Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

daisybelle2008

marklazarcovic wrote: »

She was missing for days,not one day,body burned on day one and removed. Nxt day for example,ample time for any amount of scenarios

Burned where? Removed to where?
Yeah I suppose I have trouble with that as I haven't seen a logical theory explored or mapped out, even by the defense. I can understand how the lack of evidence of Thereseas bones at the quarry would cause them to back off going near that, in any event it would probably have been overulled as too speculative without conclusive evidence of TH. Her body in the fire pit and barrell was intertwined with tyres and material from the yard. If the Janda barrell was used as a method of transporting TH around was it in someone's vehicle, manually? It is nearly a km to the quarry. To get up to the temperature of incinerating the body then it sufficiently cooling to move and plant it on Avery's bonfire (so it gets knotted up with the rest of the material) in the timeline. I'm not sure how someone could have physically murdered her and planned and executed that in a few hours with Avery totally oblivious to it on his doorstep.
Steven Avery's appeal proposes all his own brothers, all the Dassey brothers including Brendan and Scott Tydach and a few other customers of the yard.

The brother, ex and roommate are completed red herrings and are not being proposed as possible suspects by the defence anymore.

curly from cork

Quote:

As a slight aside and purely on the aesthetics of the documentary, the intro is magnificent. Especially the music

Just finished the last episode at 2.30 am .. Watched the last 5 episodes in one sitting .. Riveting .. I agree the opening intro music is great, it reminded me a lot of "the bridge " opening . Both Netflix productions possibly the same composer/ score director ?

A Primal Nut

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

Burned where? Removed to where?
Yeah I suppose I have trouble with that as I haven't seen a logical theory explored or mapped out, even by the defense. I can understand how the lack of evidence of Thereseas bones at the quarry would cause them to back off going near that, in any event it would probably have been overulled as too speculative without conclusive evidence of TH. Her body in the fire pit and barrell was intertwined with tyres and material from the yard. If the Janda barrell was used as a method of transporting TH around was it in someone's vehicle, manually? It is nearly a km to the quarry. To get up to the temperature of incinerating the body then it sufficiently cooling to move and plant it on Avery's bonfire (so it gets knotted up with the rest of the material) in the timeline. I'm not sure how someone could have physically murdered her and planned and executed that in a few hours with Avery totally oblivious to it on his doorstep.
Steven Avery's appeal proposes all his own brothers, all the Dassey brothers including Brendan and Scott Tydach and a few other customers of the yard.

The brother, ex and roommate are completed red herrings and are not being proposed as possible suspects by the defence anymore.

Because they weren't allowed to present alternative theories during the trial - the judge forbid it. This is one of the most baffling things of the whole legal system. Imagine the defense team having evidence that someone else committed the crime but not being able to use it. Bizarre! Of course all the above people you mentioned are suspects.

Also the insinuation throughout the show was that she wasn't killed at Avery's at all. There is a scene where a witness said he seen a car been driven down much later that night that for some reason he was suspicious about, and the police ignored it. I don't remember the details now. Also the defence made clear that the bones were moved to the Avery property. The scrapyard was huge, did you see the amount of cars? Very possible to do it without Avery noticing.

A Primal Nut

The lesson in this is if you are ever arrested don't say anything until you get a lawyer, especially if you are innocent. If the police have no evidence it's more likely they will try to manipulate you into a confession or conflicting statements. The same thing happened with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda didn't even speak the language or have a translator early on.

Of course if you get a lawyer like Kachinsky then you are really screwed, you'd have to demand a new one. Then there is the issue, such as with Brendan Dassey and Amanda Knox where the police don't even tell you you are a suspect. So even if you think you are just a witness it's still best to stay quiet without a lawyer!

Itssoeasy

Just finished the series.

So many emotions and there are some very good people and some utter slim balls in it especially Ken Kratz and and the blue ribbon guy that was part of Brendan's first legal team. He deserves an Oscar IMO for his performance during rhe appeal appearance.

The brother of Teresa halbach I didn't like at all. He seemed too happy to talk to the media and didn't seem that upset from what I saw and if your sister was murdered you'd expect him to be upset to some degree.

Also the whole Brendan thing in episode 4 was awful to watch. He clearly had no way to understand what was happening.

I know people might give out about the gardai but compared to the police in this particular case I have to say I'm happier living in Ireland than Wisconsin.

On Steve avery, I don't think the state made a good enough case from the footage I saw to say beyond reasonable doubt that he was the person responsible.

