Making a Murderer (Netflix)


On a similar story to Making a Murderer, has anyone watched Give up Tomorrow on Netflix?
It's about a Philipino/Spanish lad (and his mates) convicted of the rape and murder of two lasses in the Philippines. His trial makes the Steven Avery case look legitimate.
The victims mother a particular piece of work. Obviously it was a tradgedy that she lost two daughters but the way she went on was strange. They found one body but it was never even confirmed that it was one of the sisters.

Well worth a watch.
 
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...

The problem with the US system, is its too much of a "contest". The prosecution are presented with the accused by the police, then its simply their job to win the trial, they aren't really interested in if he is guilty or not, thats not their job to decide, its the investigators and the police. Very much like the defence lawyers aren't interested in if he is guilty or not.
 
The problem with the US system, is its too much of a "contest". The prosecution are presented with the accused by the police, then its simply their job to win the trial, they aren't really interested in if he is guilty or not, thats not their job to decide, its the investigators and the police. Very much like the defence lawyers aren't interested in if he is guilty or not.
Sorry, I really don't understand what you mean there. The job of the investigators and police is to decide if someone is guilty or not? Is that what you mean by this? I would I assume (perhaps naively) their respective roles by their very nature would be to investigate and to police any given situation that occurs. Then to pass along their findings to a court of law, so that the lawyers can argue, and as a result the jury decide guilt or innocence.

Never realised that the job of the investigators and police was to decide if someone was guilty or not...?
 
Sorry, I really don't understand what you mean there. The job of the investigators and police is to decide if someone is guilty or not? Is that what you mean by this? I would I assume (perhaps naively) their respective roles by their very nature would be to investigate and to police any given situation that occurs. Then to pass along their findings to a court of law, so that the lawyers can argue, and as a result the jury decide guilt or innocence.

Never realised that the job of the investigators and police was to decide if someone was guilty or not...?

:confused: Of course it is, they gather the evidence, then the prosecutor has to win the case in court.....
 
That was a cracking watch. I came into it not knowing a single thing about the case so found it very gripping. It was infuriating observing some of the 'tactics' employed by the police. I was hoping there'd be more of a definite conclusion. I think everyone feels that there are things that are left unexplained at the end. There's so much to discuss.

It was obviously aimed at making the viewer want to believe Avery is being framed, so I imagine we aren't seeing everything so can't make a totally accurate conclusion over the events. Whilst watching it I thought there was no way they could find him guilty, so was quite shocked when the verdict came back. Having thought it all over afterwards, I'm not 100% convinced Avery (or Dassey) are definitely not guilty - but from the evidence we were shown there should be no way that they could be considered guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I think it's extremely unlikely the events panned out as suggested by the prosecutor (where's the blood in the bedroom/garage? Where's Brendan's DNA at said places? Why would they put her in the car only to ultimately burn her outside the trailer?).

It's obvious that the evidence was tampered with. I believe the key and bullet were 100% placed there. I'm not totally convinced by the blood but it looks very dodgy given the vial was tampered with. And I think it looks very likely that Colburn found the car before it discovered by the search group. Whether it was already on Avery's land is not obvious, but would go a long way to helping understand what actually happened. I wish Colburn was grilled more on this topic.

I wonder how far the police were willing to go. Would they have coordinated with a murderer just to frame Avery? Would they have dumped the bones outside Avery's trailer? I think that's a little too far. But who knows?

As has been mentioned, certain people look shady at times. Her voicemail account was hacked after she went missing and it seems certain messages were deleted. This didn't seem to get much attention from the defence lawyers from what we saw. People's alibis didn't sound convincing (ex-boyfriend not knowing what time of day he last saw her. Bobby and Scott seemingly lying about the times they saw Steven and Teresa etc.). I think if it was not Avery, it would most likely be someone living on the Avery land, and therefore had the best opportunity to place the bones without looking too suspicious (the Scott & Bobby theory). That theory about the German man would explain things too, but I'm not convinced that it's true....

