Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Green Peter

The car, the blood and the charred remains were planted, the car was checked by the policeman two days before it was found, why would someone interfere with the blood sample only if they needed some to frame him, the remains were found at 3 locations , imo she was burned at the quarry and brought to averys, the killer imo testified on the documentary, the judges were pathetic and it shows how the legal system can turn a blind eye to facts when the pressure is on them to convict, poor Brendan got a complete shafting!

Elmo

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

There was a post on reddit with a source and details but the link doesn't seem to be working now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3yf48y/steve_averys_2004_alleged_sexual_assault_threat/

Again this is about the presumption of innocence. I am not defending Avery, but if you want to successfully bring something to trail there has to be a presumption of innocence.

It seems the police and the Avery family all have a dishonest past. How do you believe any of them?

On the one hand you have Kratz saying.... "Well you know those Averys" and quickly followed by "Well you don't want to ruin the upstanding reputation of upstanding law enforcement officers".

Elmo

Green Peter wrote: »

The car, the blood and the charred remains were planted, the car was checked by the policeman two days before it was found, why would someone interfere with the blood sample only if they needed some to frame him, the remains were found at 3 locations , imo she was burned at the quarry and brought to averys, the killer imo testified on the documentary.

I agree, slightly unsure all the same. Anyone know if pictures of the Quarry scene were shown in the documentary.

Green Peter

Elmo wrote:

I agree. Anyone know if pictures of the Quarry scene were shown in the documentary.

I think only pictures on the projector from a height, it looked like it was in an nearby field close to the road you could see the 3 locations in the one shot

Ageyev

Tyson Fury wrote: »

What ever about Steve, I'd fully expect Brendan to be awarded a retrial following the documentary.

He won't be awarded a retrial based on the documetary. Per Steven Avery's lawyer Dean Strang, Brendan is in federal court seeking redress - not sure on what argument exactly, possibly an appeal.

Courts don't make judgments based on Netflix documentaries.

DrumSteve wrote: »

The guy who did the theme for this did the OST for The Last of Us...

Unbelievable stuff so far.

Didn't know that. It's a great score and the overall production of the credits and music is very good.

Sunflower 27

Elmo wrote: »

Did you see how sloppy the Avery's are, Stephen's bedroom hadn't been tidied in months. There is no way on this earth that the murder took place in the property, absolutely no way.

The only bit of blood found was on a bullet that went through the victims head, there should have been traces of blood everywhere. According to the state this was a bloody murder.

I think given the absence if no blood at all, we can presume Teresa was not shot and killed where the defence say she was. It is not possible for someone to be murdered at a location and all that is left is a bullet with inconclusive dna evidence of the possible killer.

Someone put that bullet there, from where it was found originally.

I think the police were not prepared to take any chances. If a bullet was not found in Avery's garage, it would implicate any of them that were near Teresa that day on the property, for exampme Bobby & Scott, that could only alibi each other and whose timeline did not add up, as shown by the bus driver (an independent winess who was at the property the same time.e every day do her timing would have been accurate)

Is there a map of the yard showing where the bones were found? The different sites. How far away were they from each other?

Mantis Toboggan

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Avery was 20 when he poured petrol on a cat and threw it onto a bonfire to watch it die. He served a prison sentence for it and his second stint in prison after 10 months for burglary when he was 18. He subsequently served 6 years for assaulting his cousin and possession of a firearm. He ran her off the road, pointed a gun at her head and tried to force her into his vehicle, after she accused him of exposing himself to her and neighbours. After his release for the false conviction and at the time of the murder he was being investigated for sexually abusing his niece.

One thing the judge mentioned in his sentencing was that the majority of his adult life he was committing steadily more serious crimes. This isn't some poor guy who did some regretful things when he was a kid.

Think most of this has little relevance, remember this was the cousin who was married to the cop, also the police force who wrongfully locked him away for 20 years already. I've no doubt he robbed the pub and attacked the cat but we all do stupid things as a kid doesn't make him a murderer.

Mantis Toboggan

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Is there a map of the yard showing where the bones were found? The different sites. How far away were they from each other?

You can see most of it on google maps.

Thelomen Toblackai

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Think most of this has little relevance, remember this was the cousin who was married to the cop, also the police force who wrongfully locked him away for 20 years already. I've no doubt he robbed the pub and attacked the cat but we all do stupid things as a kid doesn't make him a murderer.

