What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

I've been doing the same and I can't really find anything either.

I read somewhere with no links or supporting evidence that the family, not specifically Steven, had a long history of sexual violence against women and his defense attorneys were using that in his requests for appeals. But it was just in a blog with no supporting documentation.

 
He had never committed a violent crime before
depends on what you mean by violent. As stated above he doused a cat with oil and threw it in a fire. Also pulled a shotgun (not loaded) out on a woman who was spreading rumors about him yanking in public.

The only thing i'm sure about is that his nephew was definitely railroaded. As to whether Steven committed the murder i'm unsure, but if not him it was likely someone in his family who lived on the property.

 
I thought Avery received excellent counsel. I am somewhat surprised they didn't seek moving the trail to another county to avoid prejudice from a jury. The interview from juror that was dismiss missed was interesting as well. 7 not guilty votes on initial vote.

 
Listened to the podcast. I didn't realize they had been working on this documentary since a week after Avery got arrested in 2005. They rented a camera and drove from NY after seeing the headline in the paper. I guess I should've know from all the footage, but damn, that's a long ### time to have been working on this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If it's not Steven Avery I am going with Brendan's brother I forget his name as being the guy who did it. He was around and leaving about the same time as Teresa was leaving. He would have access to plant evidence knowing the cops would want Steven for the crime.

I am almost positive the police planted evidence. I wonder if it was someone else in the Avery family if they know but don't care.

Here is the appeals document if anyone is interested:

http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinions/10/pdf/10-0411.pdf

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought Avery received excellent counsel. I am somewhat surprised they didn't seek moving the trail to another county to avoid prejudice from a jury. The interview from juror that was dismiss missed was interesting as well. 7 not guilty votes on initial vote.
I believe they did, but it was a neighboring county. Which is almost pointless in the post internet era.

 
If it's not Steven Avery I am going with Brendan's brother I forget his name as being the guy who did it. He was around and leaving about the same time as Teresa was leaving. He would have access to plant evidence knowing the cops would want Steven for the crime.

I am almost positive the police planted evidence. I wonder if it was someone else in the Avery family if they know but don't care.

Here is the appeals document if anyone is interested:

http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinions/10/pdf/10-0411.pdf
Check out the sub reddit thread. Many interesting theories both supporting and against Steven Avery.

I think the brother or ex know more than they are saying. I believe one of the two deleted her voice mails. And her friend testified she had "someone calling her repeatedly". During the trial the police knew about this, but admitted they never followed up on it because it was irrelevant. Not following up on a potential stalker is insane. Unless the repeated calls were from a collection agency or something along those lines...

 
I thought Avery received excellent counsel. I am somewhat surprised they didn't seek moving the trail to another county to avoid prejudice from a jury. The interview from juror that was dismiss missed was interesting as well. 7 not guilty votes on initial vote.
I believe they did, but it was a neighboring county. Which is almost pointless in the post internet era.
I could be wrong but I believe the jury was brought in from Dane County

 
I thought Avery received excellent counsel. I am somewhat surprised they didn't seek moving the trail to another county to avoid prejudice from a jury. The interview from juror that was dismiss missed was interesting as well. 7 not guilty votes on initial vote.
I believe they did, but it was a neighboring county. Which is almost pointless in the post internet era.
I could be wrong but I believe the jury was brought in from Dane County
I'll have to look back. I know the DA and Jury were not from Manitowoc. I thought they were both neighboring counties.

 
I thought Avery received excellent counsel. I am somewhat surprised they didn't seek moving the trail to another county to avoid prejudice from a jury. The interview from juror that was dismiss missed was interesting as well. 7 not guilty votes on initial vote.
I believe they did, but it was a neighboring county. Which is almost pointless in the post internet era.
I could be wrong but I believe the jury was brought in from Dane County
I'll have to look back. I know the DA and Jury were not from Manitowoc. I thought they were both neighboring counties.
The DA and the trial happened in Calumet County, neighboring county of Manitowoc and the county of Halbach's residence. But I think the jury was brought in from Dane IIRC

 
I just finished it.

I think there is a chance that Steven did it but Brendan either had nothing to do with it or simply witnessed the burning of the body much later that evening which is why he had no clue how the murder actually happened. And the police clearly planted some of the evidence. That is a no-brainer to me.

