Making a Murderer (Netflix)


Brendan, I just can't get my head round what they've done to him - that utter skinny little ginger b@st@rd lawyer .
What really should happen is that both should have a retrial in another part of the states with a jury that have no connection to that area whatsoever.
.

Given that, apparently, there has been some key bits of evidence left out of the documentary can you get a fair trial either way now though? It's so widely known now and the case/show has become a part of Pop Culture. If the show has left bits out to make him look totally innocent, that's influenced people's opinions just as much as the county's tactics did.
 
http://www.tvguide.com/news/making-...o-killed-teresa-halbach-alternative-theories/

Canny read. The one thing for me is, if Avery didn't do it, then who did? It was ruled that the defence could not point the finger at someone else or present their own theory. I do believe the police planted evidence and I also believe the murder happened on the Avery property. My theory is an accident involving a shooting by Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych. The court footage of these two is clear attempt to provide each other with an alibi. I think they thought Brendan wouldn't go down leaving Avery to shoulder the blame. The serial killer theory is too far fetched, but it is America.
 
Only up to episode 4 and don't want to read too much into this thread yet. You couldn't make this up if you tried to! Sitting fuming here at my tele :mad::lol:

The 'confession' man, ha'way.

Brendan: "They said that my statements were inconsistent, what does inconsistent mean?"

Mother: "I don't know exactly"
 
Given that, apparently, there has been some key bits of evidence left out of the documentary can you get a fair trial either way now though? It's so widely known now and the case/show has become a part of Pop Culture. If the show has left bits out to make him look totally innocent, that's influenced people's opinions just as much as the county's tactics did.

Theres facts that were highlighted aswell in the documentary which make the convictipn incorrect. Theres nothing that pins brendan to the incident other than his confession which is a load of dogshit.

The lack of proper evidence against avery (facts) make it wholly impossible to be anywhete close to certain he done it or was involved in any murder. Therefore a retrial would be a fair process to go through especially with some of the things found since documentary. Plus its also a high profile case and lawyers / families can cash in on this big style.
 
Ruben ''the hurricane'' carter was a major case at the time - thankfully he got justice in the end but I fear the Avery's wont or at least for a good few years to come.
Didn't Ruben admit he was guilty lately?? Or have I imagined that??

Fuckin quality tune by Dylan either way...
I just watched 'The Hurricane' movie with Denzel Washington and then decided to read up on the story online. Somehow I found this website and it certainly does make you wonder if he was innocent as the movie isn't exactly fact.

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/

Just looking at various things on that page seems to tell a completely different story than the movie did!

If you can't be arsed clicking the numerous links then this is a canny read.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larr...derer-who-fooled-hollywood-n1828360/page/full
 
I just watched 'The Hurricane' movie with Denzel Washington and then decided to read up on the story online. Somehow I found this website and it certainly does make you wonder if he was innocent as the movie isn't exactly fact.

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/

Just looking at various things on that page seems to tell a completely different story than the movie did!

If you can't be arsed clicking the numerous links then this is a canny read.

http://townhall.com/columnists/larr...derer-who-fooled-hollywood-n1828360/page/full

I have saved them links ---cheers
 
I've just finished watching it, and like most, I found it compelling, sickening and infuriating.
On the surface it it seems a clear cut stitch up job, which of course was the film-makers intentions, and it does seem incredibly likely that the police did indeed plant evidence.
That being said, that still doesn't mean that Avery didn't do it. What blurs the lines somewhat is the information that the TV show left out.
This is directly from pajiba.com, apologies if SEB, I've not been through every page on this thread.

— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

— The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.

— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence.

There’s additional info in there, as well, like evidence that Halbach’s Palm Pilot and camera were found in Avery’s burn barrel, and that Brendan Dassey told police he’d been molested by Avery in the past. It’s all evidence that’s fairly damning against Avery, something filmmakers might not have been inclined to use given that they’d spent 10-plus years imbedded with both the subject himself and with his extended family. Then again, it’s all evidence that could have been fabricated or manipulated by the evil Manitowoc Country Sherriff’s department, should you believe there’s something going on there.

There's more here in The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...ery-the-netflic-show-missed-out-a6807961.html

Obviously the filmmakers left this out for good reason, they wouldn't want to spend 10 years documenting a case only to discover "shit, he really did do it" as that would ruin their documentary somewhat, but the info definitely adds doubt to the claim he's innocent.
Equally interesting is a recent interview with Jodi, Avery's ex girlfriend: this is from Vulture.com

Jodi Stachowski, the former fiancée of Steven Avery who appeared in Making a Murderer as one of Avery's biggest supporters, is speaking out against Avery for the first time. In a damning new interview on Nancy Grace, which aired Wednesday night, Stachowski claims Avery is guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach: "[I want people to know] the truth," she says. "What a monster he is. He's not innocent." She claims Avery physically abused her for the majority of their two-year relationship and once threatened to kill her and her family. Stachowski says she has always believed Avery killed Halbach and lied on Making a Murderer out of fear Avery would "make me pay."

At the time Avery allegedly committed the murder, Stachowski was in prison for a DUI, and their conversations on the day of the murder were explored as a potential alibi for him. Now she says that, despite how their relationship looked on the show, she never loved him. "I ate two boxes of rat poison just so I could go the hospital ... and get away from him, and ask them to get the police to help me," she says, noting his history of his domestic abuse against her, which Nancy Grace producer Natisha Lance says is proven in police records. Stachowski says that phone records should show that Avery threatened her from jail and told her to "make him look good," and that she's unsure if the show's directors were aware of this. She tells Nancy Grace that, when the directors contacted her for a follow-up interview last year, she declined and asked to be removed from the series entirely,telling them her previous statements were "all lies." She says she did not tell authorities of her belief that Avery was guilty until she moved out of Manitowoc county, and that prosecutors had planned to use her to testify against Avery.