He wasn't a kid. Everything in that list he's an adult. He was 20 when he tortured and killed the cat. By the time he was 30 he's spent about 7 years in jail for violent crimes.

Why do you think he didn't do the rest of it ? He admitted what he did to his cousin that got him a 6 year sting in prison. How can you pass that off as part of a police conspiracy ?

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

He wasn't a kid. Everything in that list he's an adult. He was 20 when he tortured and killed the cat. By the time he was 30 he's spent about 7 years in jail for violent crimes.

Why do you think he didn't do the rest of it ? He admitted what he did to his cousin that got him a 6 year sting in prison. How can you pass that off as part of a police conspiracy ?

Agreed, that isn't a conspiray, but what he was on trial for re the murder very much looks that way, many seem to think.

Judge Willis seems to be getting a bit of a roasting online. The judge was born and bred in that county, I think he was biased as a result, especially as Steven had fingered that county's law enforcers as setting him up and a lawsuit was pending. Is it not likely that Judge Willis was no fan of SA from the very start? Wasn't it that very court that sentenced him wrongly for the sexual assault charge that he served 18 years for and was then exonarated? Ouch, that had to hurt.

I personally think he had too much vested interest in this case to preside over it without ANY bias creeping in.

It appears that in his denying the defense any chance of investigating other suspects, Willis paved the way for SA to have no possible chance of a retrial before the trial even began.

I have read through the documents that SA's attorneys put forward. They clearly state that there was other people on the property at the time that Teresa went missing. That Scott one, Brendan's now stepfather, had a very chequered criminal past. Also, was his timeline not out according to the bus driver? She would have been on that property every day at the same time so you could say she, at least, was reliable.

Judge Willis said there had to be motive for another suspect to be considered and yet there was one - the very same one they got Avery on - sexual assault.

I can't think of any other case where other possible suspects weren't legitimately investigated (and certainly those with criminal pasts) and ruled out.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

That isn't a conspiray, but what he was on trial for re the murder very much looks that way, many seem to think.

Judge Willis seems to be getting a bit of a roasting online. The judge was born and bred in that county, I think he was biased as a result, especially as Steven had fingered that county's law enforcers as setting him up and a lawsuit was pending. Is it not likely that Judge Willis was no fan of SA from the very start?

I personally think he had too much vested interest in this case to preside over it without ANY bias creeping in.

Stephen was a repeat offender. The police and judges would deal with many repeat offenders. I don't see why they'd single out Avery as one person in the country they hated more than anyone.

It appears that in his denying the defense any chance of investigating other suspects, Willis paved the way for SA to have no possible chance of a retrial before the trial even began.

I have read through the documents that SA's attorneys put forward. They clearly state that there was other people on the property at the time that Teresa went missing. That Scott one, Brendan's now stepfather, had a very chequered criminal past. Also, was his timeline not out according to the bus driver? She would have been on that property every day at the same time so you could say she, at least, was reliable.

Judge Willis said their had to be motive for another suspect to be considered and yet there was one - the very same one they got Avery on - sexual assault.

I can't think of any other case where other possible suspects weren't legitimately investigated (and certainly those with criminal pasts) and ruled out.

Hang on the judge never denied anyone the chance of investigating other suspects. He denied the defence the chance to accuse others of murder in the trial as a defence strategy due to lack of evidence.

Again its strange people are saying Stephens history doesn't mean anything and going on about a presumption of innocence while at the same time saying the defence should have been allowed to accuse other people of murder based on their dodgy history alone with no evidence to back it up.

They were all questioned. They all had DNA samples taken to check against those found. The reason they weren't the main focus of the investigation and eventually accused of murder is because the evidence pointed to Stephen Avery. He also had a violent criminal past. But unlike the rest he organised for her to come out there, the last time she was seen was in his yard, his DNA was found in her car, the remains were outside his house in a place he was burning stuff that day, a bullet matching his gun was found in his garage with the victims dna on it.

They found the evidence that pointed them to the killer and they went for a conviction. That's generally how these things work.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Stephen was a repeat offender. The police and judges would deal with many repeat offenders. I don't see why they'd single out Avery as one person in the country they hated more than anyone.



