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

[SacramentoBob]

I have no idea how to replace our current justice system, I just know I don't like it. Sometimes it seems like the prosecution cares more about their stats than the truth. Maybe that's our fault.

I know it's not a popular opinion, especially in this thread...but as bad as it seems it is still one of the best justice systems in the world.

As always a few bad eggs overshadow a lot of the good ones.

I'm not convinced that the bad eggs are the exception and not the rule. And the "good eggs" who sit by and let the bad eggs do their thing are just as culpable.

 

[wadegarrett]

Don't find this show all that compelling. Meh.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's make it easier to sue judges, cops and prosecutors for bad acts. Remove a ton of immunity.

Also, make the max penalty for perjury the maximum sentence in the case at hand. Lie in a case where the defendant can be sentenced to 5 years? Get 5 years. Lie if he's on trial for his life? Get life.

And then make the same penalties apply to prosecutors who hold back items from disclosure, cops who plant evidence, and judges who are unfair. Fail to disclose exculpating DNA evidence that resulted in a 25 year sentence, get 25 years.

Judges are sometimes supposed to be unfair. Being unfair isn't even necessarily messing up at their job.

That said, everyone messes up at their job sometimes. To make the consequences punitive, it needs to take more than messing up. It needs to take willful misconduct. Planting evidence should qualify, IMO, if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But how often will that happen? I think it's very likely that the cops planted evidence against Avery ... But with regard to any particular cop, there is reasonable doubt. It looks like Lenk planted the key, but we can't rule out the possibility that somebody else planted it to make it look like he did it.

 

[chauncey]

Only one episode left, I'm going to be real disappoint if this thing ends with Steven and Brendan in prison.

Hopefully the prosecutor from Avery's trial, Teresa's brother, and the two members of the Manitowoc Sheriff's Dept are all in jail taking it up the rear.

 

[comfortably numb]

Don't find this show all that compelling. Meh.

Your face isn't that compelling!

 

[Das Boot]

This is worth the read:

What Making a Murderer Leaves Out, According to a Reporter Who Covered the Case

Angenette Levy gets real about covering the Steven Avery case.​

 

[fruity pebbles]

I think they're both guilty, think im the only one

 

[MattFancy]

A Cold Case Expert Thinks ‘Making A Murderer’ May Be Tied To One Of The Most Prolific Serial Killers Ever

Well this is interesting

 

[comfortably numb]

A Cold Case Expert Thinks ‘Making A Murderer’ May Be Tied To One Of The Most Prolific Serial Killers Ever

Well this is interesting

But there’s a growing body of investigators that believe he is responsible for some of the biggest unsolved murder cases in American history, including the Zodiac killings, the West Memphis Three, Chandra Levy, and Jon Benet Ramsey. Now Cameron believes Edwards may have something to do with Teresa Halbach’s death as well.

There are reports that he also lived in an apartment 100yds from the grassy knoll from 1962-1964.

 

[MattFancy]

A Cold Case Expert Thinks ‘Making A Murderer’ May Be Tied To One Of The Most Prolific Serial Killers Ever

Well this is interesting

But there’s a growing body of investigators that believe he is responsible for some of the biggest unsolved murder cases in American history, including the Zodiac killings, the West Memphis Three, Chandra Levy, and Jon Benet Ramsey. Now Cameron believes Edwards may have something to do with Teresa Halbach’s death as well.

There are reports that he also lived in an apartment 100yds from the grassy knoll from 1962-1964.

Yeah that line was kinda strange to me. No idea if he really did it or not, but seems weird that they could try and connect him to so many different ones all over the country.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Having once been accused of a terrible crime which I did not commit it was difficult for me to watch this. I too had to deal with police and prosecuters who refused to look anywhere else for possible suspects. As I watched this through all 10 episodes I found myself getting extremely angry and disgusted by the actions (or inactions) of the sheriffs department, public defenders and prosecutors in this case. I was even more disgusted with the outcome of each of these trials.

 

[derek245583]

Having once been accused of a terrible crime which I did not commit it was difficult for me to watch this. I too had to deal with police and prosecuters who refused to look anywhere else for possible suspects. As I watched this through all 10 episodes I found myself getting extremely angry and disgusted by the actions (or inactions) of the sheriffs department, public defenders and prosecutors in this case. I was even more disgusted with the outcome of each of these trials.

