Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

Here's another point I have trouble resolving and maybe somebody that takes that point of view can help me out. Many people here have stated that Avery wouldn't be so stupid as to just hide Halbach's SUV when he could have crushed it. (A point I happen to disagree with as it assumes a) he was smart enough and b) that he was thinking rationally or that any of us know how anybody would act in that situation) But I'll play along and say OK he would have been smarter than that. Than wouldn't it also follow that the cops would have been smarter when planting the key in his room after several searches? Or are we assuming that Avery was smart and the cops were dumb?

I don't think the cops were dumb. I think they thought they were above reproach and did whatever they wanted with impunity. Turns out they were right. Nobody ever got held accountable for anything, even the first trial.

This is a cop out. (pun not intended). You are basically saying they are dumb because they had power. You make it sound like you have four cops sitting in an office every day debating who will plant the key. Each day they decide they will put it off until tomorrow because who cares, we can do whatever we want!

One cop says "hey make sure you put Theresa's DNA on it too". The other three argue "who cares, we can do whatever we want!" The guy who brought that up laughs at himself and says "oh yeah, wtf was I thinking?"

They couldn't do anything the first 3-4 days because another officer was assigned specifically to "babysit" them. It wasn't until the first day they were no longer being watched that the key was found. Crazy coincidental, huh?

 

[gianmarco]

Juror reaches out to filmmakers

"That was the actual word the juror used and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said.

"So that was a significant revelation."

The juror also said he or she voted to convict, but claimed the decision came under duress.

 

[matttyl]

The bullet found in the garage was from the .22 cal gun that hung over Steven Avery's bed until Nov. 5th. Ballistics say it is that gun that fired that bullet. The gun is seized Nov. 6th and is stored in the Calumet County evidence locker in Chilton. This is never mentioned in the documentary. Now the question is, if the bullet is planted with Teresa Halbach's DNA evidence on it, how do the Manitowoc County cops being accused of planting it, have a fired bullet from Avery's gun which had to be fired from it before 11/5? Did they break in to the Calumet County evidence locker? Were Calumet County officers involved?

Interesting. If you go in my backyard, you too can find fired bullets from my .22. You could do the same with quite a few of my neighbors - and we only have between 3-5 acres or so each - not 40+. No doubt this guy got drunk/high and was target practicing at something every now and again. If I'm making the leap that the cops planted the key or bullet (or car), it's no leap to think they couldn't find a fired bullet from his gun somewhere on that 40+ acres - especially given the few weeks of searching they apparently did.

 

[Hooper31]

I understand your point but I think there's enough video evidence - especially for Brendan - that if you just parse out those, you will be sick to your stomach.

Thanks for the feedback. Appreciate your input.

 

[MattFancy]

Who Does Steven Avery Of ‘Making A Murderer’ Think Killed Teresa Halbach?

According to documents filed two years after his 2007 conviction, Avery believes that one or both of his brothers, Earl and Charles, may have killed Halbach and pinned the blame on him. Both have a history of sexual assault complaints and charges that, as TMZ notes, are quite “problematic.”

Earl once pled no contest to sexually assaulting his 2 daughters. […]
Charles’ criminal conduct and actions are even more problematic. He was charged with sexually assaulting his wife by holding her down and trying to strangle her with a phone cord before having intercourse with her.
The docs say Charles also had a history of aggression toward women who visited the family’s junkyard. One woman, who was there to retrieve her car that had been towed, complained to cops she was afraid of Charles because he was aggressively pursuing her… sending flowers and money to her home, calling her incessantly and showing up at her doorstep.

 

[AcerFC]

Sorry, I finished last night and havent had a chance to read all 17 pages. But I know some lawyers are in here

What would have happened if Avery decided to choose a mistrial instead of an alternate juror

I am confident that his outstanding defense team gave him the best advice, I just want to know what happens if it was declared a mistrial.

 

[MattFancy]

Sorry, I finished last night and havent had a chance to read all 17 pages. But I know some lawyers are in here

What would have happened if Avery decided to choose a mistrial instead of an alternate juror

I am confident that his outstanding defense team gave him the best advice, I just want to know what happens if it was declared a mistrial.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe they would have just had another trial.

Similar to Serial, where Adnan's first trial was a mistrial and then they went back and had another one.

 

[matttyl]

Was that Burger King receipt mentioned in the doc? Damn filmmakers leaving our crucial evidence against supporting Avery again.

The BK receipt I believe was his alibi during the rape trial (1985), not the murder trial.

 

[AcerFC]

Sorry, I finished last night and havent had a chance to read all 17 pages. But I know some lawyers are in here

What would have happened if Avery decided to choose a mistrial instead of an alternate juror

I am confident that his outstanding defense team gave him the best advice, I just want to know what happens if it was declared a mistrial.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe they would have just had another trial.

Similar to Serial, where Adnan's first trial was a mistrial and then they went back and had another one.