Hang on the judge never denied anyone the chance of investigating other suspects. He denied the defence the chance to accuse others of murder in the trial as a defence strategy due to lack of evidence.

Again its strange people are saying Stephens history doesn't mean anything and going on about a presumption of innocence while at the same time saying the defence should have been allowed to accuse other people of murder based on their dodgy history alone with no evidence to back it up.

They were all questioned. They all had DNA samples taken to check against those found. The reason they weren't the main focus of the investigation and eventually accused of murder is because the evidence pointed to Stephen Avery. He also had a violent criminal past. But unlike the rest he organised for her to come out there, the last time she was seen was in his yard, his DNA was found in her car, the remains were outside his house in a place he was burning stuff that day, a bullet matching his gun was found in his garage with the victims dna on it.

They found the evidence that pointed them to the killer and they went for a conviction. That's generally how these things work.

Judge Willis made the decision on whether any other persons could be considered suspects and in saying no-one else had motive, was able to halt the defense right there.

I don't believe Scott was tested at all.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3ypwly/why_werent_scott_tadychs_fingerprints_and_bucal/

They found evidence? The key and the bullet (inconclusive) with no blood in the garage. They found evidence Teresa was murdered, not that Avery was the one that did it.

blowin3

I just finished watching this last night and could not believe to me ( non legal mind) was a travesty of justice. To me the biggest problem was no proof of a murder scene. It was first the bedroom and than garage but NO blood or dna bar the spent round. I don't think Stephan or Brendan were top of the Q for brains when they were being handed out so how did they manage the cleaning of a crime scene as was pointed out by the defense .

My believe she was murdered by someone(maybe Avery family ) and found by the cops who set up Stephan.

fin12

I'm just on episode 9, but was Brendan brought to trial on his statements alone??? And statements swell that he has changed several times, how can you bring someone to trial if there is no physical evidence at all linking them to the crime or is it because the cops planted all the evidence to match Brendan's story???

Also why did he actually tell his mother that he did some of the things to Theresa that he had told the cops? Why say that to your mother if ur innocent?

Sunflower 27

fin12 wrote: »

I'm just on episode 9, but was Brendan brought to trial on his statements alone??? And statements swell that he has changed several times, how can you bring someone to trial if there is no physical evidence at all linking them to the crime or is it because the cops planted all the evidence to match Brendan's story???

Also why did he actually tell his mother that he did some of the things to Theresa that he had told the cops? Why say that to your mother if ur innocent?

Maybe he was scared of saying he lied to police officers.

The cops really made him feel bad when he didn't give them the right answers. Imagine if he then said 'I made it all up'?

He was very confused and afraid. His uncle had been wrongly imprisoned for so long, I think he was just so scared he said what he felt they wanted to hear, or, more accurately just agreed to what they told him happened. There was an awful scene where he was being questioned in that small room and when he didn't give the answer he was meant to, the cop swung back his head, as if saying 'come on, don't lie'. That was just incredible.

Mantis Toboggan

Do we find out what happened to Steve Averys kids?

Thelomen Toblackai

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Do we find out what happened to Steve Averys kids?

I think Avery's first wife was remarried to Brendan Dasseys father. So her and the kids are in that general area where the rest of the family is.

Taboola

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I think Avery's first wife was remarried to Brendan Dasseys father. So her and the kids are in that general area where the rest of the family is.

Woah.

I wonder did she or the kids ever do any interviews?

fin12

I thought when the police are interviewing a person who is under 18 that they have to have a parent or guardian present? Brendan's mother also said that the cops wouldn't allow her in during the interview, I just can't even understand how this case got to trial???? No parent or lawyer present ever when he was being interviewed???????

How can you convict someone of sexual assault without DNA evidence??? They wouldn't have been able to determine if she had been raped from her remains so their conviction is based on the fact so that he said he raped her?????

Missyelliot2

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Do we find out what happened to Steve Averys kids?

I saw a video of one of his twin boys being interviewed - Billy Avery. He is in the army, but his dad has been in jail since he was 10 weeks old. He hasn't had any contact with his Dad for 6 years.

His sister keeps in regular contact with Steven Avery.

Beef

Fascinating story, I binge watched it over Christmas holidays.

Impartial jury..?

"Perhaps more to the point for Avery, the panel selected Friday includes a man whose son works for the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department and a man whose wife works for the Manitowoc County clerk of courts office. Avery, 44, is charged with killing 25-year-old photographer Teresa Halbach."