Am I right in remembering that the local police dept were allowed on site for eight days without a warrant ? That seems madness to me.

Ageyev

A Primal Nut wrote: »

The lesson in this is if you are ever arrested don't say anything until you get a lawyer, especially if you are innocent. If the police have no evidence it's more likely they will try to manipulate you into a confession or conflicting statements. The same thing happened with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda didn't even speak the language or have a translator early on.

Of course if you get a lawyer like Kachinsky then you are really screwed, you'd have to demand a new one. Then there is the issue, such as with Brendan Dassey and Amanda Knox where the police don't even tell you you are a suspect. So even if you think you are just a witness it's still best to stay quiet without a lawyer!

Steven Avery didn't help his own case by talking to the media before he was arested and Teresa's body found. Accusing police of framing you before you're even arrested and charged isn't a good idea.

Avery's "civil rights" lawyer alleged that the cops wouldn't tell him where he was being questioned.

I think here in Ireland you don't get a public defender until you go to court.

daisybelle2008

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Because they weren't allowed to present alternative theories during the trial - the judge forbid it. This is one of the most baffling things of the whole legal system. Imagine the defense team having evidence that someone else committed the crime but not being able to use it. Bizarre! Of course all the above people you mentioned are suspects.

Also the insinuation throughout the show was that she wasn't killed at Avery's at all. There is a scene where a witness said he seen a car been driven down much later that night that for some reason he was suspicious about, and the police ignored it. I don't remember the details now. Also the defence made clear that the bones were moved to the Avery property. The scrapyard was huge, did you see the amount of cars? Very possible to do it without Avery noticing.

I have switched back and forth around Avery's involvement, I'm not aware of the actual evidence that someone else committed the crime you mention? That's the problem for the defence also they can't pin it down to less than 9 possible suspects. The brother looking a bit shifty does not put him on their list obviously. The moving around of the body theory has as many if not more holes than Avery actually doing it without moving it around. And Avery's sweat DNA under her hood is hard to explain away. I think that there is enough reasonable doubt not to convict but that doesn't mean Avery didn't do it. I'm not 100% sure he did but the alternative scenarios haven't been been mapped out for me to get behind one.

Sunflower 27

curly from cork wrote: »

Quote:

As a slight aside and purely on the aesthetics of the documentary, the intro is magnificent. Especially the music

Just finished the last episode at 2.30 am .. Watched the last 5 episodes in one sitting .. Riveting .. I agree the opening intro music is great, it reminded me a lot of "the bridge " opening . Both Netflix productions possibly the same composer/ score director ?

It really is class, the whole documentary. Have told so many people to watch it and everyone has loved it so far.

Re, the headlights, I think that was Avery's brother. He said he told the cops but they said he was talking '****' or something like that. Not really surprising the police wouldn't nvestigate that. Not sure if the defence did, but it did seem important, I agree.

Elmo

Halbach's brother is an interesting suspect. How many times in this country (and probably in other countries) have we seen Murderers to the fore of searches and in the front of the camera?

Though I don't think it was him.

El Inho

What if there was to be a Making a Murderer Movie....

http://goos3d.ie/wholl-play-who-in-making-a-murderer-movie/

Elmo

El Inho wrote: »

What if there was to be a Making a Murderer Movie....

http://goos3d.ie/wholl-play-who-in-making-a-murderer-movie/

Funny I though it was a drama starring Eddie Izzard in the main role, he looks like Eddie Izzard on the poster IMO.

fin12

I actually thought ur man was crying at the blue ribbon thing because he felt guilt and remorce of how he treated Brendan, like how he manipulated a 16 year old kid, he seemed to be giving direct honest answers to how he had conducted himself with Brendan and what his plan was all along...

Slogger Jogger

Lots of things keep flashing back to me. How more wasn't made of the blood vial from the previous case that was obviously tampered with from being held 'securely' in evidence vaults. Didn't that tampering not generate even 1% of a doubt as to where the blood was sourced from?

As the prosecuting investigator said, but I'm not sure it was said in trial, it didn't make sense that there was blood in the car but no fingerprints. You should have none or both.

Then again, when members of the jury had apparently their minds made up before they even set down to discuss the case what change does one stand.

A Primal Nut

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know people might give out about the gardai but compared to the police in this particular case I have to say I'm happier living in Ireland than Wisconsin.

For the most part but I wonder about some things especially regarding the interrogations and so on. Wouldn't surprise me if they'd use similar tactics.