So Im assuming he didnt have the funds to retain the defense. A new trial would have given more time and maybe found something new. Or maybe not

 

[Max Power]

Sorry, I finished last night and havent had a chance to read all 17 pages. But I know some lawyers are in here

What would have happened if Avery decided to choose a mistrial instead of an alternate juror

I am confident that his outstanding defense team gave him the best advice, I just want to know what happens if it was declared a mistrial.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe they would have just had another trial.

Similar to Serial, where Adnan's first trial was a mistrial and then they went back and had another one.

This is my understanding as well. However the rumor was that Steve didn't have the money to afford another trial.

 

[SIDA!]

Here's where I'm at. I choose to base my opinion on information not just shown in the NETFLIX series. I know. Wild, huh?

It has been reported that the filmmakers have anywhere from 180 to 700 hours of footage. They have stated that they filmed it from the perspective of the defense side. Just about everyone here agrees that the series is obviously biased. They edited say roughly 400 hours of footage down to 10 hours, with the viewpoint of the defense in mind. So obviously, a lot of information had to be left out. They also imply as the defense did that some of the evidence was planted. The defense failed to provide any proof of this. And the filmmakers, despite having roughly 10 years to come up with any evidence, didn't produce any either. They also had 10 years to edit the film to exactly the viewpoint they wanted to sell. It is also a reality based television show not designed to find the truth or justice but to get ratings. I don't think there is a coincidence that this was released at a time when all police departments are looked at with mistrust either.

I'm sorry but I have a hard time petitioning the governor or the president to release a convicted murderer based on the information provided in the series. I also have a hard time trashing the reputations of the officers based solely on the netflix series. I want more facts about the case and have looked elsewhere for them. And honestly, there's a lot of crap in this thread by people that have no idea what they are talking about. Statements made by posters such as "You have to understand, in towns like this the press rely on the police for their information . . ." (from people who had no idea where Manitowoc was until they googled it) and statements like "The jurors felt pressured because in a small county they either knew the Avery's or did business with them . . " or "Manitowoc County is a small county and it would be impossible to find a jury that wasn't corrupted or tainted . . ."

I leave open the slight possibility that Avery is innocent (very doubtful) and leave open the possibility that evidence was planted but I'm not buying into 100% the premise of the show as many here are and I'll base my opinion on more than what was shown in the series.

Talk about a whole lot of words signifying next to nothing.So, basically...you make some vague assertions without getting into any of the specific details of the case. Your take amounts to the following: the producers had a bias or an agenda and some of the posters talking about it don't know what the heck they are saying.

Fantastic analysis. I agree.

Do you think maybe we can get back to discussing specifics of the case...the facts of the case...like how in the hell did Avery hide Teresa's car key up his ###, then break out of jail and tuck the car key under some slippers after his trailer had already been searched repeatedly? And why exactly wasn't there any fecal matter on it?

Wow.....You really do have the "Well it's on TV, so it MUST be true attitude"

smh

Actually, I almost always come into these type of things with the attitude that defense attorneys are sleaze balls and that the defendant is most likely a,guilty piece of crap who should probably have been fried...not given a cot and three hots each day.

That and I've speculated that he did kill her just not the way the prosecution said. So...I guess my putting forth a theory of averys guilt that wasn't even mentioned in the documentary is believing whatever I hear on the old tv.

But thanks for chiming in with this bs again. It has basically been the extent of your contribution to the thread.

I'm sure you don't fall for any of that fancy liberal Hollywood slicing, dicing and fancy editing and think Avery also liked Teresa in the trailer and garage, right?

Or are you going to duck that question like kingprawn?

 

[MattFancy]

Sorry, I finished last night and havent had a chance to read all 17 pages. But I know some lawyers are in here

What would have happened if Avery decided to choose a mistrial instead of an alternate juror

I am confident that his outstanding defense team gave him the best advice, I just want to know what happens if it was declared a mistrial.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe they would have just had another trial.

Similar to Serial, where Adnan's first trial was a mistrial and then they went back and had another one.

So Im assuming he didnt have the funds to retain the defense. A new trial would have given more time and maybe found something new. Or maybe not

The funds was probably the biggest factor. Remember, he settled with the county so he could afford his defense for this case.

 

[matttyl]

Good interview with the victim of the rape that Avery was wrongfully accused of.

Man...I feel terrible for her. What an ordeal. She was victimized several times by that process.

Do you think she had (maybe still does) grounds to sue the county civilly for how this whole thing went down? She suffered emotional distress and what not.

No. The legally cognizable damage done by the county was to Steven Avery. The damage done to Penny Beernstein was by Gregory Allen.

Could the 2 (or was it 3) other women sexually assaulted by Allen after 1985 have any recourse against the county?

 

[Statorama]

Sorry, I finished last night and havent had a chance to read all 17 pages. But I know some lawyers are in here

What would have happened if Avery decided to choose a mistrial instead of an alternate juror

I am confident that his outstanding defense team gave him the best advice, I just want to know what happens if it was declared a mistrial.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe they would have just had another trial.

