Making a Murderer - Netflix

Gerhardt

Gerhardt

En-Route
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
4,534
Display Name
Display name:
Gerhardt
Anyone else watch this?

I'm most of the way through the series. I know it's slanted, but it's one of those things that seems too incredible to be true.
 
I think I watched all 10 episodes in 3 nights.
 
The Today Show reported on this today. Had never heard of it. Sign the petition?
 
This sounds like that Serial Podcast kind of thing but with video. Man going to have to sign up for Netflix now. Original programming is the way to go these days.
 
******SPOILERS******

The thing that bugs me with the second murder was the car found in the salvage yard. I can't wrap my head around the cops actually murdering the girl, but if Avery didn't do it, how did the real killer get the car there, most likely plant the key AFTER the cops had searched the trailer for a few days (I just can't believe they missed it in plain site), and was able to bury the remains near the trailer.

I also don't buy the 70 IQ. Maybe for the nephew (and that's being generous), but not Avery.
 
It's interesting. I can't come close to remembering all the facts, but here are some of the highlights (and I'm still several episodes from the end). SPOILER ALERT!

1. Steven Avery is convicted in the 80s of attacking a woman and spends 18 years in prison. He's told several times that he's eligible to walk (on probation) if he will just admit his guilt and say he's sorry. He won't. After 18 years in prison DNA evidence shows that someone else did the crime and he's released. Attorneys then uncover a mountain of misconduct that is so bad that the county's insurance policies won't cover his lawsuit against the county. It will cover mistakes, etc. but not the willful misconduct that was done intentionally to violate his constitutional rights. So the county is on the hook for his $36M lawsuit.

2. Just days before the civil trial is to begin a woman turns up missing. She had been to his property, but because of the conflict of interest the investigation was supposed to have been turned over to a neighboring county's sheriff's dept (Calumet Cty). Except that for some reason the original county sheriff's dept. (Manitowoc Cty) remains heavily involved - they didn't distance themselves at all.

3. Steven's trailer is searched multiple times by the Calumet Sheriff's dept and nothing is found. Later, a Manitowoc deputy finds the missing woman's car key in plain sight and hollers to the Calumet deputy, "hey, look at this".

4. After the woman is reported missing, but before her vehicle is found, a Manitowoc deputy calls her plate number and vehicle in over the radio. Her vehicle won't be reported as found for 2-4 days later.

5. He is supposed to have killed her on his property, but no blood of hers is found anywhere.

6. His lawyers ask to see the evidence from his prior conviction and the tamper-proof tape has been cut and scotch taped over. Inside is the vial of Steven's blood with a needle hole in the top.

7. One of the investigators or prosecutors talks to the news reporter on camera about how much easier it would have been to simply kill him than frame him.

There's a lot more.
 
Last edited:
I binge-watched this over the holiday. Such an interesting and bizarre story.

***SPOILER***

I too agree... If you are going to kill someone and you know you are the focus of the cops, why would you just roll her car over into your own yard? Also, EIGHT DAYS of searching and no one sees the key in plan sight. Until a Manitowoc cop (who shouldn't have been on the case) finds it? And the badgering of the kid for a confession like that? Those kind of concessions should never be allowed.

Great show!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Not only was no blood found, no DNA of hers at all inside of his trailer. His nephew said she was tied to the bed and they raped her and slit her throat. There were no scratches on the bed and no blood anywhere inside, yet they used his testimony against him and his uncle. Not only are the cops dirty, the DA is, and the judges for not throwing this out. Then no higher court will hear the case!!! They should all go to jail.

The DA wonders why he's now getting death threats. Even if it turns out he did it, you can't use false evidence to convict someone.

Gerhardt said:
5. He is supposed to have killed her on his property, but no blood of hers is found anywhere.
Click to expand...
 
I watched all 10 episodes this weekend....I just cant believe how many people that are involved and the lengths they go. The Brother of the girl seems smug about it really and her ex boyfriend and roommate...Id look there! This show has really made me mad and now not sure I could ever go to Oshkosh again. hahah That family, I really feel bad for them!
 
Last edited:
No I haven't watched it, but heard about it in several places. I do hear that it's slanted toward the innocence side, evidence was left out.

I do remember it was a big story at the time.
 