Am I right in remembering that the local police dept were allowed on site for eight days without a warrant ? That seems madness to me.

I think so and they found the car key on the eight search. By a guy in trouble over the Steven Avery suit and belonging to the police department who handed over responsibility due to a conflict of interest.

A Primal Nut

daisybelle2008 wrote: »

I have switched back and forth around Avery's involvement, I'm not aware of the actual evidence that someone else committed the crime you mention? That's the problem for the defence also they can't pin it down to less than 9 possible suspects. The brother looking a bit shifty does not put him on their list obviously. The moving around of the body theory has as many if not more holes than Avery actually doing it without moving it around. And Avery's sweat DNA under her hood is hard to explain away. I think that there is enough reasonable doubt not to convict but that doesn't mean Avery didn't do it. I'm not 100% sure he did but the alternative scenarios haven't been been mapped out for me to get behind one.

I agree, the documentary purposely stayed away from presenting alternative scenarios, probably because they didn't want to defame anyone and also they wanted the viewer to make up their own mind. Anyway, there is plenty of stuff online about alternative scenarios but obviously a lack of evidence because the police never followed those trails. There was a couple of clues such as Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych having perfect alibis for each other, both of which were contradicted by the bus driver, and Bobby having scratches on his back the day after the murder.

Here's a very speculative theory:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3y91q8/how_bobby_dassey_could_have_killed_teresa_and_the/

Obviously short on evidence as the police never investigated him as a suspect, so read it for what it is.

Anyway all this misses the main point of the documentary. Even if Avery did it, the filmmakers have said the documentary is not about whether Avery did it or not, it's about exposing the problems in the legal system, and nobody can dispute that those problems exist. The inability of the defense to provide evidence implicating other suspects was one such problem.

fin12 wrote: »

I actually thought ur man was crying at the blue ribbon thing because he felt guilt and remorce of how he treated Brendan, like how he manipulated a 16 year old kid, he seemed to be giving direct honest answers to how he had conducted himself with Brendan and what his plan was all along...

I think he was acting, trying to get across the idea that he was did what he did because he was so hurt by what happened to Tesera Halbach. Which is a crock because he is supposed to be professional and represent his client first and foremost.

secondrowgal

Can I ask that we just stick to discussing this case and not others, at least not without spoilers please? I haven't seen/heard about a number of these others and would like to watch the documentaries from a fresh point of view, thanks!

Itssoeasy

A Primal Nut wrote: »

For the most part but I wonder about some things especially regarding the interrogations and so on. Wouldn't surprise me if they'd use similar tactics.



I think so and they found the car key on the eight search. By a guy in trouble over the Steven Avery suit and belonging to the police department who handed over responsibility due to a conflict of interest.

I mean from the pictures or the key if it was were it was photographed then you wouldn't need to search EIGHT times.

20Cent

Glued to it have three episodes to go.

Biggest thing I think is the key. Definitely planted there. That means that the car was also left there by someone else. Cobyrn (I think) the cop found it days earlier called dispatch to confirm the plate. Seriously dodgy. None of the explanations for the murder make any sense, tied to his bed or in the garage.

Feel so sorry for Brendan his treatment was outrageous.

fin12

I'm just watching another documentary now on Netflix, Deliver us from Evil, anyone else watching it or has watched, its heartbreaking, this is some sick world we live in.....

Ageyev

A Primal Nut wrote: »

For the most part but I wonder about some things especially regarding the interrogations and so on. Wouldn't surprise me if they'd use similar tactics.

Look up the Morris Tribunal which investigated Garda corruption. There have been accusations against the Gardai before and since. Also, pay close attention the next time you hear a crime correspondent's news report: they get tip-offs and info leaked unofficially in a manner not dissimilar to the March 2006 press conference seen in Making a Murderer.

northgirl

fin12 wrote: »

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

Elmo wrote: »

Halbach's brother is an interesting suspect. How many times in this country (and probably in other countries) have we seen Murderers to the fore of searches and in the front of the camera?

Though I don't think it was him.

Couldn't agree more re: Halbach's brother... something definitely amiss. Also Halbach's ex acted very oddly IMO.

I'm midway through episode 10 and finding it and the previous episode the most difficult to watch to date. So emotionally fraught.

gavmcg92

northgirl wrote: »

Couldn't agree more re: Halbach's brother... something definitely amiss. Also Halbach's ex acted very oddly IMO.

I'm midway through episode 10 and finding it and the previous episode the most difficult to watch to date. So emotionally fraught.