Did you get exonerated pre or post trial?

 

[AAABatteries]

Ever since seeing this interview with Ken Kratz about five minutes ago, I have been a big fan of Jena Friedman.

"so, you're a Cancer?"

 

[Pickle Rody]

Having once been accused of a terrible crime which I did not commit it was difficult for me to watch this. I too had to deal with police and prosecuters who refused to look anywhere else for possible suspects. As I watched this through all 10 episodes I found myself getting extremely angry and disgusted by the actions (or inactions) of the sheriffs department, public defenders and prosecutors in this case. I was even more disgusted with the outcome of each of these trials.

Did you get exonerated pre or post trial?

Case was thrown out by judge during competency hearing. Never made it to trial. There is an old (2007) thread here started by me in which I discuss it somewhat.

 

[irish eyes]

Having once been accused of a terrible crime which I did not commit it was difficult for me to watch this. I too had to deal with police and prosecuters who refused to look anywhere else for possible suspects. As I watched this through all 10 episodes I found myself getting extremely angry and disgusted by the actions (or inactions) of the sheriffs department, public defenders and prosecutors in this case. I was even more disgusted with the outcome of each of these trials.

Do you mind me asking what you were charged with?

 

[Pickle Rody]

Having once been accused of a terrible crime which I did not commit it was difficult for me to watch this. I too had to deal with police and prosecuters who refused to look anywhere else for possible suspects. As I watched this through all 10 episodes I found myself getting extremely angry and disgusted by the actions (or inactions) of the sheriffs department, public defenders and prosecutors in this case. I was even more disgusted with the outcome of each of these trials.

Do you mind me asking what you were charged with?

No, I do not mind.In 2003 I was arrested and charged with the molestation and rape of my then 3 year, 10 month old daughter.

 

[comfortably numb]

Having once been accused of a terrible crime which I did not commit it was difficult for me to watch this. I too had to deal with police and prosecuters who refused to look anywhere else for possible suspects. As I watched this through all 10 episodes I found myself getting extremely angry and disgusted by the actions (or inactions) of the sheriffs department, public defenders and prosecutors in this case. I was even more disgusted with the outcome of each of these trials.

Do you mind me asking what you were charged with?

No, I do not mind.In 2003 I was arrested and charged with the molestation and rape of my then 3 year, 10 month old daughter.

sheesh

good thing you don't live in Manitowoc County Wisconsin

 

[bshell27]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but does anyone care about the wildly different theories presented between Avery's trial and Dassey's trial? I know they had to tailor it based on the confessions of Dassey, but they were trying to prove a completely different version of the murder for each trial.

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but does anyone care about the wildly different theories presented between Avery's trial and Dassey's trial? I know they had to tailor it based on the confessions of Dassey, but they were trying to prove a completely different version of the murder for each trial.

It's total horse #### just like the rest of Brendan's trial. I'm betting with all the media scrutiny, Brendan gets a new trial at some point.

 

[Joe T]

Ever since seeing this interview with Ken Kratz about five minutes ago, I have been a big fan of Jena Friedman.

"so, you're a Cancer?"

Her voice overs are terrible, but she is pretty funny.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but does anyone care about the wildly different theories presented between Avery's trial and Dassey's trial? I know they had to tailor it based on the confessions of Dassey, but they were trying to prove a completely different version of the murder for each trial.

Prosecution doesn't care about truth. If they did, consistency would be important to them. What they care about is winning the case. If winning requires inconsistencies, then so be it.

 

[Dickies]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but does anyone care about the wildly different theories presented between Avery's trial and Dassey's trial? I know they had to tailor it based on the confessions of Dassey, but they were trying to prove a completely different version of the murder for each trial.

Prosecution doesn't care about truth. If they did, consistency would be important to them. What they care about is winning the case. If winning requires inconsistencies, then so be it.

This is the biggest problem with our system.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but does anyone care about the wildly different theories presented between Avery's trial and Dassey's trial? I know they had to tailor it based on the confessions of Dassey, but they were trying to prove a completely different version of the murder for each trial.