What I am struggling with is reconciling an alternative to one of the Averys committing the murder.

The brother did set up a couple of red flags with his statements and the apparent deleting of voice mails. But it seems so implausible that someone unrelated to the Averys could have murdered her and then planted the car and the body on the property without being detected.

So I really am leaning that either Steven did it, or one of the other relatives did and he just went down for it.

That all being said, there was more than enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. And I know very little about law, but some of the crap that went on seems like it should have automatically thrown out evidence. How are these guys not even getting any appeals approved? The fact that a minor was questioned without a parent being notified should have thrown out his entire statement, no?
As for the bolded, the police did not even explore any alternate theories or question anybody else as suspects.

 
I just finished it.

I think there is a chance that Steven did it but Brendan either had nothing to do with it or simply witnessed the burning of the body much later that evening which is why he had no clue how the murder actually happened. And the police clearly planted some of the evidence. That is a no-brainer to me.

What I am struggling with is reconciling an alternative to one of the Averys committing the murder.

The brother did set up a couple of red flags with his statements and the apparent deleting of voice mails. But it seems so implausible that someone unrelated to the Averys could have murdered her and then planted the car and the body on the property without being detected.

So I really am leaning that either Steven did it, or one of the other relatives did and he just went down for it.

That all being said, there was more than enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. And I know very little about law, but some of the crap that went on seems like it should have automatically thrown out evidence. How are these guys not even getting any appeals approved? The fact that a minor was questioned without a parent being notified should have thrown out his entire statement, no?
As for the bolded, the police did not even explore any alternate theories or question anybody else as suspects.
Nor would the judge allow anything SA's attorneys found into the court room - which is just ludicrous.

 
A bit off topic but since I liked this so much I watched Jinx. It was pretty good but not even on the same level as this one.

 
Binged through this over the Christmas weekend. Just an outstanding documentary. Certainly seemed like a witch hunt to me. Someone had an agenda and they buried SA with it.

 
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Completely respect your take Willy so please take this within the spirit it's intended as nothing more than a counter point.

The biggest outrage was the Brendan Dassey stuff. I don't need the media or the court to tell me what I witnessed in those recorded conversations and phone calls. His side of things seems to be a blatant unduly abortion of our legal system's form of justice.

Guilty or an innocent man, what we saw in the doc are not the way things are supposed to work in this country. He was led to slaughter to help put away Avery.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Teresa is from my hometown. She was my sister's high school classmate and good friend.

It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach that the Halbach family (some of the best and most God-fearing people you'll ever meet) have to re-live this whole tragedy while the makers of the "documentary" sit back and count their money. They should be ashamed of themselves.

 
Teresa is from my hometown. She was my sister's high school classmate and good friend.

It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach that the Halbach family (some of the best and most God-fearing people you'll ever meet) have to re-live this whole tragedy while the makers of the "documentary" sit back and count their money. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Do documentaries shouldn't be made if the story affects some people? I reckon no documentary could ever get made if that were the case.

There are legitimate questions that need to be raised in this doc - especially as it relates to Brandon Dassey (as noted above). Just because it pains the Haibach family is not a sufficient reason to ignore those questions. Why don't you and they direct your anger at the people who actually caused this story? Not the ones who told it.

 
Teresa is from my hometown. She was my sister's high school classmate and good friend.

It makes me absolutely sick to my stomach that the Halbach family (some of the best and most God-fearing people you'll ever meet) have to re-live this whole tragedy while the makers of the "documentary" sit back and count their money. They should be ashamed of themselves.
I can understand your passion but the documentary is more about the integrity of our legal system which is bigger than anyones death.

 
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
It wasn't really that elaborate. You should watch it. I think you'll be surpised at the level of corruption that is evident. But hey, your co worker must be right.

 
Willy said:
The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.
Sorry, but in towns like this (and in most places really), the media and law enforcement work in concert.

Also, you are correct in your point that the Department itself wasn't liable for the money in the civil suit. However, it's kind of clear they had a hard on for him when the head of the sheriff's office or whatever won't even admit that Avery didn't do the rape in 85. :o

Seriously, the guy was 100% exonerated by DNA evidence and the guy can't even look over an say, "Sorry man, was just doing my job, we really thought it was you". That doesn't mean they framed him. But for me, that shows their mentality. And it's sick.