I still think he got off on the first crime due a DNA contamination at the lab.

I haven't watched it, but the story line sure sounds like some internet conspiracy stuff that was floating around back when the investigation and trial for his second crime was going on.
 
Justice system malfeasance is now just entertainment on TV?

Why is that no real surprise, even as sick as it is?
 
I knocked out the show in 3 days. Man...I can't get this documentary out of my head. While it was obviously told with sympathy towards Avery, the prosecutors were asked to participate and declined. Also, some of the most jaw-dropping moments was the footage from the trial itself. The prosecutors and police made themselves look terrible without the filmmakers help.

Even if some details were left out (Ive read some of the details left out and was not swayed) there is just too much reasonable doubt to send these two to jail for life. What gets me is that the jury initially had 7 not guilty and two undecided...not sure how they ended up unanimous.
 
I will say that the primary prosecutor seemed to have trouble putting together basic sentences. Not sure if that was due to his admitted addiction to pain killers, or too many late nights texting domestic abuse victims with propositions and claims about being "the married rich guy with all the power", whatever that means in that part of the country,
 
Before all of you get your torches and pitchforks, consider spending a couple of hours on reading through the trial transcripts and appeals briefs in the related cases.
 
It's a movie folks. You'll find "documentaries" created to convince you of all manner of things, and the fact that they're convincing should surprise no one.
 
Lindberg said:
It's a movie folks. You'll find "documentaries" created to convince you of all manner of things, and the fact that they're convincing should surprise no one.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I started the show knowing it would be slanted and thinking that he probably did it. Like many people, I'm not 100% convinced that he didn't do it, just that the actions of the police and D.A. are so far out of line that there's no way I could convict because there'd always be reasonable doubt.

I couldn't watch much last night, but I got to the part where the Manitowoc deputy, whose dept. was supposed to be distanced from the investigation, and was the guy who found the key in plain sight after the trailer had been searched several times by the other sheriff's dept....that after 5 months of searching for more clues in the garage, the same deputy goes out on his own with no reason in particular to be there and finds the bullet that killed the girl.
=====================
We had a high-profile case in our town a while back, Ryan Ferguson, where I'm convinced that he was one of the two guys that did it. But it was so bady mishandled by the police that he was eventually let out. And the level of misconduct here was nowhere even close to the Steven Avery case.
 
I'm a film/tv editor so it's certainly not lost on me how filmmaking can sway a viewers opinion and I accepted that going into this. As I mentioned earlier, it's the on-camera actions of the police/prosecutors that were the most disturbing and these were not manipulated by the filmmakers.

That police press conference was just pathetic. The case was so high profile n that region that he was a guilty man before he stepped into court...plus as the trial went on, the court and prosecutors seemed to forget that he was cleared from the attempted rape crime.

The entire idea of how they said the crime went down had no clear evidence whatsoever and if the pathetically coerced Brendan Dassey confession crumbled they wouldn't have a leg to stand on....not to mention Sgt Colburn's report of the car 3 days before it was "found" on Avery's property.

I hope the exposure this story gets helps bring forth more evidence pointing one way or the other. I'm certainly open to the idea of Avery being guilty if the evidence can be shown...but so far that hasn't happened and two men are sitting in jail for the rest of their lives.
 
Avery should sit in jail for life for his previous conviction of pouring gas on his cat and throwing it in a fire. Anyone who willingly inflicts that kind of torture doesn't belong in society.
 
mr_happyland said:
I'm certainly open to the idea of Avery being guilty if the evidence can be shown...but so far that hasn't happened and two men are sitting in jail for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

I agree. He may be guilty. I just think he deserves a new trial.

The cops he was suing found the evidence in his trailer after it had been searched several times. The confession of his nephew said she was raped and killed in the trailer, yet her DNA was not in there at all. The cop calling in the license plate before the car was found. In the end he may be guilty, I don't know. I do think a lot of the evidence they used to convict him was made up.

I do believe the cop brought the keys into the house. I do believe the cop took the bullet into the garage. Otherwise how do you explain the lack of blood evidence. You can't clean that garage enough to hide blood evidence.
 
Lindberg said:
It's a movie folks. You'll find "documentaries" created to convince you of all manner of things, and the fact that they're convincing should surprise no one.
Click to expand...