Prosecution doesn't care about truth. If they did, consistency would be important to them. What they care about is winning the case. If winning requires inconsistencies, then so be it.

This is the biggest problem with our system.

I don't think that even scratches the surface of the biggest problems with our system.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Ran across this one as I was clicking from report to report, and didn't find it in a search of the thread.

14 pieces of troubling evidence "Making a Murderer" left out or glossed overthen this interview of Buting just last week was pretty interesting too

'Making a Murderer': Steven Avery's Lawyer on the Evidence Left Out

I did scour through the thread, but apologies if either was already posted

 

[T J]

Don't find this show all that compelling. Meh.

Me neither. For me, the dude is so unlikable in general that I couldn't get past that and into the story itself. I just found myself not caring nor wanting to watch it past the first episode. For the story itself and discussion of it, I come in here and listen in.

 

[AAABatteries]

Don't find this show all that compelling. Meh.

Me neither. For me, the dude is so unlikable in general that I couldn't get past that and into the story itself. I just found myself not caring nor wanting to watch it past the first episode. For the story itself and discussion of it, I come in here and listen in.

I can see people not liking the series if that's not your cup of tea (I found it fascinating) but I don't get the take that Avery came off as unlikable. If anything, he comes off as a sympathetic character. The documentary team does a good job of making him likable and sympathetic IMO. I have no idea what he's like IRL but I find it odd that somebody would says he's unlikable based on the doc.

 

[Sabertooth]

Here's the complete trial transcipt I guess.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/

 

[cockroach]

Don't find this show all that compelling. Meh.

Me neither. For me, the dude is so unlikable in general that I couldn't get past that and into the story itself. I just found myself not caring nor wanting to watch it past the first episode. For the story itself and discussion of it, I come in here and listen in.

I can see people not liking the series if that's not your cup of tea (I found it fascinating) but I don't get the take that Avery came off as unlikable. If anything, he comes off as a sympathetic character. The documentary team does a good job of making him likable and sympathetic IMO. I have no idea what he's like IRL but I find it odd that somebody would says he's unlikable based on the doc.

Based on the first episode.

I actually felt the same way too and nearly didn't watch the rest based on the first episode.

Avery is pretty much a disgusting, dirty, low-life, scumbag... if presented, I wouldn't want to shake his filthy, callused hand.

But he's not a rapist, doubtedly a murder and was totally crapped all over by local law enforcement and the judicial system... this last part makes him a sympathetic character (and a model of inner strength and resolve) but it takes like 5 or 6 eps to get there.

 

[cockroach]

Here's the complete trial transcipt I guess.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/

Super cool that the guys on reddit crowd sourced all those docs and put them up online... they've raised quite a bit of dough so far. But there's more evidence they're trying to get. Footage of stuff I guess.

It's good to see people getting passionate about something that's not the Kardashians or something else completely trite and meaningless.

It's leading to tons of other cases getting attention they might not have otherwise. For example, I'm about to check out a Ken Burns documentary on the Brooklyn 5, which is apparently another false confession story kind of like the West Memphis 3

 

[identikit]

I heart radio has 'Rebutting a Murderer' podcast series from WISN'S Dan O'Donnell.

 

[cockroach]

I heart radio has 'Rebutting a Murderer' podcast series from WISN'S Dan O'Donnell.

It's been discussed here. I don't find it to be an intellectually honest piece of journalism, myself. I'll have to read the transcripts of the rest (and the ensuing comments) though. I think he was only through ep 6 when I was checking it out.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Here's the complete trial transcipt I guess.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/

dammit..now I'm gonna have to read the whole thing I guess

 

[Sabertooth]

Ah, #### it, gives you something to do at work when you aren't manning the wall.

 

[facook]

The car battery? I repeat. The car battery.

Any theories?

Not sure. What would be the reason for anyone to take the battery? Pretty odd detail in this whole thing.

As far as Avery is concerned, I would imagine that if you believe he was bleeding that he could have gotten blood on it and thus took it out. But...why would he be under the hood in the first place? And if Avery did take it...why the hell didn't they find it?