Similar to Serial, where Adnan's first trial was a mistrial and then they went back and had another one.

So Im assuming he didnt have the funds to retain the defense. A new trial would have given more time and maybe found something new. Or maybe not

The funds was probably the biggest factor. Remember, he settled with the county so he could afford his defense for this case.

Yep, unless he hooks an Alan Dershowitz type that will do it pro bono, he's looking at David "One Call, That's All" Gruber.

 

[SIDA!]

This may have already been mentioned, but I just finished the season and have not read the entire thread...there are multiple times where Detective Lenk's story was changed during the trial from his original statements made months earlier, so it would better fit with the prosecutor's timeline (e.g. the whole time log around the Rav 4 after discovery). Also, Coburn was still sniffing around evidence 4 months AFTER he was removed from the investigation for conflict of interest reasons.

How this does not scream reasonable doubt to the jury is beyond me, let alone, all of the other pieces of evidence that could be seen as reasonable doubt for Avery's case of innocence.

I have about a 25% gut feeling that he may have been guilty, as she was last saw on his property, but I also think evidence had to have been planted by the police to some degree. They search his trailer multiple times head to toe, and didn't find the key until like the 3rd day or something after already searching everything? Shady...

It was 7-4 in favor of not guilty when the jury first voted. The 4 were very stubborn and persuasive according to the dismissed juror.

I may have missed it. Did this dismissed juror mention anything about the jury feeling threatened as the makers of the show are now claiming? You would think he would mention it if it were true. Seems almost as important as the initial vote that was taken.

The threats could have come after that juror was dismissed. He was dismissed prior to the closing arguments, correct?

Id have to go back to confirm, but I thought he was there through the first day of deliberations?

This is correct.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Sorry, I finished last night and havent had a chance to read all 17 pages. But I know some lawyers are in here

What would have happened if Avery decided to choose a mistrial instead of an alternate juror

I am confident that his outstanding defense team gave him the best advice, I just want to know what happens if it was declared a mistrial.

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe they would have just had another trial.

Similar to Serial, where Adnan's first trial was a mistrial and then they went back and had another one.

So Im assuming he didnt have the funds to retain the defense. A new trial would have given more time and maybe found something new. Or maybe not

The funds was probably the biggest factor. Remember, he settled with the county so he could afford his defense for this case.

I think the defense did all they could and starting over wouldnt have changed how they presented the case. From what we saw, I dont see a reason they would want to do it again if they could (before the verdict of course).

 

[tdoss]

It really trips me out how many times and how long they take to check his house.

Especially in light of how quickly that San Bernardino shooters house was turned over and allowed the public and media to roam free throughout.

 

[matttyl]

I think she committed suicide, or her ex boyfriend killed her. The police found her body. Which explains the cop calling in the license plate. Explains why all the evidence found on SA property was planted, and also explains Halbachs(sp?) video. No one else thinks this.?

This is the first time I have heard the suicide theory. Want to unpack that a bit?

I don't think you theory explains the video. I personally think it contradicts it based on what I remember her saying on there. I don't recall her sounding like someone looking to leave the Earth anytime soon.

The video was 3 years beforehand, but would be very eerie if this situation were true. How long had she been taking pictures of used cars people with IQs in the 70s were selling? That kinda job would sure make me depressed.....

 

[John Bender]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize the police and courts?

Depends on your starting POV, I guess. I thought they presented a defense-side perspective, but did present footage / evidence from both sides. If you're predisposed to believing that Police and the courts are essentially the good guys and beyond reproach, you'll likely find this to be a hatchet job.

If you're predisposed to believing that Police and the courts work in concert to get convictions, not find truth, you'll likely find this to be expository.

YMMV.

Disagree. I typically side with police. I dont find this a hatchet job at all.

As do I. My best friend since I was about 2 years old is a police sergeant down in Virginia. He hadn't heard about the show as of a week ago so I told him to watch it because I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on that entire part of the story. His texts to me over a couple days:

"watching episode 2. I'm just getting furious watching this"

"it's all true. It's the same all over. A ton of crooked cops, especially commanders."

"Huge egos. Belief of being above the law. Untouchable"

"Episode 4. I'm so angry watching this. Thanks a lot"

Yeah. I got one more episode to watch then I plan on making some longer comments. As a guy who works in the process daily I've been trying to watch this documentary as skeptically as possible but I've concluded on a last a couple of the incident/issues that there's just simply no way that what is being shown is pure spin.

You're a lawyer woz? I don't believe you've ever mentioned that before. Nice to have your perspective.

 

[matttyl]

It was posted earlier in the thread an article stating 14 pieces of evidence that were left out of the series. were these included in that article or are they new?

The bullet found in the garage was from the .22 cal gun that hung over Steven Avery's bed until Nov. 5th. Ballistics say it is that gun that fired that bullet. The gun is seized Nov. 6th and is stored in the Calumet County evidence locker in Chilton. This is never mentioned in the documentary. Now the question is, if the bullet is planted with Teresa Halbach's DNA evidence on it, how do the Manitowoc County cops being accused of planting it, have a fired bullet from Avery's gun which had to be fired from it before 11/5? Did they break in to the Calumet County evidence locker? Were Calumet County officers involved?