^^^^^ This! Definitely not my genre. After 2 minutes of the first episode, I was done. 2 minutes I'll never get back!
 
Wheels said:
Avery should sit in jail for life for his previous conviction of pouring gas on his cat and throwing it in a fire. Anyone who willingly inflicts that kind of torture doesn't belong in society.
Click to expand...

This may be the attitude that got him convicted at the end.

I've heard a juror once say during a child porn trial: "This is a bad guy and he needs to go away, I don't care whether he did this particular crime or not, this guy needs to go away so I'm going to find him guilty no matter what".

The defendant was obviously innocent of the specific charge in question, but because he was also very obviously guilty of another case of it (which happened in a different state and wasn't part of this trial), the juror just absolutely refuse to let it go. No matter what.

The judge even sent instructions saying something to the effect of: He now has a parole violation in Florida so he's going to go away there for a LONG time even without any other convictions anywhere. Nope couldn't sway that juror.

It was a mistrial (hung jury) at the end but he wore quite a few people down over to his side.


After this I can totally understand how a 7-innocent jury would turn to a 12-guilty jury because of a few 'activists' jurors.
 
wilkersk said:
^^^^^ This! Definitely not my genre. After 2 minutes of the first episode, I was done. 2 minutes I'll never get back!
Click to expand...

SixPapaCharlie said:
We lasted about 20 minutes.
Click to expand...



I am not sure how one could form an opinion on this doc/series after 2 minutes, or 20 minutes. It is a story that requires a bit of time to develop, and, if you aren't angry by episode 4, you likely aren't paying attention.

It is not about Avery's guilt or innocence, at the root level. It is about the justice system, and how it actually works in real life, not how it works in a pre-packaged 44 minutes of CSI or other nonsense TV show.

The filmmakers, somehow, had access to some pretty amazing video, did a lot of research, and spent years making it. Their storytelling is pretty compelling, and, like any good book/movie/series, there are some characters you like, some you quit liking and start hating, some you hate that become likable, etc.


As an aside, I had an employee that ended up in jail and thru the court system. He was a good employee and a nice guy.

I can tell you from watching his court proceedings, and, more importantly, the other proceedings in the courtroom prior to his hearings was an eyeopener.


The quality of the legal process leaves a lot to be desired if you think the purpose is to dispense justice. Prosecutors are inexperienced, overworked, and disorganized in our county. Public Defenders are incompetent, overworked, and disorganized. Even many of the private attorneys in the courtroom were borderline incompetent.

I was impressed on how much "coaching" the judge would have to do with the various attorneys in the court rooms.
 
I didn't form an opinion.

I just watch about 5 hours of TV month and that didn't feel very interesting to me.
 
I didn't watch "Making of a Murderer" but I just realized, after reading about it, that it is about the same person who was featured in a Radiolab episode. The Radiolab episode was told from the perspective of his first alleged victim who realized later that she had identified the wrong person.

Reasonable Doubt
 
It is about the justice system, and how it actually works in real life, not how it works in a pre-packaged 44 minutes of CSI or other nonsense TV show.
Click to expand...
No, it's about how it works in a prepackaged 609 minute TV show.
 
PPC1052 said:
The most significant evidence I have heard about outside of the documentary is that they found sweat DNA of Steven Avery on the hood latch of Teresa Halbach's car.
Click to expand...

Left out of the documentary because there's no way to explain it if the objective is to show Avery was framed.
 
Lindberg said:
No, it's about how it works in a prepackaged 609 minute TV show.
Click to expand...

From a company that a week later went to CES to announce its further worldwide expansion. A company whose stock had gone from $7.70 to $123 over the course of two years but flatlined since.
 
PPC1052 said:
The most significant evidence I have heard about outside of the documentary is that they found sweat DNA of Steven Avery on the hood latch of Teresa Halbach's car.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/8/10734268/netflix-making-a-murderer-avery
Click to expand...

Which means very little, despite Kratz's nonsense about not having a vial of Avery's sweat. All they would have needed was one of his dirty tee-shirts.

roncachamp said:
Left out of the documentary because there's no way to explain it if the objective is to show Avery was framed.
Click to expand...

Probably, but it's also very weak evidence in the whole context of the case. Any dirty tee shirt or other clothing item in Avery's trailer could have been the source of the sweat DNA.