I would like to know if the authorities ever looked in any of the running cars to see if they had a battery that may have been in Teresa's van. I would imagine that it is possible that her van still had the factory issued battery...though maybe not. With that cold weather up there maybe she would have replaced hers at least once.

So...the three theories I think of when I am looking at the battery is this:

1. Avery took it out and put it in his own car or truck and the authorities never looked under his hood to check

2. One of the other Avery clan members who killed her took it out to put it in her car

3. Whoever planted the truck to frame Avery figured that if they took the battery out of the van...it wouldn't start and thus make it more difficult for anyone to move the van and thus make it easier for the authorities to find it.

Dude...I know you're passionate (obsessive) about this case. But you lose all credibility calling her RAV4 a van. Please stop. It's almost Kratz-ian in it's weirdness.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The car battery? I repeat. The car battery.

Any theories?

Not sure. What would be the reason for anyone to take the battery? Pretty odd detail in this whole thing.As far as Avery is concerned, I would imagine that if you believe he was bleeding that he could have gotten blood on it and thus took it out. But...why would he be under the hood in the first place? And if Avery did take it...why the hell didn't they find it?

I would like to know if the authorities ever looked in any of the running cars to see if they had a battery that may have been in Teresa's van. I would imagine that it is possible that her van still had the factory issued battery...though maybe not. With that cold weather up there maybe she would have replaced hers at least once.

So...the three theories I think of when I am looking at the battery is this:

1. Avery took it out and put it in his own car or truck and the authorities never looked under his hood to check

2. One of the other Avery clan members who killed her took it out to put it in her car

3. Whoever planted the truck to frame Avery figured that if they took the battery out of the van...it wouldn't start and thus make it more difficult for anyone to move the van and thus make it easier for the authorities to find it.

Go to a salvage yard and tell me how many cars have batteries in them.

ETA In a cold weather climate.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

in reference to 3, what is this planted truck you speak of?

 

[Ghost Rider]

My thoughts after finally watching this:

-Steven Avery is human garbage.

-I think he probably did it, but there was probably enough reasonably doubt to where it would have been tough, as a juror, to come back with a guilty verdict.

-The documentary was extremely one-sided. The makers of it clearly think he is innocent and wanted the presentation to reflect that.

-The cops are awful up there.

-Of the two trial lawyers, I thought Dean Strang was excellent. Good talker, and had lots of passion in his voice. I was not a fan of Jerry Buting. He came off as too cold and clinical, and whenever he talked about the case to the camera, he almost came off as callous towards Teresa. It's like, you can defend your client without being an ### towards the true victim.

 

[Das Boot]

My thoughts after finally watching this:

-Steven Avery is human garbage.

-I think he probably did it, but there was probably enough reasonably doubt to where it would have been tough, as a juror, to come back with a guilty verdict.

-The documentary was extremely one-sided. The makers of it clearly think he is innocent and wanted the presentation to reflect that.

-The cops are awful up there.

-Of the two trial lawyers, I thought Dean Strang was excellent. Good talker, and had lots of passion in his voice. I was not a fan of Jerry Buting. He came off as too cold and clinical, and whenever he talked about the case to the camera, he almost came off as callous towards Teresa. It's like, you can defend your client without being an ### towards the true victim.

What are your reasons for classifying Steven Avery as human garbage?

 

[Ghost Rider]

My thoughts after finally watching this:

-Steven Avery is human garbage.

-I think he probably did it, but there was probably enough reasonably doubt to where it would have been tough, as a juror, to come back with a guilty verdict.

-The documentary was extremely one-sided. The makers of it clearly think he is innocent and wanted the presentation to reflect that.

-The cops are awful up there.

-Of the two trial lawyers, I thought Dean Strang was excellent. Good talker, and had lots of passion in his voice. I was not a fan of Jerry Buting. He came off as too cold and clinical, and whenever he talked about the case to the camera, he almost came off as callous towards Teresa. It's like, you can defend your client without being an ### towards the true victim.

What are your reasons for classifying Steven Avery as human garbage?

Hmmm, let's see he once ran someone off the road with his car and pointed a gun at them, he once poured oil all over a cat and threw it into a fire, and he threatened to kill his first wife (see: the letters he wrote to her when in jail). That, and just his general personality, make it easy to classify him that way. Even if he is innocent of this murder (which I doubt), those other things are enough.

