Making a Murderer (Netflix)


Finished this last night and it is sickening. Poor bastards. Part of me was still thinking that Avery was guilty regardless of all the obvious corruption, however the bloke just seems innocent to me. He's never done or said anything suspicious throughout the whole thing, and there is no way he could have hid all the other evidence, with all due respect, he doesn't seem clever enough. Yet he seems clever enough not to leave the car just lying around on his property after burning the body. It doesn't add up. It's shocking

The hardest part to come to terms with is that the authorities could, and did, do this. We are all nothing in reality, we don't have the freedom and liberty we are told we have.

I'm questioning everything they presented. I don't even think she was burned there. I didnbbelieve anything they said after the first couple of episodes.

Does anyone known if any sort of vigilante groups have caught up with Lenk, Coburn or the prosecutor? If I lived within driving distance id find it hard not to catch up with them on the street and give them hell

That's not strictly true....

Avery specifically asked for the same girl to come out as before when making the appointment and gave his sisters name rather than his. Now that could just be because he thought she done a good job previously or that they always sold a car when she took the photo but you could read more into it. He also called her three or four times the day she disappeared. Twice witholding his number using *67. Why would he do that? It would certainly fit in with claims that he had pestered her and that she was uneasy about going to see him. Could also be a reason for giving his sister's name when making the appointment although the car was his sisters so it's also possible that he thought it best to use her name.

I still don't see how he could have killed her and there certainly isn't conclusive evidence that it happened the way the prosecution say it did!

I'm no legal expert but wouldn't both cases have been thrown out of court at one of the first hurdles in this country???

You'd hope the CPS would laugh at the police if they came to them with the sort of evidence they had on Avery!
 
I'm no legal expert but wouldn't both cases have been thrown out of court at one of the first hurdles in this country???

Aye, that's if it even made it to court.

I went to pick the Mrs up yesterday from work(magistrates court) and they were all discussing it, not one said it should have lasted more than 2 minutes in a court room. Even the policemen there were pissing themselves at how fucked up the whole thing was..
 
None of the convictions made any sense when you look at them together. Dassey was found guilty of assisting crimes Avery wasn't found guilty of. Didn't understand that mesel like.
 
At the end of it all I had to conclude that I thought Dassey was innocent. Avery though,I just couldn't make up my mind about him, I think hes probably guilty, that's my gut feeling, but if I was in that jury, I couldn't give a guilty verdict based on evidence and testimony that went through that courtroom.
 
2 of the jurers were relatives of Manitowoc law enforcement, but the prosecution couldn't get them removed from the jury as they had already used their quota of jury substitutions (or whatever it's called). At the start of deliberations the jury hung at 7 not guilty, 3 guilty and 2 undecided. By the end of deliberations they delivered a guilty verdict. 2 of the jury have since come forward to say that they feared repercussions from the sheriffs department if they had maintained their not-guilty beliefs.
 
Yeah, it actually boils down to the jury's verdict more than anything else. How on earth both juries came to the decisions that they did is unbelievable.

2 of the jurers were relatives of Manitowoc law enforcement, but the prosecution couldn't get them removed from the jury as they had already used their quota of jury substitutions (or whatever it's called). At the start of deliberations the jury hung at 7 not guilty, 3 guilty and 2 undecided. By the end of deliberations they delivered a guilty verdict. 2 of the jury have since come forward to say that they feared repercussions from the sheriffs department if they had maintained their not-guilty beliefs.

I understand that they were doing something against their will, but when it's someone's life, have they broken any laws, I wonder? Saying a man is guilty when they don't actually believe he is.
 
Yeah, it actually boils down to the jury's verdict more than anything else. How on earth both juries came to the decisions that they did is unbelievable.



I understand that they were doing something against their will, but when it's someone's life, have they broken any laws, I wonder? Saying a man is guilty when they don't actually believe he is.
You can fully understand how they might be fearful of reprisal from that shonky sheriff's department though. The judge should have thrown it out before it got going, but they're all as bent as each other. Or really thick.
 
You can fully understand how they might be fearful of reprisal from that shonky sheriff's department though. The judge should have thrown it out before it got going, but they're all as bent as each other. Or really thick.

Oh, I can fully understand it. It's an awful situation to be in, I would imagine.
 