Second item, After March 1st, after Dassey tells them that they hid the SUV and Steven popped open the hood and unhooked the battery, the Wisconsin crime lab swabs the hood and latch for Avery's DNA. DNA is found but it is not blood. It is from skin cells from Avery's sweat. Now how did that get there? Did the crooked cops also have a vial of Avery's sweat? Did they plant it after it was in possession of the Wisconsin crime lab?

I have to ask myself, now why didn't the so-called documentary include the above 2 pieces of evidence or the 14 pieces stated in the previous article? They sure seem like some key pieces of evidence, wouldn't you agree? Then it makes me wonder, what else are they leaving out?

I sure would like to see ALL the unedited footage they have and base my opinion on that information rather than an all-agreed upon biased 10 hour series. Wonder if they'll ever release all the footage on the internet. It could very easily be done and if they are so sure of their conclusions then why don't they?

The sweat under the hood is an interesting and significant fact, and should have been presented in the documentary. It's disappointing they didn't mention it. However, just as the blood could have been planted, the cops could have taken any given dirty shirt of Avery's (I'm going out on a limb and guessing that there were plenty of them available) and rubbed the armpit of the shirt on the vehicle.

So he supposedly took out the battery after lifting the hood. There's more things he had to touch when removing the battery, right? Did they swab the hood kickstand? He has to lift that up to prop up the hood. How about the battery cable ends and cables? He would've touched all of that stuff to remove the battery. Did they swab everything or just the latch and hood and conveniently find his DNA there and nowhere else?

Also, was any of his DNA found in the car other than the blood swabs? If he moved the car to where they ultimately found it, wouldn't his prints/sweat DNA (first I've heard that term) be on the steering wheel, shifter, door handle.....

 

[TheMagus]

So you are suggesting the body was found elsewhere by the police and moved to the burning pit and burned by them? Evidence shows that the body was burned in the Avery burn pit and not elsewhere. The bones were intertwined with steel straps from the tires.

I thought the only bones discovered in the Avery burn pit were extremely small - and that burnt bones were found in 2 other locations as well. Between October 31st and when the bones were found in Avery's burnpit (a week or two later) are we sure that there was only one fire in that burnpit? I mean if it was burned elsewhere first, then moved to his burn pit, they could have then been in another fire, correct?

So either:

- the body was in three pieces before burning - and then burned in each of the 3 locations; or

- the body was in one piece, burned all in the Avery burnpit and then parts were moved to two other locations, or

- the body was in one piece, and all burned somewhere other than the Avery burnpit and then parts were moved both to the Avery burnpit as well as another 3rd location.

Or they could have been from animal carcasses. They were avid hunters. It is rather odd if they never even tested the bones in the other locations. I can't seem to find anything on this at all. I don't know if it is fair to assume they belong to Teresa though.

 

[Sabertooth]

Here's where I'm at. I choose to base my opinion on information not just shown in the NETFLIX series. I know. Wild, huh?

It has been reported that the filmmakers have anywhere from 180 to 700 hours of footage. They have stated that they filmed it from the perspective of the defense side. Just about everyone here agrees that the series is obviously biased. They edited say roughly 400 hours of footage down to 10 hours, with the viewpoint of the defense in mind. So obviously, a lot of information had to be left out. They also imply as the defense did that some of the evidence was planted. The defense failed to provide any proof of this. And the filmmakers, despite having roughly 10 years to come up with any evidence, didn't produce any either. They also had 10 years to edit the film to exactly the viewpoint they wanted to sell. It is also a reality based television show not designed to find the truth or justice but to get ratings. I don't think there is a coincidence that this was released at a time when all police departments are looked at with mistrust either.

I'm sorry but I have a hard time petitioning the governor or the president to release a convicted murderer based on the information provided in the series. I also have a hard time trashing the reputations of the officers based solely on the netflix series. I want more facts about the case and have looked elsewhere for them. And honestly, there's a lot of crap in this thread by people that have no idea what they are talking about. Statements made by posters such as "You have to understand, in towns like this the press rely on the police for their information . . ." (from people who had no idea where Manitowoc was until they googled it) and statements like "The jurors felt pressured because in a small county they either knew the Avery's or did business with them . . " or "Manitowoc County is a small county and it would be impossible to find a jury that wasn't corrupted or tainted . . ."

I leave open the slight possibility that Avery is innocent (very doubtful) and leave open the possibility that evidence was planted but I'm not buying into 100% the premise of the show as many here are and I'll base my opinion on more than what was shown in the series.

Talk about a whole lot of words signifying next to nothing.So, basically...you make some vague assertions without getting into any of the specific details of the case. Your take amounts to the following: the producers had a bias or an agenda and some of the posters talking about it don't know what the heck they are saying.

Fantastic analysis. I agree.