 

[Das Boot]

My thoughts after finally watching this:

-Steven Avery is human garbage.

-I think he probably did it, but there was probably enough reasonably doubt to where it would have been tough, as a juror, to come back with a guilty verdict.

-The documentary was extremely one-sided. The makers of it clearly think he is innocent and wanted the presentation to reflect that.

-The cops are awful up there.

-Of the two trial lawyers, I thought Dean Strang was excellent. Good talker, and had lots of passion in his voice. I was not a fan of Jerry Buting. He came off as too cold and clinical, and whenever he talked about the case to the camera, he almost came off as callous towards Teresa. It's like, you can defend your client without being an ### towards the true victim.

What are your reasons for classifying Steven Avery as human garbage?

Hmmm, let's see he once ran someone off the road with his car and pointed a gun at them, he once poured oil all over a cat and threw it into a fire, and he threatened to kill his first wife (see: the letters he wrote to her when in jail). That, and just his general personality, make it easy to classify him that way. Even if he is innocent of this murder (which I doubt), those other things are enough.

The cat incident was reprehensible. There's no way to look at that any other way.

The road rage incident was, he claimed, due to the woman (I think a cousin) supposedly spreading lies about him exposing himself as she drove by. Regardless of the truth of that claim, running into her car and pointing a gun at her was a dumb and criminal reaction, for which he was fully punished. But if she was lying in her claims, I at least fully understand his anger at her.

The letters from jail were bad, but remembering that he was an innocent man in jail for a heinous crime that virtually everyone believed him guilty of, while his kids were little and growing up, makes me at least sympathetic to the horrible situation he was in and I can understand him lashing out. Not condone it, but understand it.

The one you didn't mention was the recent allegations by ex-GF Jodi Stachowski. If her claims are true and he was abusive to her, that makes him pretty close to human garbage right there. Again though, if her allegations are true.

I didn't dislike him based on his general personality, at least from what was shown in the documentary and from what I've seen since in media. Maybe you've seen more of him than I have, or maybe it's just a personality thing where your reaction to him was different than mine.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Way too much smoke for there not to be a lot of fire, in regards to him being human garbage. I did find it curious that the documentary makers stopped showing Jodi at all once she was out of his life for good. If she is saying bad things now, I am sure they didn't want that in the documentary since it wouldn't go along with their "we want him to look innocent" narrative. And what about his kids with the girlfriend when he went to prison the first time? I believe they weren't even mentioned again after the first episode, obviously because they cut off all ties with him.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I'm not running someone's car off the road because she accused me of wanking it. That's not "understandable" to me. Calling her a #### at the family BBQ is understandable.

 

[facook]

Read through this whole thread. I am torn.

My wife and I have discussed a couple of things that make me sympathetic to the locals that watched this drama unfold in real time:

1. We live in a small town in Oregon and have had a few local murders over the years. Of course there was all the local media coverage which we followed just like the people in Wisconsin did. I have no doubt in my mind that the people who were convicted did the crimes. I'm pretty sure if during the trial I saw on the news that the defense was crying "Frame!" I probably would have rolled my eyes. I doubt I'd be so vigorously defending the local system like some in here are doing, but I have some empathy as to why they are convinced as to Steve's guilt.

2. There are a couple of families in our area that remind me of the Averys. Many members, in-laws and cousins all the same, PWT to the core, completely dysfunctional. Several years ago one of the sons was stalking and threatening my dad over a one-time disagreement that he would not let go. We had to get a restraining order, and because he was threatening our lives we carried guns for a short time in our vehicles. Eventually he settled down, apologized, and hasn't been a problem since. But if I heard that one of these people was arrested for murder and saw the kind of things on the local news that Kratz pulled I would not be shocked and I'm sure I'd instantly buy in to his guilt. The irony of the family in my area is that the father of the stalker was a Captain in our city police until he was forced to resign for domestic violence a few years ago. Now he cooks pizza in a pizza parlor. Anyway, again I could see being convinced of their guilt and not being easily swayed, just like some of the Wisconsin folks in here.