"Those connections are significant because Avery claims that a vial of his blood was left unsecured in the clerk's office and that sheriff's deputies used it to plant his blood inside Halbach's vehicle."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29326359.html

fin12

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Maybe he was scared of saying he lied to police officers.

The cops really made him feel bad when he didn't give them the right answers. Imagine if he then said 'I made it all up'?

He was very confused and afraid. His uncle had been wrongly imprisoned for so long, I think he was just so scared he said what he felt they wanted to hear, or, more accurately just agreed to what they told him happened. There was an awful scene where he was being questioned in that small room and when he didn't give the answer he was meant to, the cop swung back his head, as if saying 'come on, don't lie'. That was just incredible.

I understand now why he did it, its in episode 10, he's own defense tricked him into saying it... Feel so sorry for Brendan, its so horrible what happened to him.
Feel so sorry for Avery's parents, I'm sick to my stomach after watching this show.....
Stephen's girlfriend Sandy seems like a lovely person..

adox

People who torutre and kill animals for kicks is recognised as an early alarm bell for a possible psychopath.

One doesn't always lead to another of course, but people do seem to be sweeping it under the carpet a bit.

Thelomen Toblackai

adox wrote: »

People who torutre and kill animals for kicks is recognised as an early alarm bell for a possible psychopath.

One doesn't always lead to another of course, but people do seem to be sweeping it under the carpet a bit.

That's when it's done as a kid. When you do it at 20 years old it doesn't mean you may turn into a psychopath it means you are a psychopath. Normal adults don't do things like that.

Elmo

adox wrote: »

People who torutre and kill animals for kicks is recognised as an early alarm bell for a possible psychopath.

One doesn't always lead to another of course, but people do seem to be sweeping it under the carpet a bit.

He doesn't come across as a psychopath. For all the faults in his relationships he seemed to have 3 good ones and he seemed willing to forgive and forget for the most part.

Generally speaking people who abuse animals and are psychopathic do it from an earlier age and they generally don't show any love for anyone. I don't know if animal torture was something Avery was involved in from an early age.

On the other hand we are not willing to sweep under the carpet the corruption in the the legal system. Which seems to be what a lot of people want many to do.

IMO regardless of this conviction all of the Law enforcement officers should be sacked for their work on the original case.

Also regardless of the bias contained in the series. It is a great TV series, from cinematography, music, story, editing. A brilliantly executed series.

Take a look at The Thin Blue Line from 1988, I think it is on Netflix also.

Elmo

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

That's when it's done as a kid. When you do it at 20 years old it doesn't mean you may turn into a psychopath it means you are a psychopath. Normal adults don't do things like that.

TBH I can imagine stupid 20 year old's messing about, egging each other on. He did it with another friend, is the friend also a psychopath?

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

That's when it's done as a kid. When you do it at 20 years old it doesn't mean you may turn into a psychopath it means you are a psychopath. Normal adults don't do things like that.

Even with an IQ of 70?

Or maybe it was the behaviour of a mentally-impaired stupid young man wanting to impress his friends? I don't know, I just don't think one event can label someone a psychopath. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be labelling anyone on one incident.

Thelomen Toblackai

Elmo wrote: »

TBH I can imagine stupid 20 year old's messing about, egging each other on. He did it with another friend, is the friend also a psychopath?

I can imagine stupid 30 year old's doing it. Doesn't matter what age, if you do **** like that for a laugh as an adult you're displaying some very serious and disturbing tendencies. There's a reason Avery and anyone else serves a prison sentence for that. And it's not because they were stupid.

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Even with an IQ of 70?

Or maybe it was the behaviour of a mentally-impaired stupid young man wanting to impress his friends? I don't know, I just don't think one event can label someone a psychopath. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't be labelling anyone on one incident.

What has his IQ got to do with it ? He's absolved of committing horrific criminal acts because hes not very bright ? He's not mentally impaired, hes just a bit dumb and has a disturbing tendency towards violence. He's still 100% accountable for his actions.

Elmo

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I can imagine stupid 30 year old's doing it. Doesn't matter what age, if you do **** like that for a laugh as an adult you're displaying some very serious and disturbing tendencies. There's a reason Avery and anyone else serves a prison sentence for that. And it's not because they were stupid.