Do you think maybe we can get back to discussing specifics of the case...the facts of the case...like how in the hell did Avery hide Teresa's car key up his ###, then break out of jail and tuck the car key under some slippers after his trailer had already been searched repeatedly? And why exactly wasn't there any fecal matter on it?

Wow.....You really do have the "Well it's on TV, so it MUST be true attitude"

smh

Exactly. It isn't like there is s narrator. It's all courtroom footage. Its been asked of you repeatedly, with no answer. What was not true in the show?

 

[matttyl]

On Jan. 3, 1985, Avery rammed the car of the wife of a Manitowoc County sheriff’s deputy on a rural road near where her family and Avery’s family lived, then attempted to kidnap her at gunpoint. Avery let the woman go after she pointed out that her 6-month-old baby in the back seat would freeze to death if left alone.

I cant seem to find the name of this deputy. Do we know that? This seems pretty important.

Wife and I don't plan on watching this until this weekend so not sure if they cover this. My son is out of town with his mom's family and we will have lots of time.

Lenk?

No, but it is talked about in the first episode. For such a "huge county", seems quite a few people were related to it's cops. The lady SA "rammed", one of the jurors - oh, and Steve Avery himself.

 

[matttyl]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize the police and courts?

I'm also kinda curious about this particular timeline. So they started working on this in 2005ish - the year she was killed. So they start this process then. It's a full two years later before the trial ends. Then a few more years of additional drama - appeals, the prize with his sexting scandal, and so on. At what point did they have a "finished product"?

Anyway, most of that happens before Netflix streaming is even a thing. To suggest this was made "for Netflix" to get ratings would thus be just stupid. Netflix didn't really exist when it was being made.

 

[T J]

I watched the first episode and found myself disliking Steve Avery so much that I'm not watching the rest. I find the content interesting though, but just don't like him - guilty or innocent.

So you're saying you knew about the whole incident with him ramming the woman off the road?

Huh?

 

[T J]

I watched the first episode and found myself disliking Steve Avery so much that I'm not watching the rest. I find the content interesting though, but just don't like him - guilty or innocent.

Hey one of the jurors posts here!

Nah. I can separate the two. I've sat on a jury involving a person that was both a) pretty despicable in my eyes, and b) almost certainly was guilty, but we found him not guilty in short fashion because the prosecution's case had a couple holes in it that merited reasonable doubt.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I watched the first episode and found myself disliking Steve Avery so much that I'm not watching the rest. I find the content interesting though, but just don't like him - guilty or innocent.

So you're saying you knew about the whole incident with him ramming the woman off the road?

Huh?

Someone in the thread was very critical of the show, then admitted to not having seen it. Later, he said he saw it, but then posted details that he thought had been omitted which were actually in the first episode. He was obviously lying and I don't think he has posted since. Since you watched the first episode, you've seen more than him.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Here's an article about the production. The two filmmakers weren't really professional filmmakers or anything. They met in film school in 2005 and decided to make this documentary. As they worked on it, they had to support themselves with other jobs. So they were spending part of their time in Wisconsin as "students working on a documentary" and part of their time in New York working as a lighting electrician and lawyer, respectively, to pay rent. For most of the production, they lived in New York and traveled to Wisconsin here and there, for three weeks at a time, to work on the documentary.

Over the years, they shopped it to HBO, PBS, and other networks without luck before finally getting interest from Netflix in 2013.

 

[Max Power]

I watched the first episode and found myself disliking Steve Avery so much that I'm not watching the rest. I find the content interesting though, but just don't like him - guilty or innocent.

Hey one of the jurors posts here!

Nah. I can separate the two. I've sat on a jury involving a person that was both a) pretty despicable in my eyes, and b) almost certainly was guilty, but we found him not guilty in short fashion because the prosecution's case had a couple holes in it that merited reasonable doubt.

It's worth finishing the series for the Branden Dassey aspect of it. Especially if you have children. It can be used as a teaching moment.

 

[whoknew]

This is a long thread so I may have missed it but have we talked about the hot reporter yet? And how funny her looks are whenever the prosecutor speaks? She clearly thinks he's full of ####.

 

[SIDA!]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize the police and courts?

Depends on your starting POV, I guess. I thought they presented a defense-side perspective, but did present footage / evidence from both sides. If you're predisposed to believing that Police and the courts are essentially the good guys and beyond reproach, you'll likely find this to be a hatchet job.

If you're predisposed to believing that Police and the courts work in concert to get convictions, not find truth, you'll likely find this to be expository.

YMMV.

Disagree. I typically side with police. I dont find this a hatchet job at all.

As do I. My best friend since I was about 2 years old is a police sergeant down in Virginia. He hadn't heard about the show as of a week ago so I told him to watch it because I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on that entire part of the story. His texts to me over a couple days:

"watching episode 2. I'm just getting furious watching this"

"it's all true. It's the same all over. A ton of crooked cops, especially commanders."