If you think this is an open and shut case with no difficult questions to answer and that the filmmakers needed 10 years to dig up something to help create a grey area to point the finger back at the cops and you got the whole story watching the 10 o'clock news every night... well, watch two episodes for me please. Episode 3 and episode 4. That's it. 2 hrs. Watch that with your eyes and come back and tell me it was an open and shut case that the cops had on their hands. Please.

 
I could be wrong but I thought it was said early on that some of the county workers could potentially be found personally liable

 
Willy said:
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
I'd say Netflix is pretty mainstream. And has a lot less reason to be biased than the local media you sound like you rely on. Local media works daily with and relies on the very people implicated in this documentary.

 
I have doubts about Steven Avery's guilt but I sure hope he's guilty.
Yes, we all do, because the implications if he isn't are unfathomable to most people... especially the closer you get in locality to the case. The perception is that the Avery family are generally a big pile of crap and worthless to society; an eyesore at best. Conversely, the local law enforcement represent everything good and wholesome... if not in actual action, by proxy and with the motto of "protect and serve" in their hearts and minds. If Avery is innocent and there was a conspiracy (by the same people who already were proven to have conspired against him in the past) against him in this case these pillars of society, metaphorically tucking us in at night, are the biggest pieces of fecal matter imaginable. That's going to cause a lot of cognitive dissonance in people, especially the longer they've known about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Willy said:
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
I said the same thing a couple of pages back but was attacked for it. I would wager you take any criminal case and present just the defense side of the case on Netflix as this series did and you'd rope in a whole lot of supporters of the defense as well. Many here fail to acknowledge (or don't understand) that this series took the defenses viewpoint and developed their series around it.

 
Willy said:
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
I said the same thing a couple of pages back but was attacked for it. I would wager you take any criminal case and present just the defense side of the case on Netflix as this series did and you'd rope in a whole lot of supporters of the defense as well. Many here fail to acknowledge (or don't understand) that this series took the defenses viewpoint and developed their series around it.
I've seen a lot of people acknowledging that.

I don't think the upheaval we're seeing is all that out of line in this thread (maybe elsewhere on the internet it is).

That was a fascinating documentary and there's a reason the film makers made it (and took 10 years to do so). 10 years to make a documentary, to get it right, doesn't strike me as some Hollywood-esque cash grab to make a buck off of a tragedy (although I'm sure it's not something they'd turn up. Again - I don't need a documentary to tell me what I saw in the Dassey interviews was plainly wrong to do to a person. someone could have posted a random youtube link with a 2 sentence background and those interview tapes and you'd get just as much outcry IMO

 
The Flying Elvis said:
Decent article... http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

I agree with most of what is written, while I think Steven probably did it, I also think the police probably planted evidence and played fast and loose.
Hmmmm . . . interesting article about some of the evidence that was presented in the trial to help convict Avery but was not included in the documentary. I wonder why it wasn't included. Any guesses anyone?

 
Willy said:
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
I said the same thing a couple of pages back but was attacked for it. I would wager you take any criminal case and present just the defense side of the case on Netflix as this series did and you'd rope in a whole lot of supporters of the defense as well. Many here fail to acknowledge (or don't understand) that this series took the defenses viewpoint and developed their series around it.
I've seen a lot of people acknowledging that.

I don't think the upheaval we're seeing is all that out of line in this thread (maybe elsewhere on the internet it is).

That was a fascinating documentary and there's a reason the film makers made it (and took 10 years to do so). 10 years to make a documentary, to get it right, doesn't strike me as some Hollywood-esque cash grab to make a buck off of a tragedy (although I'm sure it's not something they'd turn up. Again - I don't need a documentary to tell me what I saw in the Dassey interviews was plainly wrong to do to a person. someone could have posted a random youtube link with a 2 sentence background and those interview tapes and you'd get just as much outcry IMO
And yet posters in here want you to sign a petition to President Obama that he free Steven Avery.

 
Willy said:
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
I said the same thing a couple of pages back but was attacked for it. I would wager you take any criminal case and present just the defense side of the case on Netflix as this series did and you'd rope in a whole lot of supporters of the defense as well. Many here fail to acknowledge (or don't understand) that this series took the defenses viewpoint and developed their series around it.
I've seen a lot of people acknowledging that.

