Making a Murderer on Netflix

[Anonymous]

Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I think the jury might have been swayed to find not guilty had he testified. I think not doing so put questions in their mind of his innocence. Not saying that's right or fair or just but sadly, a jury only has to be made up of your peers, not smart, independent critical thinkers who value due process and constitutional rights and know what "reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of evidence" mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

No. She wasn't a witness to anything so she can't say or sure if he did it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

No. She wasn't a witness to anything so she can't say or sure if he did it or not.

She called him at home & had phone bill to prove that a 5-10 minute conversation took place when Brendan was suppose to be committing the crime. She could also testify that contrary to what the police testified, she had wanted to be in the room with her minor son during questioning.

[Anonymous]

I am about 4-5 episodes in. I am horrified by every aspect. Even if the clips shown of Brendan's "confession" paint a different picture from what occurred during his interrogation (an assertion I've read in some articles but find hard to believe), as a lawyer, I cannot get over my absolute disgust with his lawyer. Disgust doesn't begin to capture my feelings. Knowing the outcome, I don't know if I can stomach watching the rest. But I will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am about 4-5 episodes in. I am horrified by every aspect. Even if the clips shown of Brendan's "confession" paint a different picture from what occurred during his interrogation (an assertion I've read in some articles but find hard to believe), as a lawyer, I cannot get over my absolute disgust with his lawyer. Disgust doesn't begin to capture my feelings. Knowing the outcome, I don't know if I can stomach watching the rest. But I will.

Just wait until you see the last episode. I can't think of enough synonyms for horrifying to describe his "representation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

I don't think they saw it. The prosecution showed part of it, but for reasons I do not understand, the defense did not show the parts we saw where clearly he was be fed what to say, where they told him he'd be fine if he told them what they wanted to hear. Does anybody know why they didn't show that to the jury? ???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here. 11:28 you raise good points but I think the reality is that Avery wasn't all that bright and he could have said some stupid things that would be used against him. That was clearly what happened with Brendan.

I'm 11:28. Poor Brendan. I thought the jury saw the tape of his "confession" how in the world could they not see him being spoon fed/force fed what to say. It may have been the jury only saw the final cut and his incompetent lawyer didn't show the rest. Did his mother testify at his trial?

I don't think they saw it. The prosecution showed part of it, but for reasons I do not understand, the defense did not show the parts we saw where clearly he was be fed what to say, where they told him he'd be fine if he told them what they wanted to hear. Does anybody know why they didn't show that to the jury? ???

Because his lawyer was clearly an incompetent ass?

My DH told me I can't watch after the kids go to bed because I yell at the TV too much.

[Anonymous]

I thought Brendan's second lawyer seemed to be on Brendan's side though, so I was so shocked that he didn't show the footage.

[Anonymous]

Anyone notice Colburn taking Brendan back into the courtroom for the verdict?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone notice Colburn taking Brendan back into the courtroom for the verdict?

Omg, AND shut the door on his car!

[Anonymous]

Steven's ex fiancée says he is a guilty monster !

http://dlisted.com/2016/01/14/making-a-murderers-steven-avery-is-a-guilty-monster-so-says-his-ex-fiancee/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if he really did do it but then the cops planted evidence because they didn't have enough. But I'm only on episode 6. The one thing I found hilariously implausible was when the one cop said he wasn't sure the DNA evidence from the first conviction was legit. I mean, doesn't anyone think anyone associated with the Averys would have the ability to plant fake DNA evidence?

I have a friend who wrote a paper about this in law school. I guess a lot of evidence not shown here points to Avery and many people believe the cops planted evidence to seal the deal.

I could see that. It's kind of the only thing that makes sense.

How does that make sense at all? If there was enough evidence, the police wouldn't have to plant more. And planting evidence is grossly illegal and unethical in any case.

Well, of course none of us knows. And of course it's entirely possible that the documentary is not a fair representation of the evidence. But, as a viewer, I think it does make sense that he did it. I didn't say there was "enough evidence". I think it's very possible that he did it, and there wasn't enough evidence, and the cops wanted it to be a slam dunk conviction so they (or one of them) planted the key and/or the blood. So much of what the defense lawyers laid out points to planting evidence. Why would cops plant evidence if they really thought the guy was guilty? Because they wanted the conviction. Lots of guilty people aren't convicted.

Oh, and of course planting evidence is illegal/unethical. Did you think I was saying something to the contrary? That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Sure. So, for me and my DH, the show is as much about awareness of unethical & unfair law enforcement and prosecution practices as it is about the potential exoneration of a potentially innocent man. That's what we're angry about, and what makes us want to throw our shoes at the TV: people who are supposed to uphold justice getting away with these things.

Yeah, of course. I don't think it happens often, but I'm sure it happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if he really did do it but then the cops planted evidence because they didn't have enough. But I'm only on episode 6. The one thing I found hilariously implausible was when the one cop said he wasn't sure the DNA evidence from the first conviction was legit. I mean, doesn't anyone think anyone associated with the Averys would have the ability to plant fake DNA evidence?

I have a friend who wrote a paper about this in law school. I guess a lot of evidence not shown here points to Avery and many people believe the cops planted evidence to seal the deal.

I could see that. It's kind of the only thing that makes sense.

How does that make sense at all? If there was enough evidence, the police wouldn't have to plant more. And planting evidence is grossly illegal and unethical in any case.

Well, of course none of us knows. And of course it's entirely possible that the documentary is not a fair representation of the evidence. But, as a viewer, I think it does make sense that he did it. I didn't say there was "enough evidence". I think it's very possible that he did it, and there wasn't enough evidence, and the cops wanted it to be a slam dunk conviction so they (or one of them) planted the key and/or the blood. So much of what the defense lawyers laid out points to planting evidence. Why would cops plant evidence if they really thought the guy was guilty? Because they wanted the conviction. Lots of guilty people aren't convicted.

And why did the cops so desperately want to convict Avery?? Because he was suing them! And insurance wasn't going to cover it so they were going to have to pay out of their own pockets. By Avery being convicted of a crime, they hit the jackpot with getting out of the $36 million lawsuit against them. There is a tremendous amount of motive for the cops to plant evidence. I'm not totally convinced they didn't have something to do with the murder either. Why couldn't they have seen Theresa driving off the Avery property, find a reason to pull her over, shoot her and then plant evidence? It's a bit hard to believe, but possible.

And for the life of me I cannot figure out why if Avery did do the murder he would park Theresa's car on his own property? He cannot possibly be that stupid.

Pretty sure you're wrong about this point. I don't think the cops personally would have to pay out the lawsuit. That's not how it works. They are sued in their capacity as officers, not personally. So the police department would have to pay, and it's possible a cop might lose his job, but it's not like the cops have to pay the judgment.
THat's not to say that the lawsuit wasn't a motivating factor anyway -- just the animosity it would create and the bad press alone might be enough motive to plant evidence. But it's not like they wanted him behind bars because otherwise the officers would have to come up with a million dollars.