"Huge egos. Belief of being above the law. Untouchable"

"Episode 4. I'm so angry watching this. Thanks a lot"

Yeah. I got one more episode to watch then I plan on making some longer comments. As a guy who works in the process daily I've been trying to watch this documentary as skeptically as possible but I've concluded on a last a couple of the incident/issues that there's just simply no way that what is being shown is pure spin.

You're a lawyer woz? I don't believe you've ever mentioned that before. Nice to have your perspective.

 

[chet]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize the police and courts?

I'm also kinda curious about this particular timeline. So they started working on this in 2005ish - the year she was killed. So they start this process then. It's a full two years later before the trial ends. Then a few more years of additional drama - appeals, the prize with his sexting scandal, and so on. At what point did they have a "finished product"?

Anyway, most of that happens before Netflix streaming is even a thing. To suggest this was made "for Netflix" to get ratings would thus be just stupid. Netflix didn't really exist when it was being made.

Did I miss the sexting scandal?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize the police and courts?

I'm also kinda curious about this particular timeline. So they started working on this in 2005ish - the year she was killed. So they start this process then. It's a full two years later before the trial ends. Then a few more years of additional drama - appeals, the prize with his sexting scandal, and so on. At what point did they have a "finished product"? Anyway, most of that happens before Netflix streaming is even a thing. To suggest this was made "for Netflix" to get ratings would thus be just stupid. Netflix didn't really exist when it was being made.

Did I miss the sexting scandal?

Episode 10. Kratz

 

[matttyl]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary.

Why? The events take place over an 8 year span.

Incentive. There's a pay off to creating a film that sells. The truth doesn't always sell. Sensationalizing injustice as a story is more likely to sell. Creating a villain sells. Again, I will just have to watch it and determine for myself. My skepticism is the statistician in me. The manner in which we collect information and display it matters. Incentive matters.

I'm looking into the timeline. They started creating this in 2005 - when the two producers were in film school. I don't think they started this project with the intent to make a whole lot of money - especially considering their ultimate buyer didn't really even exist yet.

A little background on the making of it. Interesting stuff.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Anyone know how much they sold it for? Lot of links I haven't clicked.

 

[chet]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize the police and courts?

I'm also kinda curious about this particular timeline. So they started working on this in 2005ish - the year she was killed. So they start this process then. It's a full two years later before the trial ends. Then a few more years of additional drama - appeals, the prize with his sexting scandal, and so on. At what point did they have a "finished product"? Anyway, most of that happens before Netflix streaming is even a thing. To suggest this was made "for Netflix" to get ratings would thus be just stupid. Netflix didn't really exist when it was being made.

Did I miss the sexting scandal?

Episode 10. Kratz

Haven't seem ep 10 yet. Through ep9. TY

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is a long thread so I may have missed it but have we talked about the hot reporter yet? And how funny her looks are whenever the prosecutor speaks? She clearly thinks he's full of ####.

Looks like she's single!

 

[ericttspikes]

This is a long thread so I may have missed it but have we talked about the hot reporter yet? And how funny her looks are whenever the prosecutor speaks? She clearly thinks he's full of ####.

She was mentioned, and she is hot! Don't know her name though.

 

[matttyl]

Does anyone know if this is going to be a series?

Rest of your post was interesting but I'm curious about this as well. I'm guessing this is standalone just like HBO did with The Jinx, but also that Netflix would happily take similar content from other filmmakers. This stuff is right up their alley: bingeworthy, potential to generate massive buzz, and no restrictions on runtime. With the success of this, The Jinx, and Serial I'm guessing the willingness to make these types of shows will only ramp up. Of course, Serial Season 2 (so far) shows that not just any story works in this format.

By the way, is there anything out there on how this actually ended up with Netflix? I doubt the makers of this had ever intended on squeezing this into a normal length doc so it really only would have worked on one of the streaming platforms or some other premium service miniseries. But those avenues were really only made available in the last few years.

I thought they went to HBO and one other network and they weren't interested.

Yes. Both HBO and PBS turned it down according to a link I made above.

 

[SIDA!]

Can we put out a BOLO for Mr. Pack and KratzPrawn?

 

[Max Power]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize the police and courts?

I'm also kinda curious about this particular timeline. So they started working on this in 2005ish - the year she was killed. So they start this process then. It's a full two years later before the trial ends. Then a few more years of additional drama - appeals, the prize with his sexting scandal, and so on. At what point did they have a "finished product"? Anyway, most of that happens before Netflix streaming is even a thing. To suggest this was made "for Netflix" to get ratings would thus be just stupid. Netflix didn't really exist when it was being made.

Did I miss the sexting scandal?

Episode 10. Kratz

Haven't seem ep 10 yet. Through ep9. TY

EP 10 upset me more than any other episode.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Considering watching this, but there's something about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize the police and courts?