With all of that being said, I don't know how you can watch this series - even though it is admittedly slanted toward the defense - and not second guess your convictions of guilt. The Brendan stuff is unreal, there is no way things happened the way he was coerced into confessing. He should get a new trial no question.

I'm less certain about Steve. My gut says he didn't do it, for two reasons. The first is all of the doubt over the County's involvement in finding evidence against him that has been gone over in her ad nauseum. The second is how he looked when the verdict of guilty on Count 1 was read. To me, he didn't look mad. He didn't look shocked even. To me he looked very sad and almost betrayed. He looked at the jury like, "Seriously? How can you think I'm guilty?" I don't think a guy as dim as him can be that good an actor. I think that look was legit, and in that moment I believed he was innocent. I'm probably 70/30 he didn't do it.

 

[Das Boot]

I'm not running someone's car off the road because she accused me of wanking it. That's not "understandable" to me. Calling her a #### at the family BBQ is understandable.

I'm not reacting that way either, but a couple of thoughts:

1. Don't underestimate how you'd really feel if someone was falsely going around town saying you whip your junk out in the front yard when they drive by. And then your friends and enemies both start talking about it and believing it. I think it would make you madder than just waiting for a family BBQ to bring it up.

2. Avery has an IQ of 70. Who knows what kind of logic one would use when dealing with a mental handicap of that severity.

Clearly his choice was illegal, reckless, and ill-advised. But based on the 2 factors above, I can kind of understand how he might have arrived at doing that on the spur of the moment seeing her drive by.

 

[Politician Spock]

Read through this whole thread. I am torn.

My wife and I have discussed a couple of things that make me sympathetic to the locals that watched this drama unfold in real time:

1. We live in a small town in Oregon and have had a few local murders over the years. Of course there was all the local media coverage which we followed just like the people in Wisconsin did. I have no doubt in my mind that the people who were convicted did the crimes. I'm pretty sure if during the trial I saw on the news that the defense was crying "Frame!" I probably would have rolled my eyes. I doubt I'd be so vigorously defending the local system like some in here are doing, but I have some empathy as to why they are convinced as to Steve's guilt.

2. There are a couple of families in our area that remind me of the Averys. Many members, in-laws and cousins all the same, PWT to the core, completely dysfunctional. Several years ago one of the sons was stalking and threatening my dad over a one-time disagreement that he would not let go. We had to get a restraining order, and because he was threatening our lives we carried guns for a short time in our vehicles. Eventually he settled down, apologized, and hasn't been a problem since. But if I heard that one of these people was arrested for murder and saw the kind of things on the local news that Kratz pulled I would not be shocked and I'm sure I'd instantly buy in to his guilt. The irony of the family in my area is that the father of the stalker was a Captain in our city police until he was forced to resign for domestic violence a few years ago. Now he cooks pizza in a pizza parlor. Anyway, again I could see being convinced of their guilt and not being easily swayed, just like some of the Wisconsin folks in here.

With all of that being said, I don't know how you can watch this series - even though it is admittedly slanted toward the defense - and not second guess your convictions of guilt. The Brendan stuff is unreal, there is no way things happened the way he was coerced into confessing. He should get a new trial no question.

I'm less certain about Steve. My gut says he didn't do it, for two reasons. The first is all of the doubt over the County's involvement in finding evidence against him that has been gone over in her ad nauseum. The second is how he looked when the verdict of guilty on Count 1 was read. To me, he didn't look mad. He didn't look shocked even. To me he looked very sad and almost betrayed. He looked at the jury like, "Seriously? How can you think I'm guilty?" I don't think a guy as dim as him can be that good an actor. I think that look was legit, and in that moment I believed he was innocent. I'm probably 70/30 he didn't do it.

For me, the biggest reason my gut says he didn't do it is a lack of motive. The second biggest reason is even dumb people aren't dumb enough to park the car of the person you murdered on your property. The third biggest reason is the prosecution shows evidence of ropes and knives and a very bloody method of killing her, yet evidence of something like that happening on the property is severely lacking. I don't deny the prosecution presented evidence against Steve, but if the evidence was enough to go beyond reasonable doubt, then there was no need to suggest if Steve didn't do it, then who did, and put the burden of proof on the defendant to answer the "then who did it" question. That's not the defendants burden. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant did it, which I feel they came up short on.