I can't imagine a stupid 30yo OR 40yo etc doing it. No one is saying that he was right just because he was young. He served time for this particularly cruel act. Unlike law enforcement officers who put a 23 year old into prison for something he didn't do. Clearly they show just many serious and disturbing tendencies when they sat on evidence and try to cover up their incompetence.

His accomplice also showed some very serious and disturbing tendencies. Where is he now?

Thelomen Toblackai

Elmo wrote: »

I can't imagine a stupid 30yo OR 40yo etc doing it. No one is saying that he was right just because he was young. He served time for this particularly cruel act. Unlike law enforcement officers who put a 23 year old into prison for something he didn't do. Clearly they show just many serious and disturbing tendencies when they sat on evidence and try to cover up their incompetence.

His accomplice also showed some very serious and disturbing tendencies. Where is he now?

Sure you can imagine it. It's not something normal people do but there's some people who are still capable of doing it. Just as Avery was at the age of 20.

Avery was convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison at the age of 23 for running his cousin off the road and trying to force her at gun point into his car. The fact he was exonerated of the rape doesn't mean he went to prison for something he didn't do. Only that he served a longer sentence than he otherwise would have.

I get what ya mean but it's not a straightforward case of innocent man goes down for something he didn't do. The police should be held to account for their incompetence but it's irrelevant when it comes to Avery's crimes he was actually guilty of.

I don't know who his accomplice was. But I'd be happy to say if he was an adult burning cats alive for a laugh he wasn't right in the head.

2forjoy

Dassey was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years.

Rayne Wooney

He might have done it but it's ridiculous he was convicted, really corrupt police in that place. How could he have shot her multiple times in the garage and then cleaned it better than a forensic team could? And then left the car in his own backyard?

I don't think they had a case at all, they won it by removing the presumption of innocence before the trial began

Thelomen Toblackai

2forjoy wrote: »

Dassey was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years.

If that's in relation to the "accomplice" thing we were talking about the friend he was with when Avery burned the cat.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Sure you can imagine it. It's not something normal people do but there's some people who are still capable of doing it. Just as Avery was at the age of 20.

Avery was convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison at the age of 23 for running his cousin off the road and trying to force her at gun point into his car. The fact he was exonerated of the rape doesn't mean he went to prison for something he didn't do. Only that he served a longer sentence than he otherwise would have.

I get what ya mean but it's not a straightforward case of innocent man goes down for something he didn't do. The police should be held to account for their incompetence but it's irrelevant when it comes to Avery's crimes he was actually guilty of.

I don't know who his accomplice was. But I'd be happy to say if he was an adult burning cats alive for a laugh he wasn't right in the head.

Why did he run her off the road? She was telling people he was having sex on his front yard with his partner. She was Insinuating he was doing things he said be wasn't.

If someone said that about me, I'd be raging, especially if I suspected people looked down on me already

He admitted he did it and said he wanted to make her stop with the lies. Not the brightest move, but he isn't the brightest man we all know that.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

What has his IQ got to do with it ? He's absolved of committing horrific criminal acts because hes not very bright ? He's not mentally impaired, hes just a bit dumb and has a disturbing tendency towards violence. He's still 100% accountable for his actions.

He was not absolved of any crime. I'm explaining why at 20 he may have acted like a stupid kid showing off and doing something cruel for a laugh.

You don't know he is a psychopath. No one does.

I'm curious, if someone murders someone are they are psychopath, or is it animal cruelty that makes someone one?

Slogger Jogger

A riveting documentary. Lots of gaps to my mind that didn't get explored.
If you haven't finished the series look away now...





- the phone messages missing from the unfortunate girls phone. Must be a way to find out what was done. Data once deleted still resides somewhere.
- how the nephew was interviewed time and time again without support.
- why the defence didn't bring as a witness a child psychologist or some expert to discuss the nephew. Given the right circumstances, as we saw, he was going to admit anything. His evidence shouldn't have been allowed. That evidence prejudiced both cases.
- how in the name of god, the evidence of the drawings where allowed when the defence investigator told him to draw this, draw that. It wasn't a case of draw what you saw, but he told him what to draw.
- where was the blood. No blood anywhere. They took jackhammers to the garage to no avail.
- what evidence is needed on appeal to overturn a judgement in Wisconsin! Unbelievable.
- in addition, the way the judge summarised the case to charge the jury was very odd to me. He referred to Avery's many crimes and the escalating nature of same. The main crime to date was removed from his record so the judge, to me, very much led the jury. When the same judge appeared later in the Appeal case that was odd too. Do they have other judges there?