My thoughts exactly. Strang seemed to be taking it all personally and seemed extremely emotional about it all, more so than Steven's previous lawyers in that round table meeting. Maybe that's just the kind of person that he is but it was just hard for me to watch.

bridgettedon

northgirl wrote: »

Couldn't agree more re: Halbach's brother... something definitely amiss. Also Halbach's ex acted very oddly IMO.

I'm midway through episode 10 and finding it and the previous episode the most difficult to watch to date. So emotionally fraught.

I actually found myself giving up on episode 7 as I was just unable to continue watching it. I've read this thread and online to see what happened. It raises a lot of emotions inside of you which shows what a great documentary can do. At one point I was certain Steven was innocent however as the evidence was being discussed my certainty began to waiver. It's hard to believe someone you are rooting for may in fact be a killer.

I am still shocked that the police were discussing the case in detail with the media before the trial had even begun. It's so different to here where a blanket is put on the media from discussing criminal cases in such detail (I think). Overall it is a sad, sad case both for the Halbach and the extended Avery family.

Rossi IRL

Halbachs brother seems to have done well for himself.

http://www.packers.com/team/staff/Mike-Halbach/bc32b029-52e7-4e07-b172-f9580ded39f3

I think he and the ex had something to do with it.

edit: looking at the qualifications he got around the time of the case, it makes abit of sense now with how he behaved on camera.

CurryFlavoured

How about the room mate who didn't report anything after she had been missing for 4 days, he wasn't spoken to once as far as I remember. They had their man from minute 1 and that was that, the ex, roommate, Brendan's brother etc. were legit suspects but were never questioned.

northgirl

What was the deal with the recording of Theresa Halbach speaking about if she died she would want her family and friends to know she was happy? Was it a random video recording or was there a specific purpose to it? It was shown at the beginning of the series and again later, perhaps in episode 9 - strange..

Rayne Wooney

I think all of the speculation shows how ridiculous it is that jury could somehow be certain Avery did it

The way I see it there's 3 possibilities in order of likelihood, Steven/one of the family did it and the police made sure Steven went down for it getting rid of the lawsuit against them, an outsider did it and the police moved evidence to implicate Steven, and last and least likely but still not impossible ,one of the police did it.

The only thing I'm sure of is the police did something dodgy, too what extent is unclear. How far would people go to save careers which must have been on the line with a multi million dollar lawsuit incoming? He settled for 400k when the media had him down as a monster I wonder how much he would have gotten of that 36 million if he had been clean and still portrayed as the man who had most of his life robbed from him by incompetent police.

Mightydrumming

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I wonder how much he would have gotten of that 36 million if he had been clean and still portrayed as the man who had most of his life robbed from him by incompetent police.

That just sparked something there...

Wasn't there mention of that local police department obviously not being able to compensate the 36 million and something was said about complications with the insurance?

Stand for correction there!

20Cent

Mightydrumming wrote: »

That just sparked something there...

Wasn't there mention of that local police department obviously not being able to compensate the 36 million and something was said about complications with the insurance?

Stand for correction there!

Think they were covered for mistakes and some misconduct but if the cops acted illegally and maliciously set him up the insurance wouldn't cover it. That's the way I took it anyway.

Ageyev

bridgettedon wrote: »

It's so different to here where a blanket is put on the media from discussing criminal cases in such detail (I think).

That's not always the case. Look at the rancid and salacious writing of people like Paul Williams. Listen to crime or court correspondents say things such as "the suspect is known to Gardai". The media here can be prejudicial too. It's not the same type of circus as shown in Making a Murderer but it's worth asking questions. See also my comment about the Morris Tribunal.

glued

Rossi IRL wrote: »

Halbachs brother seems to have done well for himself.

http://www.packers.com/team/staff/Mike-Halbach/bc32b029-52e7-4e07-b172-f9580ded39f3

I think he and the ex had something to do with it.

edit: looking at the qualifications he got around the time of the case, it makes abit of sense now with how he behaved on camera.

Well I think you're making a bit of a leap there. You have to remember that his sister was murdered. When the police tell you "X murdered your sister" 99% of people will take that at face value" but I think his behaviour was exceptionally odd during the trial. He appears to be an extension of the prosecution.

I know if I was a Halbach I'd like the investigation to be re-opened. None of the evidence provides information as to how, why and who killed Theresa Halbach.

This documentary is an embarrassing indictment of the American Justice system.