I don't like Steve. Well, that's hard to say having only learned about him from the documentary. But from what I've seen, he's not a guy I would likely be friends with. And that's okay, because most people aren't. I think there's a good chance he's a ####, and just wouldn't like being around him. But the law exists to protect people we don't like just as much as it exists to protect those we like. The system failed here. I think the system has gotten to the point where it's failing a lot. Being innocent until proven guilty has been moved to just being an ideal, as there are too many people in law enforcement who's reputations, careers and lively hoods are too tightly tied to being right. So anyone falsely accused of anything has the burden of proving those people are wrong. If they can't, then it's accepted that those people are right, even when there's doubt.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'm less certain about Steve. My gut says he didn't do it, for two reasons. The first is all of the doubt over the County's involvement in finding evidence against him that has been gone over in her ad nauseum. The second is how he looked when the verdict of guilty on Count 1 was read. To me, he didn't look mad. He didn't look shocked even. To me he looked very sad and almost betrayed. He looked at the jury like, "Seriously? How can you think I'm guilty?" I don't think a guy as dim as him can be that good an actor. I think that look was legit, and in that moment I believed he was innocent. I'm probably 70/30 he didn't do it.

Dim doesn't mean he isn't street smart enough to fool people. True sociopaths can truly turn on the tears and act hurt when they need to (IF Avery is guilty, I think it's easy to argue that he is a sociopath), even if they don't have a high IQ.

 

[Golden Gopher]

Read through this whole thread. I am torn.

My wife and I have discussed a couple of things that make me sympathetic to the locals that watched this drama unfold in real time:

1. We live in a small town in Oregon and have had a few local murders over the years. Of course there was all the local media coverage which we followed just like the people in Wisconsin did. I have no doubt in my mind that the people who were convicted did the crimes. I'm pretty sure if during the trial I saw on the news that the defense was crying "Frame!" I probably would have rolled my eyes. I doubt I'd be so vigorously defending the local system like some in here are doing, but I have some empathy as to why they are convinced as to Steve's guilt.

2. There are a couple of families in our area that remind me of the Averys. Many members, in-laws and cousins all the same, PWT to the core, completely dysfunctional. Several years ago one of the sons was stalking and threatening my dad over a one-time disagreement that he would not let go. We had to get a restraining order, and because he was threatening our lives we carried guns for a short time in our vehicles. Eventually he settled down, apologized, and hasn't been a problem since. But if I heard that one of these people was arrested for murder and saw the kind of things on the local news that Kratz pulled I would not be shocked and I'm sure I'd instantly buy in to his guilt. The irony of the family in my area is that the father of the stalker was a Captain in our city police until he was forced to resign for domestic violence a few years ago. Now he cooks pizza in a pizza parlor. Anyway, again I could see being convinced of their guilt and not being easily swayed, just like some of the Wisconsin folks in here.

With all of that being said, I don't know how you can watch this series - even though it is admittedly slanted toward the defense - and not second guess your convictions of guilt. The Brendan stuff is unreal, there is no way things happened the way he was coerced into confessing. He should get a new trial no question.

I'm less certain about Steve. My gut says he didn't do it, for two reasons. The first is all of the doubt over the County's involvement in finding evidence against him that has been gone over in her ad nauseum. The second is how he looked when the verdict of guilty on Count 1 was read. To me, he didn't look mad. He didn't look shocked even. To me he looked very sad and almost betrayed. He looked at the jury like, "Seriously? How can you think I'm guilty?" I don't think a guy as dim as him can be that good an actor. I think that look was legit, and in that moment I believed he was innocent. I'm probably 70/30 he didn't do it.

Just watched episode 8 last night. I agree with pretty much everything you said. Locals certainly have a very different perspective than the casual observer watching the documentary. And, I think most small-town communities have a family or two like the Avery's, to some degree. I have to keep reminding myself of that, as well as the fact that the documentary really only shows one side. Nevertheless, it's hard not to ask many questions along the way. Unfortunately, the answer to most of those questions, at least in the documentary, is something to the effect of "I don't recall" or another open-ended response.

