Making a Murderer (Netflix)


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.
 
Excellent series and very thought provoking indeed

Out of interest what other crimes did Steven committ?

The judge in sending him dowm talked about his crimes getting worse and worse as he got older
Burglaries I think. And he either killed or seriously injured a cat when he was younger - making it difficult for me to sympathise too much!! But no he didn't have a fair trial.

There are tons of cases in America where people are unjustly found guilty - I don't think that will change anytime soon.
 
They gave out the camera to the woman who found the rav 4(and somehow found it so quick even though the area had thousands of cars.
The covering up the car with branches etc seems to me what a kid/young adult would do to hide something not what a man with a car crusher would do.
 
Watched this in 2 nights, I was aware that this type of thing went on but to have it so well documented and so many mistakes by the prosecution it just seemed insane.
 
Will read through the thread to see what others have said, but some of my observations and some ive come across below.

We don't know if the documentary makers have shown the whole thing but on the basis of what we saw, its unreal to think that both juries came back with convictions and in the case of Steve Avery, how can he be found guilty of murder and not mutilation of a corpse, when said corpse was mutilated, when Special Prosecutor Kratz stated in his closing statement that Avery was the sole perpetrator in the murder?

Secondly, on the basis of concluding Steve Avery was the sole perpetrator, how can one prosecute Brendan Dassey, theres no consistency there. Whilst there is the 'confession', there is ample evidence to suggest that this was coerced and as mentioned in the doc, a confession is not a statement of truth, officers seek confessions during interrogations, not the truth.

The Brendan Dassey issue is deeply troubling because he was failed by the system. His appointed attorney had his own agenda and this is proven in the manner in which he used his special investigator to get a guilty plea from brendan and how he had close ties, via email and telephone, to those on the prosecution, also adding that his attorney was perjured himself at the 2013/4 hearings. And again, from what we saw, its pretty unbelievable to think Brendan Dassy didn't get a retrial, when all that tied him to the murder was the 'coerced' confession, zero DNA evidence and the manner in which it was found that his defence failed him.

I'm jumping from issue to issue here, but another is the fact that the idea that Steve Avery is claiming he is set up by the police is repugnant, it is 'unthinkable' according to the prosecution, but its not to elaborate when you think officers involved in the murder case were directly involved in a case against the department, Averys first false imprisonment charge, surely thats enough to warrant at least the recognition that certain individuals benefited by removing Avery from the equation.

This guy 'guessing' Teresas voicemail password, when it was proven that voicemails were deleting, as individuals noted the inbox was full, but later one' after the 'time of her disappearance', voicemails were able to be received.

Logon or register to see this image


The only blood found being Averys in the SUV. After apparently beating, raping, stabbing and slitting Teresa throat in the bedroom, there was no blood in the bedroom, on the sheets, on the bed, on the walls, on the ceiling, on clothing. No blood trail from the house to the garage, no blood found in the garage. Would have been one hell of an effort to sanitise that shit tip, certainly a tough task for idiots like Avery and brendan.

Officers from Witomoc county being present at the 'crime scene' and finding the key and the bullet, two of the most damning pieces of evidence is also troubling, especially when they were found by Lenk and Colburn, who were involved in Averys case against the state.

The FBI guy only tested half of the blood in the car and assuming that the untested half would match the tested half, ridiculous. And the blood which Averys lawyer found tampered with, its been f***ing tampered with, WTF.

Officer colburn calling into dispatch on Nov 2 or whatever, 1/2 days after Teresa had been notified as missing, appearing to be inquiring about the vehicle and 'knowing to much'.

Some little things from the internet below

Logon or register to see this image




 
Not to turn this away from the original topic but been recommended to watch a doc called The Seven Five about crooked cops in New York in the 80's I'm only 20 minutes in but it looks good
 
Just finished with Dear Zachary, after watching The Jinx and Making a Murderer.

All recommended on here and great watches. All tragic in their own ways.

Each one quite different, but none of them showing the North American justice systems in a great light.

Any more similar recommendations welcome!
 
Watched Making a Murderer in one sitting yesterday. Can't believe what I was seeing and hearing. Thankfully, I've never had to deal with the justice system in the UK but I suppose that means that I naively think it's pretty robust and fair. I'd hate to think that I was caught up in something like Avery was.

The way that Massey was railroaded is sickening. The appointment and subsequent behaviour of his first defence attorney is beyond belief.

While I was impressed with Avery's defence team and the way they conducted themselves, I thought it should have been possible for them to easily blow the holes in the prosecutions case and get a Not Guilty verdict. Leaves me wondering if there's parts of prosecution evidence or testimony that were not included in the documentary. If there's nothing been left out then I fail to see how any court in the land could have found him guilty. I would have thought that a judge would have called a stop to proceedings and put the DA under pressure to explain the holes in their evidence.
 
Watched Making a Murderer in one sitting yesterday. Can't believe what I was seeing and hearing. Thankfully, I've never had to deal with the justice system in the UK but I suppose that means that I naively think it's pretty robust and fair. I'd hate to think that I was caught up in something like Avery was.

The way that Massey was railroaded is sickening. The appointment and subsequent behaviour of his first defence attorney is beyond belief.

While I was impressed with Avery's defence team and the way they conducted themselves, I thought it should have been possible for them to easily blow the holes in the prosecutions case and get a Not Guilty verdict. Leaves me wondering if there's parts of prosecution evidence or testimony that were not included in the documentary. If there's nothing been left out then I fail to see how any court in the land could have found him guilty. I would have thought that a judge would have called a stop to proceedings and put the DA under pressure to explain the holes in their evidence.

I think you dont need the spoiler as things have been discussed. I read a bit on other sites and I think that Netflix have been "clever" in how they produced the show. Lots of evidence wasnt mentioned and some parts of it would be quite damming for Steven Avery.

The issue I have with what I have read is that I do not know how trustworthy the sites are and also what to believe and not to believe as "evidence" as if the authorities are corrupt, how far are they willing to go for a conviction?
 
I think you dont need the spoiler as things have been discussed. I read a bit on other sites and I think that Netflix have been "clever" in how they produced the show. Lots of evidence wasnt mentioned and some parts of it would be quite damming for Steven Avery.

The issue I have with what I have read is that I do not know how trustworthy the sites are and also what to believe and not to believe as "evidence" as if the authorities are corrupt, how far are they willing to go for a conviction?

That't the big one for me - who can you actually believe?!

The other thing that left me feeling uneasy is the lack of interrogation / investigation into the prosecutions evidence.
  1. Even if we assume the test on the blood did prove it was from a 'live' bleed, why was their a vial of blood that had obviously been tampered with. How did the police explain that?
  2. Why wasn't Colborn pushed more on running the plates of the RAV4, days before it was found on Avery's property. They seemed to gloss over this when I expected them to make him squirm much more in attempt to find out how he had those details and where he'd got them from.
  3. How did the Police explain the lack of blood evidence anywhere on the property? The defence team made a big issue of saying there would be some blood found if the prosecution were correct but I cant recall anybody giving a viable reason for it not being found.
  4. Why were the police not given more of a grilling on the uncovering of the bones and lack of a systematic process?
I could go on and on....

The whole show just left me with even more questions. I would have also expected the documentary makers to be a bit more inquisitive in terms of trying to uncover the truth behind the murder. If it wasn't Avery - who was it?
 
Definitely watching this tonight, heard loads about it and now reading this thread has got me looking forward to it
 

Back
Top