Watched it all in the last couple of days. Even with the stuff that was left out like "the shackles" which Avery bought (from somewhere similar to ann summers which a child could break out of) added to the evidence. There just isn't enough there to convict. No DNA of hers was found..but other DNA was found, so Avery must have used a microscope and only cleaned the DNA of the deceased.

I found the show shocking and whilst watching it with the Mrs, I kept saying that they may not be as innocent as Netlfix are making out.

I do not think that there is any doubt that the cops were lying and fabricated a number of items of evidence. Off the back of the show, I have spent a bit of time reading lots of sites on internet about it.

I dont know how reliable they are but one of them stated evidence that was presented at the trials that wasnt shown on the Netflix show.

The main one was that Brendan said that he was with Steven when they hid the Rav4 and that Steven said he would remove a battery connector to stop the car being stolen. Stevens DNA was found under the bonnet of the Rav4. Was this true or was it planted?

Another site stated that Stevens previous crimes included dousing a live cat in petrol and throwing it on a bonfire and threatening a girlfriend with a gun.
A number of sites stated that they did not think that Steven and Brendan were innocent of the crimes but they shouldnt have been found guilty with the evidence that was presented at the trials. Some think the police may have planted evidence to try and ensure the convictions.

My own thoughts are that the Avery family is the kind of family that most towns or villages have. They may cause issues with neighbours, break a few laws and generally not be popular. However this does not mean they deserve what they have been through (twice). I felt heartbroken for Stevens mums and dads and I also feel for the victims family too.

Avery's DNA was found on a swab taken from the hood of Halbach's car. The swab was taken five months after Avery was charged and after Fassbender and Wiegert interviewed Dassey when they themselves brought up the idea that Avery did something to the hood of the vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Don't want to read the whole thread in case there are spoilers but is each show a different story?

Can't imagine being able to make 10 hours out of the first story (which wasn't even a murder!)
 
Don't want to read the whole thread in case there are spoilers but is each show a different story?

Can't imagine being able to make 10 hours out of the first story (which wasn't even a murder!)
They can and they did mate. The story takes an alarming turn rather quickly. ;)
 
Don't want to read the whole thread in case there are spoilers but is each show a different story?

Can't imagine being able to make 10 hours out of the first story (which wasn't even a murder!)

Just watch it and enjoy marra. I would keep off the thread till you've finished though as it's full of spoilers
 
anyone have any ideas why he didnt testify? was he advised not to?

that could have swayed the fence sitters.

if that were me, i would be chomping at the bit to get on the stand.
 
He was below average intelligence and the prosecution would have eaten him alive.

would the defense attorneys not have trained him for the questioning? i just think that to the layman, not defending himself was almost admitting guilt, and the defense attorneys should have known how it was going to come across and advised him to get up. i think his character would have come across well, because up to that point he had been described over and over in the media and in the court room as 'an evil rapist and killer'... as soon as he starts to talk the jury would have realised that he wasnt actually fitting into the character he had been described as.

i agree that the prosecution would have given him hell with their twisty questions, but i'm sure the defense could have prompted him correctly and lead their questioning correctly

i dont know what to believe anymore. i hate this planet sometimes
 
would the defense attorneys not have trained him for the questioning? i just think that to the layman, not defending himself was almost admitting guilt, and the defense attorneys should have known how it was going to come across and advised him to get up. i think his character would have come across well, because up to that point he had been described over and over in the media and in the court room as 'an evil rapist and killer'... as soon as he starts to talk the jury would have realised that he wasnt actually fitting into the character he had been described as.

i agree that the prosecution would have given him hell with their twisty questions, but i'm sure the defense could have prompted him correctly and lead their questioning correctly

i dont know what to believe anymore. i hate this planet sometimes

The defence had nothing to gain from putting him on the stand except for giving him his say. I agree he might have came across quite well but I also think it could have went horribly wrong and the prosecution could have gave him a right grilling. As for training him, I just don't think he was capable and could have put up with that kind of pressure.

You've also got to bare in mind his defence team would have expected half the evidence against him, like the blood and key, to be thrown out..... So it's easy now saying he should have went on the stand but the truth is, it really doesn't look like he should have even been up there in the first place.
 

Back
Top