I don't think the upheaval we're seeing is all that out of line in this thread (maybe elsewhere on the internet it is).

That was a fascinating documentary and there's a reason the film makers made it (and took 10 years to do so). 10 years to make a documentary, to get it right, doesn't strike me as some Hollywood-esque cash grab to make a buck off of a tragedy (although I'm sure it's not something they'd turn up. Again - I don't need a documentary to tell me what I saw in the Dassey interviews was plainly wrong to do to a person. someone could have posted a random youtube link with a 2 sentence background and those interview tapes and you'd get just as much outcry IMO
I fully acknowledge the defense bias of the Netflix case.

What about the bias of the case as presented to the public, through the media, fed by the prosecution and county officials. Was the 10 o'clock news somehow unbiased?

If so, how this painting of a grizzly scene when no evidence supports that?

Everyone has a bias... period. How much information is your bias fueled by though? If you ignore this documentary you're ignore-ant on this case... period.

 
KingPrawn> out of curiosity - which actions by the police, investigators, judge, DA, witnesses, etc bother you if any? Do you think anything was done wrongly?

From watching the documentary, which parts of the other side of the coin did not sit well with you?

 
An interesting article (at least to me anyway) critical of the series and it's take:

http://stevenavery.org/who-killed-teresa-halbach
For me, the summary of this article is saying that the doc is bad because they don't point the finger at the rest of the Avery family. Instead they point the finger at the people surrounding the victim's personal life, despite only Avery's being on the list of alternative suspects.

Here is a quote:

"

What’s more, the Making a Murderer team did all this without mentioning that none of these three men were included on any list of alternative suspects. All we hear is that Avery’s original defence team was prevented from discussing other possible suspects in court. The filmmakers don’t tell us that those suspects were all related to the Avery clan and the salvage yard and that they included Steven Avery’s brothers, Earl Avery and Charles Avery, his brother-in law Scott Tadych, his nephew Bobby Dassey and — wait for it — Brendan Dassey.

Yes, you read that correctly. All the while Making a Murderer is building a case that the prosecution of Brendan Dassey as a murderer alongside his uncle is a gross miscarriage of justice, they neglected to acknowledge that taht Avery’s very competent defence team was also prepared to throw Brendan under the bus. Turns out real life is way more complicated than even a 10-hour documentary."

My response: So what? Their job is to create reasonable doubt. The rest of the crazy family presents the most reasonable in their opinion. It's a fluff piece.

Only 2 things need to be addressed in this case and they both revolve around EVIDENCE.

1. What's up with the lack of physical evidence from the victim on the scene, ie blood, hair?

2. What's up with the physical evidence against him all being discovered under WEIRD circumstances by people that should have ZERO involvement in the case as it's already established they have a conflict of interest?

If an article doesn't address those things it's not getting to the heart of the matter (regarding Avery.... Brendon is a whole different and mind boggling situation)

 
Ultimately a persons guilt depends on public support.

This is why we have jury trials.

This case, as many more should, is continuing.

There are many snakes manipulating the outcome.Guilty or not this is a drop in the bucket and will open a lot of minds to an overall fake system of justice.

It really doesnt matter right now if Avery did it.

Brendan certainly didnt and his fate should make anyone in the world feel disgusting just to witness it.no excuse for it standing in our society.

The SA trial should at the very least be appealed and reopened just for being a circus. Everyone outside SA lawyers look like buffoons.

 
An interesting article (at least to me anyway) critical of the series and it's take:

http://stevenavery.org/who-killed-teresa-halbach
For me, the summary of this article is saying that the doc is bad because they don't point the finger at the rest of the Avery family. Instead they point the finger at the people surrounding the victim's personal life, despite only Avery's being on the list of alternative suspects.

Here is a quote:

"

What’s more, the Making a Murderer team did all this without mentioning that none of these three men were included on any list of alternative suspects. All we hear is that Avery’s original defence team was prevented from discussing other possible suspects in court. The filmmakers don’t tell us that those suspects were all related to the Avery clan and the salvage yard and that they included Steven Avery’s brothers, Earl Avery and Charles Avery, his brother-in law Scott Tadych, his nephew Bobby Dassey and — wait for it — Brendan Dassey.

