garage.

her head would have been like a burst watermelon. all the spray from that alone would have peppered the room and you say don't be surprised theres no DNA??

Am i missing something? They said she was shot in the garage and they found a bullet in the shed with her dna on it!

Plus given how much junk was in the garage too, cleaning every bit of blood off all of it.... highly unlikely.

PaulieBoy

Penn wrote: »

Plus given how much junk was in the garage too, cleaning every bit of blood off all of it.... highly unlikely.

If you believe the prosecution she had her throat slit in the bedroom of the trailer. She was then dragged to the garage and shot in the head. Not a speck of DNA evidence to be found anywhere!

The Nal

runningbuddy wrote: »

The nal...cheers for that link:D

Welcome. Its insanely good TV!

bcklschaps wrote: »

"The staircase" is on Youtube for free. Its by far the best documentary I have ever watched.

And thank you for this. Looks great!

Joeface

Just cause its topical

glued

Taboola wrote: »

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.

It's not nearly as bizarre as the people assuming his guilt based on the fact he was found guilty by a biased jury.

If you look at the case and all the facts you come to the same conclusion you would get from watching the documentary; that there is no possible way you could conclude that Steven Avery is guilty from the evidence presented at trial.

I'm not sure if Steven Avery is innocent but he certainly deserves a fair trial.

Penn

Stolen from YLYL:

Rayne Wooney

enfant terrible wrote: »

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

how was there no blood spatter or bleach in the garage?

DDC1990

enfant terrible wrote: »

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

How can you believe that confession? He continuously tries to tell one story,the one where he was playing Playstation, took a call at 6 from Blaine's boss, then went over to SA, went around collecting stuff for the fire, stayed and chatted and went home.

Everytime he says that he is told its not true that he was in the bedroom, that he saw her and that he raped her.

Then his story changes. Until he says what he is meant to say.

The line where he says he looked away when Teresa was shot, because he "can't look at that sort of thing", is telling. This coming from a guy who apparently raped, beat stabbed and slit the throat of a young woman, but he couldn't bare to see her shot.

I'm 100% sure that Dassey had nothing to do with the Murder and is just a dumb kid who was tricked and intimidated into lying himself into a Murder confession.

Not so sure about Avery. He's not a particularly nice character, but a large amount of the evidence has certainly been planted. The key and the bullet come to mind. Teresa's blood in the back of the RAV4 makes no sense either, if Avery was the killer.

Bobby Dassey and the step father Scott,both lied under oath and they seem to be hiding some key information.

wardides

Has nobody asked why Blaine's boss was ringing, whilst Blaine was out trick or treating.

How bloody old is Blaine?

Mightydrumming

Interesting news!

https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/684373410038718464

marklazarcovic

Mightydrumming wrote:

Interesting news!

Im not surprised in the least tbh

Elmo

Just started watching The Jinx it is like the complete opposite of Making a Murderer.

Brilliant how he used self-defense, you have to respect those 2 Texas lawyers.

You know signs of future problems

1. Killing a Cat
2. Killing your mother (though he may not have admitted to that I still think he did it, I haven't finished watching the series).

Sunflower 27

marklazarcovic wrote: »

Im not surprised in the least tbh

Well, it is what most people thought. I just don't know how anyone could live with it on their conscience that they put two men away for life, or close enough.

That would tear me apart.

I suppose fear can do that. I wonder what else is going to come out now. The floodgates are opening!!

enfant terrible

pearsquasher wrote: »

Truly gripping doc and well produced - no commentary voice-overs, no long-winded recaps and full of high drama and cliffhangers.

As for the case... jesus i've no clue. All parties seem oddly unemotional to me but maybe that cos we're blasted my over-emotion on normal tv/film dramas?

Lets say Avery didn't do it... then that's one hell of a cover-up/planting of evidence... never mind the requirement to "obtain" the body.

- was she killed by a cop who foresaw the ease at which he could frame Avery? That's doubtful given all the steps required and also the atrocious idea of murder-to-frame

- was she simply found dead somewhere and then her and her car handled in a very complex way to frame Avery? Moving them, hiding them, planting evidence, destroying the body etc. It just seems utterly crazy.

It actually seems more likely that Avery killed her out of lust and had a sort of psychological dependency on incarceration/notoriety . Could it be possible? Could he have found some weird meaning in his life, from his previous experiences, that led him to actual murder? Fascinating stuff.

I totally disagree with signing a petition based on a tv show. I'd leave further avenues to the innocence project people who seem keen on exploring options given the lack of care in the hands of the cops/courts.

How anyone can believe anyone but Avery killed her is amazing too me.

Conspiracy level theories.

enfant terrible

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

how was there no blood spatter or bleach in the garage?

The “CSI effect”

According to Mr Durnal, prosecutors in the United States are now spending much more time explaining to juries why certain kinds of evidence are not relevant. Prosecutors have even introduced a new kind of witness—a “negative evidence” witness—to explain that investigators often fail to find evidence at a crime scene.

http://www.economist.com/node/15949089

Why didn't the defense bring on a expert explaining why the garage should be overflowing with DNA evidence?

Someone on here said here head would explode like a watermelon when shot, seems some of the people on here knew more than the defense team.