I'm also kinda curious about this particular timeline. So they started working on this in 2005ish - the year she was killed. So they start this process then. It's a full two years later before the trial ends. Then a few more years of additional drama - appeals, the prize with his sexting scandal, and so on. At what point did they have a "finished product"? Anyway, most of that happens before Netflix streaming is even a thing. To suggest this was made "for Netflix" to get ratings would thus be just stupid. Netflix didn't really exist when it was being made.

Did I miss the sexting scandal?

Episode 10. Kratz

Haven't seem ep 10 yet. Through ep9. TY

EP 10 upset me more than any other episode.

It gave me the only gratification of the whole series.

 

[Zow]

Sorry, I finished last night and havent had a chance to read all 17 pages. But I know some lawyers are in here

What would have happened if Avery decided to choose a mistrial instead of an alternate juror

I am confident that his outstanding defense team gave him the best advice, I just want to know

what happens if it was declared a mistrial.

They would have had the entire trial all over again with a new jury. Based on the attorneys' comments they thought the trial went very well for the defense. Commonly a second trial favors the state because all the defense's surprise points and defenses are now known so the state will be better prepared. Also, a new trial probably happens several months later and Avery remains in custody. Finally, a second trial probably meant way more in attorney fees that Avery didn't have.

These are all good reasons to try ones chances with the alternate.

 

[Zow]

Considering watching this, but there's something

about the concept of filmmakers working 10 years putting together this documentary. How can they purport to have any objectivity? It seems to me its going to be nearly impossible to tell a one sided

story.

Does anyone think they do a good job of telling both sides? Or do they just attempt to villainize

the police and courts?

Depends on your starting POV, I guess. I thought they presented a defense-side perspective, but did present footage / evidence from both sides. If you're predisposed to believing that Police and the courts are essentially the good guys

and beyond reproach, you'll likely find this to be a hatchet job.

If you're predisposed to believing that Police and the courts work in concert to get convictions, not

find truth, you'll likely find this to be expository.

YMMV.

Disagree. I typically side with police.I dont find this a hatchet job at all.

As do I. My best friend since I was about 2 years old is a police sergeant down in Virginia. He hadn't heard about the show as of a week ago so I told him to watch it because I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on that entire part of the story.

His texts to me over a couple days:

"watching episode 2. I'm just getting furious

watching this"

"it's all true. It's the same all over. A ton of crooked cops, especially commanders."

"Huge egos. Belief of being above the law.

Untouchable"

"Episode 4. I'm so angry watching this. Thanks a lot"

Yeah. I got one more episode to watch then I plan on making some longer comments. As a guy who works in the process daily I've been trying to watch this documentary as skeptically as possible but I've concluded on a last a couple of

the incident/issues that there's just simply no way that what is being shown is pure spin.

You're a lawyer woz? I don't believe you've ever mentioned that before. Nice to have your perspective.

 

[Billy Bats]

It was posted earlier in the thread an article stating 14 pieces of evidence that were left out of the series. were these included in that article or are they new?

The bullet found in the garage was from the .22 cal gun that hung over Steven Avery's bed until Nov. 5th. Ballistics say it is that gun that fired that bullet. The gun is seized Nov. 6th and is stored in the Calumet County evidence locker in Chilton. This is never mentioned in the documentary. Now the question is, if the bullet is planted with Teresa Halbach's DNA evidence on it, how do the Manitowoc County cops being accused of planting it, have a fired bullet from Avery's gun which had to be fired from it before 11/5? Did they break in to the Calumet County evidence locker? Were Calumet County officers involved?

Second item, After March 1st, after Dassey tells them that they hid the SUV and Steven popped open the hood and unhooked the battery, the Wisconsin crime lab swabs the hood and latch for Avery's DNA. DNA is found but it is not blood. It is from skin cells from Avery's sweat. Now how did that get there? Did the crooked cops also have a vial of Avery's sweat? Did they plant it after it was in possession of the Wisconsin crime lab?

I have to ask myself, now why didn't the so-called documentary include the above 2 pieces of evidence or the 14 pieces stated in the previous article? They sure seem like some key pieces of evidence, wouldn't you agree? Then it makes me wonder, what else are they leaving out?

I sure would like to see ALL the unedited footage they have and base my opinion on that information rather than an all-agreed upon biased 10 hour series. Wonder if they'll ever release all the footage on the internet. It could very easily be done and if they are so sure of their conclusions then why don't they?

The sweat under the hood is an interesting and significant fact, and should have been presented in the documentary. It's disappointing they didn't mention it. However, just as the blood could have been planted, the cops could have taken any given dirty shirt of Avery's (I'm going out on a limb and guessing that there were plenty of them available) and rubbed the armpit of the shirt on the vehicle.

So he supposedly took out the battery after lifting the hood. There's more things he had to touch when removing the battery, right? Did they swab the hood kickstand? He has to lift that up to prop up the hood. How about the battery cable ends and cables? He would've touched all of that stuff to remove the battery. Did they swab everything or just the latch and hood and conveniently find his DNA there and nowhere else?

Also, was any of his DNA found in the car other than the blood swabs? If he moved the car to where they ultimately found it, wouldn't his prints/sweat DNA (first I've heard that term) be on the steering wheel, shifter, door handle.....

