Making a Murderer on Netflix

[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.

And he had a car crusher! That he knew how to use!

[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.

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.

And he had a car crusher! That he knew how to use!

right? and 18 years in prison makes people paranoid but he did have a IQ in the 70s so who knows!

[Anonymous]

Only three or four episodes in, but what we found strange was the fact that the media was let in on grisly details from an open case. I thought they were supposed to withhold those details until a trial had been done or at the very least, they were able to confirm the details, which as we know, were falsely acquired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only three or four episodes in, but what we found strange was the fact that the media was let in on grisly details from an open case. I thought they were supposed to withhold those details until a trial had been done or at the very least, they were able to confirm the details, which as we know, were falsely acquired.

In the episode with the nephew's interrogation, they said that the one detail that had not been disclosed was that she was shot in the head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only three or four episodes in, but what we found strange was the fact that the media was let in on grisly details from an open case. I thought they were supposed to withhold those details until a trial had been done or at the very least, they were able to confirm the details, which as we know, were falsely acquired.

In the episode with the nephew's interrogation, they said that the one detail that had not been disclosed was that she was shot in the head.

But they disclosed that in the press conference after cajoling the nephew to say it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The evidence of Avery's blood from his first arrest....tampered with....and the needle hole in the top! That right there convinced me he was framed. Unbelievable! What possible explanation could they have?


Hmm, I actually thought this part was a bit misleading, even though I think Avery was framed. Unless the lab does things differently than the numerous labs that I work with, the hole is normal. What was NOT normal was the evidence seal on the box being broken.


But didn't they check with whoever processed it (labcorp or whatever) that it wasn't the way they processed vials?

Yes, I know that is what they said but unless the lab has some way of processing samples that is different than the majority of labs, there would be a hole. I still think Avery was framed, I just think some aspects of the show were misleading - the vial, and then also the manner in which they portrayed his earlier incident with the cat.

Yes the thing about the hole was very misleading. I had assumed that the presence of the hole was abnormal. Does put a different light on things.

[Anonymous]

Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1

[Anonymous]

The filmmakers respond to the prosecutor's allegations:
http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murderer-filmmakers-fire-back-at-prosecutor-hes-not-entitled-to-his-own-facts/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1

Wow I wish someone would do a new documentary and focus on all the new information we've heard since this series was released!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1

Having read the article above, I can say without a doubt that the Avery's are not outsiders, they are miscreants and I wish there were a more sympathetic character to highlight the injustices in this case. I read an interview with the filmakers where they stated that they weren't taking sides and this was all about the procedural issues - not sure if it's true but that's their line. Is one of them a former lawyer?

[Anonymous]

I haven't finished watching the series yet, I'm on episode 3 right now, but a very simple question: why didn't the Avery Savage yard have security cameras? It seems like any large business with such vast amount of land should have some sort of security measure on it. It was a land that was accessible from so many angles.

[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.

This is my thought too. Steven did it, but the cops planted further evidence to seal the deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1

Wow I wish someone would do a new documentary and focus on all the new information we've heard since this series was released!

A lot of information the film makers kept out was deliberate. There was non-blood evidence revealed at trial that they did not include.

Basically, they were trying to feature a man wrongly jailed for rape, but the guy's a sleaze and actually murdered someone in the process of making their film. I think he was quite capable of murdering someone well b/f he went to jail for the rape he didn't commit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Steven Avery thinks his brother(s) may have committed the murder-

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-convict-seven-avery-says-his-brothers-may-have-killed-teresa-halbach-2016-1

Wow I wish someone would do a new documentary and focus on all the new information we've heard since this series was released!

A lot of information the film makers kept out was deliberate. There was non-blood evidence revealed at trial that they did not include.

Basically, they were trying to feature a man wrongly jailed for rape, but the guy's a sleaze and actually murdered someone in the process of making their film. I think he was quite capable of murdering someone well b/f he went to jail for the rape he didn't commit.

This just doesn't make sense. He was free, had public opinion on his side, and stood to receive a $36 million payout from the county. He had a girlfriend and was going to get married. What possible motivation did he have to MURDER someone on his own property and then LEAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE THERE knowing the police had it out for him already?

Now. What motivation does Manitowoc have to conveniently pin a murder in their county on him? They regain their reputation, avoid the payout, and get rid of Avery once and for all and as a bonus, don't have to do the legwork of performing a REAL investigation that exhausts all possible suspects and leads.

Sadly for the Halbachs, because they were gung ho on prosecuting Avery and Dassey, they will never know what actually happened to their sister/daughter. It most assuredly was not whatever cockamamie story Brendan copped to in a coerced confession or what Kratz put forth in Avery's trial. What a disservice to themselves and Teresa.

[Anonymous]

I'm most outraged by Brendan's situations. Here's what I want to know- aren't there any protections in place in the legal process for people who are mentally retarded and a juvenile, as Brendon was. He had an IQ of 70 which is borderline Mental Retardation. He was under age 18, yet he was given a life sentence? I'm incredulous that a juvenile who is borderline mentally retarded is put away for life based on a 'confession' he gave without an attorney or parent present. I don't know how those people who put him away sleep at night.

It reminds me of the case of the West Memphis 3 who were teenagers targeted by law enforcement for the murder of 3 little boys in their small Arkansas town. The only reason they were suspects essentially was because they were the misfits in the town, dressed in black, listened to heavy metal music, etc. There was no other evidence tying them to the murders other than people thought they would be the most likely to commit a crime like that. It was essentially a witch hunt. One of the three suspects also had an IQ around 70 and gave a confession that was heavily coerced and that he later rescinded. Two of the teenagers were sentenced to life and one to death. After serving nearly 20 years, they were released by utilizing the Alford Plea. Fascinating story and definite similarities to the Dassey/Avery case.