Penn

Honestly, one of the people most at fault was Brendan Dassey. His "confession" completely turned the tide, not just in terms of the prosecution using what he said against Avery and leading to more searches of his property, but also by the public, which would have seeped through to the jury no matter how rigorous the jury selection process was.

I know a lot was made of his low IQ and learning difficulties, but f*ck sake...

Mantis Toboggan

Ageyev wrote: »

That's not always the case. Look at the rancid and salacious writing of people like Paul Williams. Listen to crime or court correspondents say things such as "the suspect is known to Gardai". The media here can be prejudicial too. It's not the same type of circus as shown in Making a Murderer but it's worth asking questions. See also my comment about the Morris Tribunal.

There's a case back in the news of Brian Rossiter which contained very shady practice and possible cover up by the Gardai, so have no no doubt that bad policing practice is not just confined to a wisconsin police force.

Mantis Toboggan

Few things jump out at me over this trial.

Firstly, despite having 22 witnesses confirming his alibi for the original rape in 1985 and receipts, this was not good enough for the jury and without any real evidence whatsoever they convicted him wrongfully to 30 years in prison even though some in the police force knew he was innocent. This shows a major vendetta by law enforcement against him.

Secondly, for me the key was almost certainly planted there. How could it not have Theresa's DNA on it? Seems very strange indeed. So, if you have James Lenk, the head of the police force planting evidence, who's to say that they didn't plant more evidence? For me their credibility in non existent on those two points alone. Also why was Colburn calling in the redge on a car that wouldn't be found for two more days?

Phoebas

Just finished watching this. Fascinating stuff.

Three things that strike me:
1. It's a documentary, which is a poor substitute for the actual evidence heard by the jury on the trial that did convict him. I wouldn't rely on a documentary to decide on his guilt or innocence, and from other stuff I've read online, there does seem to be more to this story than we see in the documentary.

2. I'm shocked at the treatment of Brendan by his own lawyer and doubly shocked that the admission evidence gathered by his own defence team (who appeared to be actively working against him) was allowed to be presented into evidence. And it appears that his own admission was the main evidence that convicted him since we didn't have much in the line of physical evidence.

3. From sitting on juries in Ireland, one thing that juries are told by all the lawyers and by the judge is the presumption of innocence and the high standard of 'reasonable doubt'. The fact that they managed to convince all of the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt in a case that was riddled with problems is almost unbelievable. Had the juror that was excused remained on the jury I think this might have has a very different outcome, which shows the precarious position you are in if you are accused of a crime.

audioslave

Google the prosecution evidence that was omitted from the show. It doesn't do Steve any favours, but saying that, its evidence that can be manipulated by a governmental body.

Mantis Toboggan

audioslave wrote: »

Google the prosecution evidence that was omitted from the show. It doesn't do Steve any favours, but saying that, its evidence that can be manipulated by a governmental body.

Googled it and it just mentions that he called her phone? Is there anything else?

audioslave

He called twice using software to hide his number from her and claimed it was his sister who was making the appointment,why??.. apparently she had refused to go to Steves place because he had exposed himself in some form or another. The third call was after the murder allegedly took place and that call had his caller ID showing (defensive strategy?)
He also allegedly purchased handcuffs 1 week prior to the murder, I know...no marks on bedposts.
Brendan Dasseys claim Steve touched him sexually,,why is all this left out? To portray a certain image?

CurryFlavoured

Tyson Fury wrote: »

Googled it and it just mentions that he called her phone? Is there anything else?

He called her on private a few times, requested to the company that she comes to the house and not anybody else, he answered the door to her in a towel which creeped her out etc., a few other things. Avery is probably the leading suspect but the evidence was too ropy to convict him. There could have been massive clues hinting to other suspects being guilty but we'll never know, because they weren't even questioned!

noodler

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

audioslave

With that said, and my own opinion placing me on the fence. The very fact that its being debated and each side having their support in the debate shows that there is a lot of reasonable doubt...and unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the jurors have to be decided beyond any reasonable doubt that he is guilty or innocent?... how then were they not subject to the same uncertainty and how were they unanimous in their decision... Many questions

listermint

audioslave wrote: »

He called twice using software to hide his number from her and claimed it was his sister who was making the appointment,why??.. apparently she had refused to go to Steves place because he had exposed himself in some form or another. The third call was after the murder allegedly took place and that call had his caller ID showing (defensive strategy?)
He also allegedly purchased handcuffs 1 week prior to the murder, I know...no marks on bedposts.
Brendan Dasseys claim Steve touched him sexually,,why is all this left out? To portray a certain image?