I think there was definitely wrong doing by the police, but as to Avery's innocence, I'm unsure.
Hopefully more evidence will come to light in the upcoming second series.......

Creator Laura Ricciardi was quoted saying she had no interest in wether Steven Avery was guilty or not when filming the series. It looks one sided because prosecution rejected the chance to be involved.
Here is the link. http://time.com/4168717/making-a-murderer-ken-kratz/
 
I mean, one thing we can all surely agree on

James Lenk, is there a more obvious corrupt cop in the history on time.
 
Creator Laura Ricciardi was quoted saying she had no interest in wether Steven Avery was guilty or not when filming the series. It looks one sided because prosecution rejected the chance to be involved.
Here is the link. http://time.com/4168717/making-a-murderer-ken-kratz/

Hmmm. Just like a lot of the evidence presented in the case I find that claim quite hard to believe. No matter what she says, The documentary is clearly and obviously put together to show how badly done too Steven Avery was by the Sheriffs department, (a task made so much easier by them all coming across as highly untrustworthy individuals.).
One reason she might say this is that just like the news conferences carried out before the trials took place, this series in general could make it incredibly difficult for a fair and unbiased retrial to take place in the future as everyone who has watched it will have a pre-conceived opinion about what happened.
 
Just finished watching it, I'd love to see some of them corrupt f***as get their comeuppance.
Whether Steve & Brendan are guilty or not the least they deserve is a fair trial!
 
Obviously the filmmakers left this out for good reason, they wouldn't want to spend 10 years documenting a case only to discover "shit, he really did do it" as that would ruin their documentary somewhat, but the info definitely adds doubt to the claim he's innocent.

disagree with that - a confession at the end would have been a mind blowing twist
 
Creator Laura Ricciardi was quoted saying she had no interest in wether Steven Avery was guilty or not when filming the series. It looks one sided because prosecution rejected the chance to be involved.
Here is the link. http://time.com/4168717/making-a-murderer-ken-kratz/

sounds like Laura Ricciardi will say anything to help promote her TV series? - Whether we all believe her is a different matter.

Something doesn’t add up with the actual filmmakers either… current/modern day journalism seems to have been overtaken by sensationalism. Or am I being to cynical here?
One of the filmmakers Laura Ricciardi was a former lawyer? Graduated from NYC Law School’s JD Program in 1996? (although around that time that college/school was undergoing major building redevelopment work, so must just be a coincidence) …. She then never pursued a career in law but went back to college to do art/film where she met her current partner (the co-producer of this TV series) – both had never previously made any docus (one had previously worked as electrician on various film sets) … both go to Wisconsin to spend ten years documenting this Avery case? … so I then find it interesting to see what this JD program/course/degree actually gets you…. From all the states in the USA there is only one state where you can practice law without any entrance exam… Wisconsin. Wow, must just be another coincidence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_Doctor

IMO their docu is biased in favour of their subject – Avery. And while I do believe the police did stitch him up on some levels, that has become the focus in the world of guilty or not guilty where as soon as the slightest doubt is created then that becomes the main focus and not if he was guilty, or the poor relatives of the victims.

Put it this way, in the USA some fancy lawyer created enough doubt to tell the world that OJ Simpson was not guilty, so therefore he was innocent. Correct verdict right?
 
Cheers cat, done the whole lot in a oner, suggested it to others now they're texting me for info before they've seen the rest! Cracking docu, I watched the bob durst one but didn't get as angry!
 
Given that, apparently, there has been some key bits of evidence left out of the documentary can you get a fair trial either way now though? It's so widely known now and the case/show has become a part of Pop Culture. If the show has left bits out to make him look totally innocent, that's influenced people's opinions just as much as the county's tactics did.

Good. Should be assumed innocent. Proved guilty.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/433jdy/the_murder_in_transcript_form/
 
Last edited:
disagree with that - a confession at the end would have been a mind blowing twist
OK, maybe "ruin" was the wrong word, but had that happened, (and yes it would have been a sensational twist), the rest of the doc would have been re-edited to make it more of a did he/ didn't he and would have included some of the evidence not shown. But that's not the ending or conclusion this doc was striving for.
 
Nailed through it today.

Utterly frustrating and the amount of evidence which wasn't considered as opposed to the wooly evidence that was is absolutely mind blowing. The bloke was toast given the DA's proclamations before the thing even kicked off.

At least somebody got their comeuppance which was pleasing as he more than anyone had me wanting to put my foot through the television.
The way they (well, he) went on live TV and described in gory detail how TH was beaten, raped, cut, strangled, and finally shot in the head - was quite frankly a disgrace. Nothing like putting certain images into peoples minds before a trial...

Also I think they referenced this, but the way they dress him up in those prison clothes man... laughable.

I genuinely only laughed once in this whole series and it was again - surprise surprise - that twat of a DA I believe in the opening statements to the trial? He said something along the lines of:

"we are here to prove the rape, mutilation and murder of a little girl, no sorry, 25 year old woman..."

That was clearly portrayed as a slip of the tongue by the DA, but what a coincidence that he attempts to shock the jury like this in his opening statement. One of the most obvious and sickening attempts at psychological manipulation that you could ever witness. Slimy twat.

Probably a tactic used by prosecution and defense in most murder charges in the US unfortunately...
 

Back
Top