Making A Murderer (Netflix) (Spoilers) (3 Viewers)

[Sabertooth]

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?

The same guy you think is too dumb and thus hides the car on the lot is the same dude smart enough to wipe out every trace of blood from the trailer and garage areas where she was stabbed/shot?

Okay.

P.S. He seemed pretty handy though...so I think it is possible he buffed out, sanded, spackled and re-finished the bed from all those shackles/handcuffs and chains that were used to hold her down.

Cut hair and throat slit too. Also raped and shackled. Not a single trace of Theresa's DNA in the trailer. Nothing, except on the key.

 

[Sabertooth]

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?

I was typing while you made this post, thanks for the additional evidence/facts.

I would speculate that there were lots of bullets from Avery's gun around the property, it's quite possible the Manitowoc cops picked up one of the spent bullets during their many, many searches of the place, giving them the later opportunity to add DNA to it and plant it in the garage.

As a side note, I'm kind of surprised that ballistics could identify what gun that bullet came from, it looked pretty flattened.

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.

Thank you for your thoughtful response without the name calling. I leave open the possibility of the scenarios you presented.

Sure wish they would release all the footage on-line.

Me too. The footage must exist. I'd watch it from start to finish. Who knows, maybe they will. There would be an audience for it.

 

[Billy Bats]

Not that it would make any difference to any of you but a good listen

http://www.tmj4.com/shows/local-prosecutor-author-on-making-a-murderer

Did you know that Steven Avery pulled over (or more accurately rammed her with his pickup truck) and held at gunpoint with the intent to sexually assault a woman, a charge to which he plead guilty and was sentenced 6 years which was included in his 18 years he served. Was this included in the series?

Did you know Halbach's phone, camera and PDA were found not 20 feet from Avery's door burnt in a barrel? Was this included in the series?

Did you know that Steve's brothers were both charged with sexual/violent crimes against women?

1988, Stevens older brother, Chuck, was charged and later acquitted of second-degree sexual assault. In 1998, a judge found him guilty of disorderly conduct following a family altercation. He got 12 months probation. Less than a year later, he was charged with raping and attempting to strangle his wife with a telephone cord. In court, the couple agreed to defer judgment pending further violence by Chuck, and the charge was finally dismissed in 2003. The couple subsequently divorced.

Meanwhile, in 1992, Steves younger brother, Earl Avery, was arrested after his wife claimed he beat and choked her during a drunken argument. Earl pleaded no contest to battery and was sentenced to 10 days in jail and 18 months probation. Three years later, he was charged with sexual assault of a child. He pleaded no contest to fourth-degree sexual assault and battery and spent 45 days in jail and three years on probation.

Did the police even bother to interrogate 2 other guys who were already shown to have violent pasts? Why didnt they even bother checking on them two?And yes the doc did mention the electronics being in the barrel.

 

[shadyridr]

King Prawn: Did you know Brendan Dassey actually confessed to the rape and murder? Did they show that in the show?

 

[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?

 

[Sabertooth]

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?

Good points all. May or may not have been covered in the case.

 

[MattFancy]

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?

So he acted rationally enough to clean every drop of Teresa's blood from the garage and the trailer, but thought just putting a piece of plywood over the SUV would hide it? It just doesn't make sense. We're saying he was thinking rationally enough to clean up all her DNA from the place, but not thinking rationally enough to destroy the other main piece of evidence that would place her being there?

 

[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.

 

[Statorama]

King Prawn: Did you know Brendan Dassey actually confessed to the rape and murder? Did they show that in the show?

Based on his filmed confession with the public defenders investigator, I believe Dassey would have confessed to putting human heads in Dahmer's fridge with enough prodding.

 

[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?

I thought I remember them saying that when they swabbed the car for prints, they found nothing. Am I remembering that right?

 

[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?

 

[parasaurolophus]

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?"

 

[Road Warriors]

King Prawn: Did you know Brendan Dassey actually confessed to the rape and murder? Did they show that in the show?

Based on his filmed confession with the public defenders investigator, I believe Dassey would have confessed to putting human heads in Dahmer's fridge with enough prodding.

Just promise him some tickets to Wrestlemania, and he'll confess to anything you want.

 

[playin4beer]

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.

Just finished episode 1 myself last night.. I'm hooked..

And the only thing I know for sure after only 1 episode is that the Avery family tree is a totem pole....

 

[Sabertooth]

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?"

Dude they sent a guy to prison for 18 years, and never had to bare any type of consequence for that despite evidence that they had tips (from other cops) and even the victim calling them asking them about another (correct) suspect. I think it's fair to say they considered themselves above reproach. 18 years.

 

[shadyridr]

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!

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

 

[Road Warriors]

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?

 

[Hooper31]

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?

 

[RUSF18]

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?

They don't claim to be objective. They have beliefs about what happened and put this together in order to bring it to a larger audience.

Unless they are manufacturing the interviews of others who are attempting to villainize the police and courts, I don't see what the problem would be.

 

[Road Warriors]

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.

 

[cockroach]

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.

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

After your kid is gone, bang your wife, then watch the show. They do mention the name and the name of the officer. Report back....on the show (obviously start a new thread for the sex with the wife).

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

Consider also that it is a Netflix Documentary. And Netflix is just now getting into producing. They may have shopped it and found no takers until now (just speculating).

 

[Cjw_55106]

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.

 

[Sabertooth]

I tend to believe the police and courts are manned by people. People are weak in general. Well at least compared to the average FBG.

 

[Invisible Sky Wizard]

We're 11 pages and 500+ posts in and I just realized the thread gets the show title wrong.

Jesus effing Christ. I grew up in Manitowoc and have been trying to avoid all the hoopla around this, but I have been checking in on this thread every so often. Based on the thread I actually thought the title was 'Making of a Murderer.' No wonder everyone keeps looking at me like I have an IQ of 70.