Yes, you read that correctly. All the while Making a Murderer is building a case that the prosecution of Brendan Dassey as a murderer alongside his uncle is a gross miscarriage of justice, they neglected to acknowledge that taht Avery’s very competent defence team was also prepared to throw Brendan under the bus. Turns out real life is way more complicated than even a 10-hour documentary."

My response: So what? Their job is to create reasonable doubt. The rest of the crazy family presents the most reasonable in their opinion. It's a fluff piece.

Only 2 things need to be addressed in this case and they both revolve around EVIDENCE.

1. What's up with the lack of physical evidence from the victim on the scene, ie blood, hair?

2. What's up with the physical evidence against him all being discovered under WEIRD circumstances by people that should have ZERO involvement in the case as it's already established they have a conflict of interest?

If an article doesn't address those things it's not getting to the heart of the matter (regarding Avery.... Brendon is a whole different and mind boggling situation)
Do you know if this was brought up during the trial? You would think the defense would bring it up then, wouldn't you?

Was it brought up in the appeal? What was the ruling there?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm reading the appeal pdf you posted right now. So apparently their argument is that it was a large crime scene and they secured all the cars in the yard before the room where the crime was supposed to be committed itself? That's why it was found in plain sight so many days later? Kind of far fetched but I'm just getting started, maybe they can explain the rest.

 
Willy said:
Probably not going to watch it. A coworker quit watching it after a few episodes because he said it's ridiculously biased.

Pretty sure almost any conviction could appear like a miscarriage with 10 years of effort put into researching that side of it.

The Avery trial might be news to a lot of you, but locally it was the largest trial since Jeffery Dahmer. The idea that a local police department could pull off such an elaborate frame job with that much media scrutiny is very hard to swallow.

What, did they just wait until there was someone who the last person to see her alive was Avery, then either some other random person killed her, or did the cops do it themselves as part of the frame up? I keep hearing how they were out to get him because of the lawsuit, but that wasn't money out of their pocket. The taxpayers would foot that bill, so why pull a huge frame job again?

This series is starting to get some buzz in the Wisconsin media and talk radio. Local spin is that the series is really interesting but should not be viewed as much more than entertainment. Based on this thread and the hate mail those guys are getting it seems people are taking the series as gospel.

I'll say this, I was hugely sympathetic to Avery after the rape was overturned, and if under further scrutiny it turns out he was framed for this, I hope the perpetrators burn and that Avery would get his life back and millions upon millions. I'm just not going there based on a 10 year long documentary that clearly had an agenda. If mainstream media picks up the cause I'll reevaluate then.
I said the same thing a couple of pages back but was attacked for it. I would wager you take any criminal case and present just the defense side of the case on Netflix as this series did and you'd rope in a whole lot of supporters of the defense as well. Many here fail to acknowledge (or don't understand) that this series took the defenses viewpoint and developed their series around it.
I've seen a lot of people acknowledging that.

I don't think the upheaval we're seeing is all that out of line in this thread (maybe elsewhere on the internet it is).

That was a fascinating documentary and there's a reason the film makers made it (and took 10 years to do so). 10 years to make a documentary, to get it right, doesn't strike me as some Hollywood-esque cash grab to make a buck off of a tragedy (although I'm sure it's not something they'd turn up. Again - I don't need a documentary to tell me what I saw in the Dassey interviews was plainly wrong to do to a person. someone could have posted a random youtube link with a 2 sentence background and those interview tapes and you'd get just as much outcry IMO
I fully acknowledge the defense bias of the Netflix case.

What about the bias of the case as presented to the public, through the media, fed by the prosecution and county officials. Was the 10 o'clock news somehow unbiased?

If so, how this painting of a grizzly scene when no evidence supports that?

Everyone has a bias... period. How much information is your bias fueled by though? If you ignore this documentary you're ignore-ant on this case... period.
Was listening to a reporter on the radio this morning who actually grew up in the area and reported on the case from the get go. He said he actually met the filmmakers of this documentary during the case and he said that you could tell right away what their "bent" was - that they were out to prove his innocence regardless.

Just an anecdote, but interesting to note.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
One article I read said Avery's DNA was found on the latch on the front hood.

But of course that was not found until months later after they feed that info to Brendan which he then "confirmed" Avery was under the hood of car at one point.

Bizarrely the latch was not checked for DNA until months after initial arrest despite the rav4 found without a battery.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top