The hole in the blood vial shot the case down for me. There's no legitimate reason why it should be there, no legitimate reason why the seal should have been broken without it being documented, and no one who had access to it other than law enforcement. Therefore, there's no reasonable explanation other than that both the broken seal and the needle hole were done by a cop or prosecutor.

Furthermore, there was no official record of the seal having been broken, and it was not properly re-sealed. If there had been an official reason to re-access the blood sample, the vial and the evidence package would have been properly re-sealed and the reason for accessing it would have been documented. The only plausible reason to clandestinely access the blood sample without any record and without properly re-sealing it was to illicitly obtain evidence.

To me, that one act established overwhelming evidence of prosecutorial misconduct; and that one act blew the prosecution's case, as far as I was concerned. It proved that someone on the prosecution's side couldn't be trusted; and without knowing who that someone was or how instrumental they were to the case, anything the prosecution said or any evidence they presented became unreliable.

As for the lack of EDTA in the samples, that didn't impress me much either. Avery worked in a junkyard automobile recycling operation. I'm sure he was getting cuts and wiping them with whatever piece of cloth was handy all the time. So in the context of possible corruption by Lenk or others, it's not hard to believe that the blood wasn't actually swabbed from the car, but from some other source.

None of this is to to say Avery was innocent, mind you. It's very possible that he was guilty and that evidence was planted. In fact, I believe that's probably what happened. But in the end, I would have voted to acquit if I were on the jury.

I think the planting of evidence against a defendant who was actually guilty was also probably what happened in the O.J. Simpson case. In my opinion, Fuhrman's perjury clinched Simpson's acquittal. Fuhrman was so central to the investigation and the prosecution's case that I don't think any reasonable, impartial juror could have voted "guilty" once it became apparent that he had perjured himself. The fact that he did it so naturally -- and in a capital case, mind you -- also bothered me. He lied with the proficiency of a sociopath. How could anything else he said or any evidence he'd handled be trusted?

But back to Avery, if I were on the jury, and if there had been no reason for me to suspect police and/or prosecutorial misconduct, I probably would have voted to convict. The evidence presented would have been sufficient for me. But there's no reasonable explanation for the blood vial having been clandestinely accessed and drawn from other than police or prosecutorial misconduct, and because of that, I would have had to vote to acquit.

Rich
 
Last edited:
Just finished watching. While he might be guilty I believe there was sufficient evidence presented by the defense that would certainly put doubt in my mind. Doubt = not guilty.

Granted, if a jury of his peers had the same level of intelligence that Avery does (IQ 70), I can't say I'm too surprised.
 
RJM62 said:
Probably, but it's also very weak evidence in the whole context of the case. Any dirty tee shirt or other clothing item in Avery's trailer could have been the source of the sweat DNA.
Click to expand...

If it was that easy then that would have been a simple way to explain it.

We're to believe Avery was framed to avoid a massive lawsuit against Manitowoc County, but people at agencies outside of Manitowoc County had to be complicit. What was their motivation?

Avery's defense team made it clear they're not suggesting the cops killed Halbach to frame Avery. Well then who did kill her? For if it wasn't Avery, and it wasn't the cops, then the frame up required not only planting evidence that Avery did it but removing all evidence of the actual killer. The framers have to be forensics geniuses.
 
Turningfinal said:
Just finished watching. While he might be guilty I believe there was sufficient evidence presented by the defense that would certainly put doubt in my mind. Doubt = not guilty.
Click to expand...

That might be reasonable if the evidence presented in the show was all of the evidence presented at the trial.
 
roncachamp said:
If it was that easy then that would have been a simple way to explain it.

We're to believe Avery was framed to avoid a massive lawsuit against Manitowoc County, but people at agencies outside of Manitowoc County had to be complicit. What was their motivation?

Avery's defense team made it clear they're not suggesting the cops killed Halbach to frame Avery. Well then who did kill her? For if it wasn't Avery, and it wasn't the cops, then the frame up required not only planting evidence that Avery did it but removing all evidence of the actual killer. The framers have to be forensics geniuses.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree. Also, I don't believe Avery was "framed" in the sense of being set up.