When the verdict was read, my wife said "That's not the reaction of somebody who is guilty." I can't say with certainty, obviously, but he definitely looked crushed to the core. Not the reaction of someone who is guilty, and was hoping to get off scott-free, but someone who looked betrayed, like you said. Obviously, that's just the impression that I got. It's impossible to say what was actually going through his mind.

I hope Avery is guilty. We'll never know, for sure (most likely), but if he's not, the whole thing is a real shame. A travesty, actually. As for Brendan, he got screwed, regardless of who did it. Even if Avery did it, and even if Brendan assisted him, he's clearly too challenged to make decisions for himself. He basically does what people tell him to do (i.e. confess). That doesn't mean he's innocent, necessarily, but the idea that he somehow plotted with Avery to commit this crime is ridiculous. He's not smart enough to do so.

 

[Das Boot]

Way too much smoke for there not to be a lot of fire, in regards to him being human garbage. I did find it curious that the documentary makers stopped showing Jodi at all once she was out of his life for good. If she is saying bad things now, I am sure they didn't want that in the documentary since it wouldn't go along with their "we want him to look innocent" narrative. And what about his kids with the girlfriend when he went to prison the first time? I believe they weren't even mentioned again after the first episode, obviously because they cut off all ties with him.

Human garbage is a really strong term for me.

Maybe he deserves it, maybe not.

I'm not there yet where I'd use that label.

If I knew he was guilty of murder (obviously), or even domestic violence, I'd fully agree.

I'm pretty sure Jodi didn't say anything bad about Avery until just a few days ago or it would have been news long before now.

So it makes perfect sense that the documentary didn't have any additional info to show regarding her once she left the story.

FWIW, the 2 filmmakers said they saw nothing during their filming that gave them any kind of inkling that the abuse Jodi said was going on was occurring.

Regarding his kids and his first wife, I'd feel pretty safe in speculating that once he was convicted, she probably believed him guilty, as did the entire world.

So it's little surprise that she wanted to remove him from her life and her family's life.

And, considering he was 100% innocent, it's little surprise that his family's rejection of him would have been exceptionally painful, hurtful, humiliating, and enraging.

I know it would affect me profoundly if I was falsely convicted and imprisoned for rape, and my wife and kids didn't believe me and cut me out of their lives.

 

[Golden Gopher]

I'm less certain about Steve. My gut says he didn't do it, for two reasons. The first is all of the doubt over the County's involvement in finding evidence against him that has been gone over in her ad nauseum. The second is how he looked when the verdict of guilty on Count 1 was read. To me, he didn't look mad. He didn't look shocked even. To me he looked very sad and almost betrayed. He looked at the jury like, "Seriously? How can you think I'm guilty?" I don't think a guy as dim as him can be that good an actor. I think that look was legit, and in that moment I believed he was innocent. I'm probably 70/30 he didn't do it.

Dim doesn't mean he isn't street smart enough to fool people. True sociopaths can truly turn on the tears and act hurt when they need to (IF Avery is guilty, I think it's easy to argue that he is a sociopath), even if they don't have a high IQ.

Funny... I agree with this as well. Which is why I say that I hope he's guilty. If he is, he's got a lot of people fooled, and justice (for him at least) was served. I just feel bad for his nephew, who isn't/wasn't fooling anybody. He got played, by either his uncle or the PD.

 

[facook]

I'm less certain about Steve. My gut says he didn't do it, for two reasons. The first is all of the doubt over the County's involvement in finding evidence against him that has been gone over in her ad nauseum. The second is how he looked when the verdict of guilty on Count 1 was read. To me, he didn't look mad. He didn't look shocked even. To me he looked very sad and almost betrayed. He looked at the jury like, "Seriously? How can you think I'm guilty?" I don't think a guy as dim as him can be that good an actor. I think that look was legit, and in that moment I believed he was innocent. I'm probably 70/30 he didn't do it.

Dim doesn't mean he isn't street smart enough to fool people. True sociopaths can truly turn on the tears and act hurt when they need to (IF Avery is guilty, I think it's easy to argue that he is a sociopath), even if they don't have a high IQ.

Interesting. I don't know enough about sociopaths to argue with you. Like I said, it was my gut feeling.