Making a Murderer on Netflix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

One of the disturbing things was that Steven's judge says that his crimes keep escalating - as if he DID rape Penny. WTF?!

He did have a criminal record prior to the false rape allegation. Mostly petty stuff, I think.

I saw an article in People (I know!) where the prosecutor says that the filmmaker left out some key evidence against Steven. Namely that he had specially requested that Halbach be the one to come photograph the car and that when she didn't want to because of a past bad experience she had with him, he had another family member lure her out there.

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-prosecutor-ken-kratz-says-netflix-series-forgot-key-evidence

Watching it now. The film maker is definitely biased toward proving this man's innocence above all else from the get go. Yes, he was wrongly convicted in the rape, however, this is more about a family who "didn't fit in" or from the wrong side of the tracks.

He was angry with his cousin for supposedly spreading rumors about him, so ran her car off the road in the early hours of the morning and pointed a gun at her. According to him, the gun wasn't loaded, but how is she supposed to know that in the moment. His former lawyer talks about his low IQ which supposedly explains whey he would do this. Baloney. Avery does have an intellectual disability, but most people regardless do not brandish guns at people after running them off the road nor do they torture animals. He threw the family cat into a bonfire.

The film maker, his family, and he down play these incidents as him being young and stupid, saying, he always took responsibility for what he did. Admitting you did something when everyone knows you did these things, isn't the same thing as "taking responsibility." Neither of these crimes for which he is definitely guilty, are small things. It points to a disturbed individual who obviously is capable of much more heinous actions.

I don't know if he is guilty or not of the murder, but there was the victim's blood in more than one place as well as the body on the property. That's a lot of evidence for the police to be running around planting. I think the film maker omitting the other key (non-blood) evidence from the documentary shows that they already invested so much into showing a miscarriage of justice (the wrongful rape conviction) that they didn't want to stray from that path.

[Anonymous]

He's just not an engaging, sympathetic character. I'm shocked he got a woman to have so many kids with him. He tortured an animal, he ran his cousin of the road and brandished a gun, he threatened to kill his wife repeatedly. He had what seems like excellent representation.

The nephew, on the other hand, had horrible representation and so many of his constitutional rights violated. He deserves a fair trial.

[Anonymous]

I was so saddened after watching this. I am not sure what to think about Steven. I think some of the evidence does point to him, but I don't see nearly enough to convict him.

Brendan, meanwhile, I just feel for, and for his mom. OMG, I have a 15yo son and can just picture something like that occurring and it just scares me to death. Brendan did not give a "confession", that is pure BS. He should not be in jail.

I was disgusted with the prosecutor and was not at all surprised to find out what a real slime ball he is. I was disgusted with the judges, I was appalled with the first public "defender" that Brendan got, and his investigator. Brendan did not get a fair trial, he did not get an attorney that helped him (the first time) and he is sitting in jail now.

Does Wisconsin need convicts to fill up their prisons to justify funding or something? What is going on here? Is this the US or some thirdworld country?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I find it perplexing that how so many people think they know the truth just by watching a hideously one-sided documentary on Netflix.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

This documentary is so hideously one-sided it's a disgrace. Would have been much more effective and better filmmaking if they adequately presented the state's case. The only people I feel bad for are Brendan Dassey and Theresa Halbach -- the two victims in those case.

[Anonymous]

The documentary certainly seemed skewed and had an agenda.

Even given that I'm still not convinced it was Steven Avery - maybe a brother or cousin. Certainly I wouldn't have found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

But the real crime here is that the police didn't do a full investigation into their suspects so there's a chance the killer is still out there and can kill again.

My guess is that the cousin/BIL did it and framed Avery. The police maybe have planted the key.

That police/sheriff department is just as slimy as the Averys.

[Anonymous]

^ not to mention the DA, defense attorney, judge, etc.

So messed up!!

[Anonymous]

I'm only 4 episodes in. I don't know about Steven, but Brandon was treated just terribly. The so called defense lawyer should be disbarred -- what happened to zealously defending his client? And that investigator who acted just like the police and the crap about "honesty."

If there really was adequate evidence to convict Steven, they wouldn't have had to drag Brandon into it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.