I do believe, however, that the evidence is pretty clear that someone (probably Lenk) planted evidence. But I suspect that that "someone's" motivation was to prop up the case against a defendant he actually believed to be guilty (and who may in fact have been guilty), but against whom the evidence was less-than-wonderful, not to frame a man he believed to be actually innocent.

To deliberately frame an innocent man for rape and murder would also require deliberately letting an actual rapist and murderer go free. I think that would go against the grain of even a corrupt LEO's sense of right and wrong. There's a psychological difference between planting some evidence to help a case along if you believe the defendant is guilty, as opposed to framing an innocent man at the cost of letting a guilty man go free.

The problem is that it really doesn't make any difference in the end. Once there's evidence of police and/or prosecutorial misconduct, how do you know which evidence to trust and which evidence not to trust? For that matter, how do you place any confidence in the objectivity of the investigation at all? At best, planting or tampering with evidence suggests myopia. At worst, it suggests outright malice. Either way, it undermines the prosecution's case.

Rich
 
The most troubling aspect for me was the trial judge's exclusion of any evidence of potential third party liability.

The police never fully investigated any of the other people who were on the property the day of the disappearance. I've read that both the step-dad Tadych and one of Avery's brothers have histories of violent sexual assault, coupled with a mutual dislike of Steven Avery. Would that have been enough to create a reasonable doubt, had the trial judge let it in?

Was evidence planted in order to embellish the case against Steven Avery? And, were the police the only ones who might have done that? It also could have been one of the other potential perpetrators. They loved on the same property and would have had access to plant the key and the bullet. The blood in the car might have come from the rag Steven used to wipe his hand after cutting his finger.
 
I'm with Rich at this point. He may or may not have done it. The bigger issue is the misconduct of the state (prosecutor/police). And by a police dept. that was supposed to have handed the investigation off to another county's sheriff's dept because of the conflict of interest - Manitowoc's officers should have been nowhere near this case, yet all the evidence was magically found by them. And found long after Calumet's officers searched and found nothing.

Avery's case was bad enough, but I was furious watching Brendan's case. First, WTF was up with the mother allowing the police to question her son about a murder w/o her being there? I'd have ripped the doors off the wall to get to my son to keep that from happening.

And the judge ruling that Brendan's original lawyer was incompetent, but then allowing the fruits of the lawyer's actions to still be used against Brendan?

Worse, the same judge was the appelate judge also, and ruled that the original verdict would stand? How is that possible?
 
Mark57 said:
The most troubling aspect for me was the trial judge's exclusion of any evidence of potential third party liability.
Click to expand...

Read the appeals decision. There is an entire legal framework on when you can introduce evidence about third party liability at trial and when you can't.

The police never fully investigated any of the other people who were on the property the day of the disappearance. I've read that both the step-dad Tadych and one of Avery's brothers have histories of violent sexual assault, coupled with a mutual dislike of Steven Avery.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There should have been more of an investigation on who else had their way with the tied up victim before she was eventually killed.

It also could have been one of the other potential perpetrators. They loved on the same property and would have had access to plant the key and the bullet. The blood in the car might have come from the rag Steven used to wipe his hand after cutting his finger.
Click to expand...

Do the other actors living in the junkyard strike you as the kind who could put together a conspiracy including the delibarate planting of DNA evidence in various locations ?
So it comes from a rag. Why does the EDTA vial at the courthouse have a hole then. I thought that was the smoking gun.
 
weilke said:
So it comes from a rag. Why does the EDTA vial at the courthouse have a hole then. I thought that was the smoking gun.
Click to expand...

The evidence submitted specifically for the EDTA testing could have come from a rag once it was known that EDTA was what they would be testing for.

Remember that at the time of the crime, not a single lab in the country was doing EDTA testing, so a knowledgeable LEO wouldn't have been worried about the presence of EDTA in the sample. Neither would an LEO who had no idea what EDTA was, for that matter. But once it was known that it was going to be tested for EDTA, the samples could have come from any number of sources.

What it comes down to is that the hole in the vial and the undocumented breaking of the seal established conclusively that someone, at some time, for some reason, illegally broke that seal and drew some blood out. That is beyond question; and unfortunately, it casts doubt on the entire investigation -- even those parts that may have been completely on the up-and-up.

Rich
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top