CurryFlavoured wrote: »

He called her on private a few times, requested to the company that she comes to the house and not anybody else, he answered the door to her in a towel which creeped her out etc., a few other things. Avery is probably the leading suspect but the evidence was too ropy to convict him. There could have been massive clues hinting to other suspects being guilty but we'll never know, because they weren't even questioned!

There appears to be no real evidence of this bar some google pages. Which to be quite frank i wouldnt trust the internet as far as i could throw it.

Why would such stark 'evidence' be excluded from such a strong prosecution case ?

CurryFlavoured

listermint wrote: »

There appears to be no real evidence of this bar some google pages. Which to be quite frank i wouldnt trust the internet as far as i could throw it.

Why would such stark 'evidence' be excluded from such a strong prosecution case ?

Because the documentary was made to try to prove Avery's innocence and show how ridiculous the case was. It wasn't excluded from the prosecution it was excluded from the documentary, or supposedly was.

Sunflower 27

audioslave wrote: »

He called twice using software to hide his number from her and claimed it was his sister who was making the appointment,why??.. apparently she had refused to go to Steves place because he had exposed himself in some form or another. The third call was after the murder allegedly took place and that call had his caller ID showing (defensive strategy?)
He also allegedly purchased handcuffs 1 week prior to the murder, I know...no marks on bedposts.
Brendan Dasseys claim Steve touched him sexually,,why is all this left out? To portray a certain image?

It was his sisters car that was being photographed.

I think the handcuffs were purchased in a sex shop. I think some were also in his girlfriend's place. Would need to double check that though.

She seemed very normal on the phone message she left him, didn't sound afraid. It was a very normal message. If he had exposed himself to her, why would she go back? Without real proof she said it, those claims are meaningless.

In the absence of Theresa's dna anywhere or on anything in his trailor, it appears she was never in there.

The defence showed the bill from Teresa inside his trailor. I don't get that. Of course it would be there. In fact it goes against the defence, why would he keep that if he murdered her, and keep it in full view?

wardides

CurryFlavoured wrote: »

Because the documentary was made to try to prove Avery's innocence and show how ridiculous the case was. It wasn't excluded from the prosecution it was excluded from the documentary, or supposedly was.

I think the creators have come out & outlined that they chose to leave those specific bits out (phone calls that day, alleged meeting of Teresa with Avery just wearing a towel) because the prosecution apparently didn't place much emphasis on it themselves. The trial went on over 2 weeks so impossible to include everything.

audioslave

I think when a TV crew spends years with one side (prosecution declined) they are bound not to be impartial. And a story of a guilty man wouldn't have created the intrigue that surrounds this series

Green Peter

justfinishd wrote:

Im not ashamed to say that I did some painful things over the holiday period for which Im now paying a price.

The more I think of it, maybe he did murder her and burned the body in the quarry, he could have hidden the car near the quarry as well, the police may have found both and decided they needed to boost the case against him and moved the car and bones to his property, they planted the blood and key, they probally felt they had to make it rock solid to nail him, the judiciary got sucked in and the media helped turn juries.

Mantis Toboggan

wardides wrote: »

I think the creators have come out & outlined that they chose to leave those specific bits out (phone calls that day, alleged meeting of Teresa with Avery just wearing a towel) because the prosecution apparently didn't place much emphasis on it themselves. The trial went on over 2 weeks so impossible to include everything.

The trial went on over 6 weeks, hard to get all that in 3 or 4 hours but the camera crew said all the important information was included. I've no problem with Avery ringing her, she had rang him and left a voice mail.
From the start of the trial Avery was a guilty man trying to be proved innocent as opposed to the other way round.

CurryFlavoured

I've started watching The Jinx, one of the docs linked in an article earlier with a similar kind of idea to MAM. Only 2 eps in but I'm hooked.

Sunflower 27

audioslave wrote: »

I think when a TV crew spends years with one side (prosecution declined) they are bound not to be impartial. And a story of a guilty man wouldn't have created the intrigue that surrounds this series

I think we all saw enough re the defense. We saw a lot of seriously dodgy behaviour. I wonder what we didn't see?

It makes sense the defence didn't want to be in the documentary. They were so dodgy, imagine what may have slipped and be said.

Who was it that said if they wanted to get rid of Avery they could have killed him, they didn't have to plant evidence. Was that the sheriff?