I do hope we get some clarity at some point. I can't stop thinking about it at the moment!
 
:confused: Of course it is, they gather the evidence, then the prosecutor has to win the case in court.....

Surely that should be the end of their role? Not talking about this case specifically - but as a police officer or investigator (which I assume to be an impartial and unbiased role) you should gather evidence and pass this along? Regardless of whether or not they think a person is guilty or not?

So what you are saying is the police at the very earliest stages decide rightly or wrongly if someone is guilty or innocent based solely and exclusively on what they find? Na, sorry, doesn't pass with me that :confused:
 
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.
Well to be fair by the time he may be released he will have spent at least ten years inside to add to the previous eighteen. Therefore he'll either of spent a total of twenty eight years inside for nowt or for the one murder he did do. Either way he'd have done his time, wouldn't exactly be getting off Scot free
 
Well to be fair by the time he may be released he will have spent at least ten years inside to add to the previous eighteen. Therefore he'll either of spent a total of twenty eight years inside for nowt or for the one murder he did do. Either way he'd have done his time, wouldn't exactly be getting off Scot free

Aye, I wasn't saying he'd done either just there seems to be speculation over how much the Documentary has made known.
 
Finished last night, gripping viewing and some fascinating reading even in this thread.

Couple of things for me, for the prosecution's case to be correct how can someone be considered to have such a clever criminal mind that they can clean two crime scenes completely of all DNA of a victim despite raping them, slitting their throat and shooting them 11 times yet be considered so stupid they'd leave the victims car on the property with their own blood in when they have perfect car crushing equipment right there.

For me also after what happened to Avery in the 80s I really think if he was guilty he would confess, especially if Brendan had no part in it so he doesn't have to go through what he did.

And what was with that investigator crying over the ribbon in court, very odd behaviour
 
Finished last night, gripping viewing and some fascinating reading even in this thread.

Couple of things for me, for the prosecution's case to be correct how can someone be considered to have such a clever criminal mind that they can clean two crime scenes completely of all DNA of a victim despite raping them, slitting their throat and shooting them 11 times yet be considered so stupid they'd leave the victims car on the property with their own blood in when they have perfect car crushing equipment right there.

For me also after what happened to Avery in the 80s I really think if he was guilty he would confess, especially if Brendan had no part in it so he doesn't have to go through what he did.

And what was with that investigator crying over the ribbon in court, very odd behaviour

Nothing more weird that the holbecks sat in court seeing images of teresa's bones etc and just sat there like they're watching a film.
Oh and guessig your ex's password to her mobile answer phone. Wtf?!!
 
Finished last night, gripping viewing and some fascinating reading even in this thread.

Couple of things for me, for the prosecution's case to be correct how can someone be considered to have such a clever criminal mind that they can clean two crime scenes completely of all DNA of a victim despite raping them, slitting their throat and shooting them 11 times yet be considered so stupid they'd leave the victims car on the property with their own blood in when they have perfect car crushing equipment right there.

For me also after what happened to Avery in the 80s I really think if he was guilty he would confess, especially if Brendan had no part in it so he doesn't have to go through what he did.

And what was with that investigator crying over the ribbon in court, very odd behaviour

The fact that, even after 8 years of being in jail and having requests for appeal turned down, he's still pouring over all the documents of his trial determined to prove his innocence is quite telling to me. I think if he'd really done it he'd have given up the ghost by now and come clean. Particularly, as you say, for Brendan's sake.
 
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

f***ing hell :eek:

The Hurricane is on Sky Movies at the minute too if you want to see what those articles are describing.
 
I find it hard to believe that the makers of the programme couldn't find some time within ten episodes to cover some of the things they appear to have deliberately not shown that would've tipped the viewer's perceptions away from Avery's innocence.
 
I find it hard to believe that the makers of the programme couldn't find some time within ten episodes to cover some of the things they appear to have deliberately not shown that would've tipped the viewer's perceptions away from Avery's innocence.
Lazy bastards, same as you not putting them in your post
 

Back
Top