2forjoy

You can sign the petition to have them pardoned here :

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investgate-and-pardon-averys-wisconsin-and-punish-corrupt-officials-who-railroaded-these-innocent-men

After signing just go to your email and confirm signature

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

Why did he run her off the road? She was telling people he was having sex on his front yard with his partner. She was Insinuating he was doing things he said be wasn't.

If someone said that about me, I'd be raging, especially if I suspected people looked down on me already

He admitted he did it and said he wanted to make her stop with the lies. Not the brightest move, but he isn't the brightest man we all know that.

You can't seriously be trying to justify what he did ?? Running a woman with a child in the back of the car off the road and holding a gun to her head trying to force her into his vehicle.

Jesus.

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

That's when it's done as a kid. When you do it at 20 years old it doesn't mean you may turn into a psychopath it means you are a psychopath. Normal adults don't do things like that.

Diagnosing someone as a pychopath is a little more complex than citing torturing an animal at the age of 20.

The link below gives more accurate diagnostic criteria.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mindmelding/201301/what-is-psychopath-0

Elmo

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

Sure you can imagine it. It's not something normal people do but there's some people who are still capable of doing it. Just as Avery was at the age of 20.

No there are reason for not imagining a some one over the age of 25 doing this. Firstly their is maturity, at 20 your not all that mature and your hanging around with alot of other immature 20 year olds. This leads to doing stupid things when you are young. Including being egged on by your peers into doing things you might not normally do.

After 25 generally you have a change, its not necessarily maturity but it a case of finding new friends, moving out of home, finding proper relationship, maybe having children and so on.

I agree his immaturity, his peers and perhaps his IQ are not totally responsibly for his actions, he clearly knows right from wrong, but they all go some way to showing his character at 20. And he did serve time for burning the cat.

Avery was convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison at the age of 23 for running his cousin off the road and trying to force her at gun point into his car.

We know that he also served 6 years for the running down of his cousin at 23, IMO there is a lot more to that, including a running dislike of his cousin and hers of him. That is not to say that he didn't get what he deserved, he did.

The fact he was exonerated of the rape doesn't mean he went to prison for something he didn't do. Only that he served a longer sentence than he otherwise would have.

He served 12 years for attack/rape in 1985 from 1991, following his consecutive sentence for 6 years. He went to prison for something he didn't do.

The police should be held to account for their incompetence but it's irrelevant when it comes to Avery's crimes he was actually guilty of.

The police and law enforcement agencies should be held accountable for all wrong doings and their past just like Avery's past need to be examined. In relation to the Halbach murder the police did everything the could to have a shut tight case against Avery.

If Avery did commit this murder and he is released, it will because of the incompetence of the police and law enforcement agencies. And to date I don't think any have seen their careers destroyed by their immaturity and bias against Avery.

northgirl

Watching Episode 3, it's heartbreaking watching Brendan being questioned..

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

You can't seriously be trying to justify what he did ?? Running a woman with a child in the back of the car off the road and holding a gun to her head trying to force her into his vehicle.

Jesus.

I am saying she was trying to ruin him. His reaction was totally wrong, but he was angry and probably sick of the malicious lies.

So yeah, I can understand his fury and anger. Shouldn't have happened, but I understand it. People out there all had guns, having that on him would not have been strange.

alane20

So many times along the way I almost forgot it was real life, on what we saw how he was found guilty ill never understand, the one jourer that was excused for a family emergency stated that the was 2-3 people in the jury who he felt had their mind made up from day one and we're very forceful in that opinion, without sounding like a member of the tin foil hat brigade is it possible that certain people were placed on the jury and it was their job to convert the rest to a guilty verdict,

marklazarcovic

he was on trial for ms halbachs murder,rape,dismemberment,false imprisonment .... nothing else,his past was not on trial..

he was not a nice guy,thats obvious,the rest is not obvious at all

Thelomen Toblackai

Sunflower 27 wrote: »

I am saying she was trying to ruin him. His reaction was totally wrong, but he was angry and probably sick of the malicious lies.