 

[derek245583]

Not that it would make any difference to any of you but a good listen

http://www.tmj4.com/shows/local-prosecutor-author-on-making-a-murderer

Did you know that Steven Avery pulled over (or more accurately rammed her with his pickup truck) and held at gunpoint with the intent to sexually assault a woman, a charge to which he plead guilty and was sentenced 6 years which was included in his 18 years he served. Was this included in the series?

Did you know Halbach's phone, camera and PDA were found not 20 feet from Avery's door burnt in a barrel? Was this included in the series?

You just put your foot in your mouth big time here buddy. Did you watch it or not?

I think KingPrawn is Detective Coburn

 

[Hooper31]

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.

Thanks. This was the comment I was hoping to see. Will likely check it out and have to decide for myself.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

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?

Do the filmmakers purport to be objective or claim they are giving "equal treatment" to all interested parties? I doubt it. I don't think any documentarian can legitimately make that claim.

 

[Hooper31]

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.

 

[Zow]

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.

Likely no

 

[Zow]

On the last point...if Avery can sue the county because he was harmed or damaged by sitting in prison for x number of years...why can't the victims of Gregory Allen also sue the county. The very action that harmed Avery effectively harmed them?

Steven Avery was directly harmed by the cops who planted evidence against him, so he can sue them.

Gregory Allen's victims were directly harmed by Gregory Allen, so they can sue him.

Gregory Allen's victims were not directly harmed by the cops who planted evidence against Steven Avery. The chain of causation on that claim is tortuously long. First, the cops who planted evidence against Steven Avery did not rape Gregory Allen's victims. Gregory Allen did that, and in general,.... Yadda, yadda.

I think the argument would be that the police roped her into a conspiracy which she now feels so guilty about unwittingly taking place in that she wants "the earth to swallow" her. The evidence would be the "composite drawing" that the dikhead sheriff framed (oh ####, I wonder if that was some sort of pun... didn't get that at first!) that was pretty clearly them fingering their guy and then drawing a picture of his mug shot that they had and calling that a match. Then manipulating her further into IDing him by having him be the only one that was in both the lineup and the photo lineup, logically making him stand out. That manipulation can be argued to be a victimizing of her and the source of her distress and need for therapy.

She'd have to prove by a preponderance that they intended to do this to do. I find that unlikely.

Eh, just read what Maurile said. I can't say it nearly as good as he did.

 

[Zow]

Are you stating something you know to be a fact...or do you believe there is room for a counter argument so to speak. You say that the damage done to Penny was done by Gregory. Which is obviously true.

I'm pretty confident that Beerntsen doesn't have a valid claim against the county for damages.

But, there isn't a legal argument to be made that the county damaged Penny during this ordeal. First and foremost, the county has a duty to bring justice to victims.

I don't think that's true. I don't think the county owes any special duty to victims. I think the county's duty to effect justice is owed to the general citizenry rather than to victims in particular ... but it's not the sort of duty that, when breached, gives rise to a claim for damages.

Putting all that aside, it is clear in the interview that she was damaged by putting an innocent man in jail. She effectively (it would be alleged) coached by the county to prosecute and convict an innocent man. And 18 years later she has to deal with the trauma of knowing that she testified and put a man behind bars.

I'm sure it's rough for her, but she's responsible for her own actions. She picked Avery out of a lineup. She testified that Avery raped her. That's something she has to deal with. It's not something she gets to sue somebody else for.

Second part...surely...the victims of the other Gregory Allen cases could have sued, right?

They surely could have sued Gregory Allen, not the county. Failing to convict someone who goes on to commit future crimes is not the kind of thing that governments are held liable for.

In my state, Arizona, there's actually a statute that creates an affirmative duty on the prosecutor's office to protect the rights of a victim and, if the prosecutor doesn't the statute creates a mechanism for the office and the prosecute personally to be sued. I think that's a little wild but my state actually may create a mechanism for situations where a prosecutor's negligence harms a victim (although I still don't think the rape victim would even have a claim with this statute). Obviously no idea whether Wisconsin has a similar law, but thought it worth pointing out.

 

[whoknew]

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 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.

 

[matttyl]

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.

 

[matttyl]

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?

 

[RUSF18]

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"

 

[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.

 

[Joe T]

I'm curious how many people here really think Steven is innocent? Not necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt, just what your gut tells you.

I think there was some hinky stuff on the police/prosecution side, I also think he is probably guilty.

I'm only through episode 6, but it looks to me like he is innocent and was framed (poorly). Too many things do not add up for him to have done it.

 

[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.

 

[Michael Brown]

King Prawn: Did you know Brendan Dassey actually confessed to the rape and murder? Did they show that in the show?

If you think about it, did Brendan Dassey actually commit any crimes?

 

[matttyl]

The obvious answer would be that the bones were put there, just like the key, the car, and the lone bullet.

Except expert witness testified that the body was burned in the pit and not moved there. Something about metal strands from the burnt tires were intertwined with the bones.

Can they tell if the bones were only burned once, and not multiple times?

 

[RUSF18]

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.

 

[Cjw_55106]

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?

 

[MattFancy]

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.

 

[Mr.Pack]

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

 

[Cjw_55106]

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

Its been asked of you repeatedly, with no answer. What was not true in the show?

 

[RUSF18]

 

[matttyl]

What was the point of the odd videos they showed with Halbach? I think they showed two of them?

The video shown where she said if she were to die, she wanted her family to know she had led a full life was odd.

Maybe there was some context around why she said that which wasn't shown.

It made me wonder if her saying that had any connection with the stalker she possibly may have had.

It was shot 3 years prior to her death (when SA is still in jail for the rape he didn't commit). That's a long time to still have any connection.