As far as I rememebr er nothing other than the few blood drops and the hood sweat, more good points though you would think his sweat dna would be everywhere.

 

[parrot]

Does anyone know if this is going to be a series? I would love to see them do a season on Barry Beach. It has many similar elements to the Avery case. He was imprisoned for 31 years for a murder he probably didn't commit, based on a coerced confession and in spite of physical evidence indicating someone else was responsible. There has been scuttlebutt that various members of a group of girls have admitted to it over the years but were protected by relatives in law enforcement. One of the girls' fathers was a police officer and actually broke into the evidence room at one point, rendering some evidence in the Beach trial inadmissable.

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

"A bloody palm print was found on the passenger door. An FBI investigation later determined that the palm print must have been left by the killer."

"After the murder, Beach moved to Louisiana to live with his father. In 1983, Beach was arrested after his stepmother called the police, claiming Beach had helped his stepsister skip school. Beach’s stepmother revealed to police that Beach had been questioned for Nees’ murder. The police were investigating the murder of three women at the time of Beach’s arrest. Beach was interrogated over these murders and the murder of Nees. Initially, Beach denied involvement in Nees’ murder, but after two days of questioning, he confessed to Nees’ murder.[4] He also confessed to the murder of the three Louisiana women but was later cleared of these murders because Beach was not in Louisiana at the time of these murders.[7]"

"The prosecution also said that the bloody palm print found on the truck might have belonged to Kim to explain why the print did not belong to Beach. However, multiple police reports concluded that the print belonged to neither Nees nor Beach.[8]"

Beach was just recently granted clemency. Marc Racicot was the original prosecutor of this case and later became the Governor of Montana. He was a hugely influential guy in Montana politics for decades. Many people think that's why Beach stayed in jail as long as he did.

Dateline spot on the Beach case if anyone is interested;

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/52659380#52659380

 

[MattFancy]

It was posted earlier in the thread an article stating 14 pieces of evidence that were left out of the series. were these included in that article or are they new?

The bullet found in the garage was from the .22 cal gun that hung over Steven Avery's bed until Nov. 5th. Ballistics say it is that gun that fired that bullet. The gun is seized Nov. 6th and is stored in the Calumet County evidence locker in Chilton. This is never mentioned in the documentary. Now the question is, if the bullet is planted with Teresa Halbach's DNA evidence on it, how do the Manitowoc County cops being accused of planting it, have a fired bullet from Avery's gun which had to be fired from it before 11/5? Did they break in to the Calumet County evidence locker? Were Calumet County officers involved?

Second item, After March 1st, after Dassey tells them that they hid the SUV and Steven popped open the hood and unhooked the battery, the Wisconsin crime lab swabs the hood and latch for Avery's DNA. DNA is found but it is not blood. It is from skin cells from Avery's sweat. Now how did that get there? Did the crooked cops also have a vial of Avery's sweat? Did they plant it after it was in possession of the Wisconsin crime lab?

I have to ask myself, now why didn't the so-called documentary include the above 2 pieces of evidence or the 14 pieces stated in the previous article? They sure seem like some key pieces of evidence, wouldn't you agree? Then it makes me wonder, what else are they leaving out?

I sure would like to see ALL the unedited footage they have and base my opinion on that information rather than an all-agreed upon biased 10 hour series. Wonder if they'll ever release all the footage on the internet. It could very easily be done and if they are so sure of their conclusions then why don't they?

The sweat under the hood is an interesting and significant fact, and should have been presented in the documentary. It's disappointing they didn't mention it. However, just as the blood could have been planted, the cops could have taken any given dirty shirt of Avery's (I'm going out on a limb and guessing that there were plenty of them available) and rubbed the armpit of the shirt on the vehicle.

So he supposedly took out the battery after lifting the hood. There's more things he had to touch when removing the battery, right? Did they swab the hood kickstand? He has to lift that up to prop up the hood. How about the battery cable ends and cables? He would've touched all of that stuff to remove the battery. Did they swab everything or just the latch and hood and conveniently find his DNA there and nowhere else?

Also, was any of his DNA found in the car other than the blood swabs? If he moved the car to where they ultimately found it, wouldn't his prints/sweat DNA (first I've heard that term) be on the steering wheel, shifter, door handle.....

As far as I rememebr er nothing other than the few blood drops and the hood sweat, more good points though you would think his sweat dna would be everywhere.

I posted a few posts back, that I thought I remember them saying they found no prints of his anywhere on/in the car. So he could have been wearing gloves, I could buy that. But then that doesn't explain how blood from a cut on his finger would have been found by the ignition.

 

[RUSF18]

Can we put out a BOLO for Mr. Pack and KratzPrawn?

Please no.

 

[playin4beer]

Anybody else think the intro has a "Deadwood" feel to it??

 

[jamny]

Anybody else think the intro has a "Deadwood" feel to it??

I kept thinking the very start of Game of Thrones.