So yeah, I can understand his fury and anger. Shouldn't have happened, but I understand it. People out there all had guns, having that on him would not have been strange.

I just find it odd how you're so understanding of violent criminal behaviour when it comes to Avery to the point of sympathising with him and justifying it as if hes a child that doesn't know any better. Yet casting aspersions on other family members because of their odd behaviour and past actions and very quick to denounce the police as corrupt and despicable over an alleged frame there is virtually no evidence for.

Also Starring LeVar Burton

Have only seen about half of these myself, but seems to be a pretty good list of recommendations for similar documentaries...

http://www.techinsider.io/best-true-crime-documentaries-to-watch-2015-12

Sunflower 27

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I just find it odd how you're so understanding of violent criminal behaviour when it comes to Avery to the point of sympathising with him and justifying it as if hes a child that doesn't know any better. Yet casting aspersions on other family members because of their odd behaviour and past actions and very quick to denounce the police as corrupt and despicable over an alleged frame there is virtually no evidence for.

I don't believe he did it. I believe he had too much to lose and I think he was framed, I've made that clear.

Sympathetic? I said maybe he is a psychopath but we don't know unless he undergoes formal psychological testing. You are saying he is a psychopath, I am saying that is not fact.

I said his reaction to someone claiming he was a sexual deviant around town was wrong, but given the nature of the lies, I understand it.

I think it may have been Scott that did it. We are entitled to question things. I have explained why I think he is dodgy and should have been considered a suspect. He lied about the timeline. He has no alibi but the guy he alibies, the scratches - from a puppy and on the back? Maybe but unusual. It would have been logical that someone that works with skin wounds could have clarified that but that didn't happen.

Do you not think the police were corrupt?

adox

2forjoy wrote: »

You can sign the petition to have them pardoned here :

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/investgate-and-pardon-averys-wisconsin-and-punish-corrupt-officials-who-railroaded-these-innocent-men

After signing just go to your email and confirm signature

Wow I would never sign a petition to pardon a man convicted of murder based on a documentary.

Elmo

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I just find it odd how you're so understanding of violent criminal behaviour when it comes to Avery to the point of sympathising with him and justifying it as if hes a child that doesn't know any better. Yet casting aspersions on other family members because of their odd behaviour and past actions and very quick to denounce the police as corrupt and despicable over an alleged frame there is virtually no evidence for.

I think there are two sides to this: -

In my OP on this thread I think I stated that the Avery's had become town pariahs and many towns have these types of people. The are in and out of trouble with the police and even if there is one good person in the family they are all marred by past deeds of others, where their only connection is though family.

I don't think anyone is justifying Steven Avery's past crimes but I think what we are trying to say is that no matter what Steve did he was a pariah, his circumstance and his metal abilities and the towns/counties view of the Averys is a major part of the story. He/They might not be nice but they deserve to be consider Innocent.

Do I think Steve is a shinning light? no I don't but I do believe he was bullied.

On the other side I find it difficult to stand with Pillar of Society who clearly are not pillars, and who are just as bad as Steven, they just happen to be a little more intelligent. I think the evidence given is certainly very sketchy, and that is the problem the prosecution had. Though there are certainly questions that are muddy by the way in which the case was presented in the Documentary.

I don't understand why the Police insisted on the attack, rape, murder and kidnapping took place in Steve Avery's kitchen, bedroom and garage. As there is no conclusive evidence to back that theory up. As I said before the Avery's are not the tidiest, even with bleach I don't believe the could have cover up such an atrocity in a small ill-kept house and garage. The only evidence is the bloodied bullet which fell beneath some equipment and yet no other dry blood is found in that area.

The key is not evidence IMO, it is tainted, none of her DNA existed on it. Why did it take so long to find?

Why if someone was murder would you start to bring up the idea that she was also raped? As far as I know there is no evidence that she was raped. Other than Brendan Dassey eye-witness testimony which was given to him largely by the police. Though the evidence given by his cousin was strange IMO but again why in the house and the garage.

I don't trust Scott Tadych testimony, and what's his past like?

Len Kachinsky and his private detective both were clearly bias. What trouble had Brendan Dassey been in before? Was he partaking in incest? was he the devil incarnate? As suggested by his private detective.