Anybody watch this series on Netflix yet. Thoughts?

Pretty fascinating in my opinion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgbdYaR_KQ

Scary to see the power the police have in that county. I thought it was very fascinating and extremely frustrating.

I started watching recently. Haven't finished yet, but I think it is very fascinating.

^Same here. Have watched thru episode 7. They sure end each one with a "gotcha" to make you wanna keep the binge watch going! ha

Hopefully I won't give anything away., but by far the most shocking thing is the actions taken by the Dassey boy's attorney Len Kachinsky. How he was allowed to practice law after that is beyond me. This guy really had me thinking that there was no way that this could be real. It had to be scripted. But alas, it apparently is real. Edited or not, the things he pulled were incontrovertible and incomprehensible.

^he was a complete and total moron. We should have been tipped off when they said he drew the case after finishing in 3rd place in the local judicial race.

Such a great documentary. I couldnt stop watching. And yes, Kachinksy really was ridiculous. The whole thing is fascinating. It just makes you realize that if you aren't very intelligent and/or don't have a lot of money (for a good lawyer) you are definitely at a disadvantage from day one in this system. Glad I dont live in Manitowoc county.

Talk about a coincidence... I just saw this series mentioned via a user comment on a cop related story about a family who had coordinated a super secret high level hydroponic... tomato operation (that started out as a school project) and were SWAT raided. Judge granted the warrant and all.

All over suspected use of a harmless plant.

Story I was referencing (although the user comment was via another website):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/12/28/federal-judge-drinking-tea-shopping-at-a-gardening-store-is-probable-cause-for-a-swat-raid-on-your-home/?tid=pm_pop_b

Folks, this should greatly disturb you. What am I speaking of? The power, corruption, and influence of the police forces across this country.

Kinda scary what law enforcement and the courts can get away with. If they are out to get you there's not much you can do to stop them.

The DA needs to be brought up on charges for the role he played in this. The judge also for allowing all the flawed evidence into the court room to be used against these defendants. It also appears that the jury has been brainwashed by the DA because there is so much reasonable doubt there is no way a jury should be able to convict someone in a serious matter like this. This is like a bad movie but it is real life. This could happen to someone you know esp. in a smaller town setting.

And how do they get away with treating a 16 year old child like they did. A 16 year old with an IQ just above mental retardation. So he truly is a child but was grilled like he was a harden criminal with no adult or lawyer present. Not once not twice but many times.

A higher power needs to get involved in this. To me,from the evidence it is really obvious that the DA did not prove his case. And it's not even close IMO.

Who knows if this is legit at all...but interesting

After Netflix documentary released, hacker group steps up to help free Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey | FOX6Now.com (http://fox6now.com/2015/12/29/after-netflix-documentary-released-hacker-group-anonymous-steps-up-to-help-free-steven-avery-brendan-dassey)

I had some commentary on this series on FB, but I'll post it here too.

I think the best part of this documentary, so far, is that it opens a lot of people's eyes to how the system is so stacked against the blue collar, working poor. A lot of middle/upper class hear about this stuff and might even discuss it often but never actually have known or seen any family like the Averys in real life. This family reminds me of countless families that I know in Tahlequah and Muskogee that this type of stuff happens to.

Who knows if this is legit at all...but interesting

After Netflix documentary released, hacker group steps up to help free Steven Avery, Brendan Dassey | FOX6Now.com (http://fox6now.com/2015/12/29/after-netflix-documentary-released-hacker-group-anonymous-steps-up-to-help-free-steven-avery-brendan-dassey)

Someone deleted texts and messages from the Halbach girls phone. I assume that the defense lawyers couldn't find out who or what was deleted because I don't think it came up in court. One would think that those messages could have contained critical evidence to this case.

I am thinking one of Averys relatives might have committed the murder and planted some of the evidence to link it to Steven Avery. I also don't think that law enforcement had quite enough evidence so Link or Lenk whatever his name is might have planted the car key and the DNA to bolster the case evidence against Avery. We have to remember that when Steven Avery was released for wrongful conviction of rape after serving 18 years that the county law officials looked pretty bad. They were def. out to get Steven Avery. This whole thing just reeks of a setup.

The entire concept of this is so infuriating because it is such outrageous abuse of power. Authority run wild and out of control.

Gonna just lay this down right here, on the off chance someone might decide to take a look.
RIP Ron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innocent_Man:_Murder_and_Injustice_in_a_Small_ Town

Just started watching and got through the first episode...

One thing to keep in mind is that filmmakers are often very guilty of what they are accusing lawmakers and our justice system here: Presenting only part of the information and with a predetermined bias.

You can bet they started this project with the idea that Avery was innocent and was being abused by the system. How is that any different than when lawmakers started with the bias he was guilty?

Also, filmmakers need a compelling storyline to get people to watch.


I don't know where this series is leading because I'm purposely avoiding reading objective information until I've seen it through.

But, I've seen many, many 'documentaries' that were in fact very biased and present lots of things as fact that simply were not.

One of the most glaring came out about 10 years ago called Capturing the Freidmans. It was even nominated for an academy award and watching it you would swear that the father and son convicted of molesting dozens of kids were almost certainly innocent.

The film left out an incredible amount of information -- such as the son confessed in great detail on Geraldo -- because the filmmaker grew to believe in his innocence and angled the film in that direction. The filmmaker actually used proceed to fund the son's appeal (which failed miserably).

Many more examples and I"m not sure this series is the same, but I'm not watching this just assuming everything put forth is true or at least the whole truth. Pretty easy to decide those things on your own through Internet research than just take a filmmaker's perspective.

Watched the series - then did my homework. Many transcripts etc. are available. The producers of the series certainly had a bias and they forwarded that bias. Regardless, my concern was less about his guilt or innocence, and more about what the system was willing to do to get the verdict they desired.

I'd personally rather see dozens of guilty people walk because prosecutors simply couldn't make a strong enough case, than to risk a single innocent person being incarcerated.

It's certainly scary how much power is concentrated in the hands of so few people; always a recipe for abuse.

This is one of many, many ways in which the world is a better place now than ever before: Lots more eyes watching, lots more access to info, etc.

^^^^^^
And yet very often the mob gets it wrong, too.

True, but then you'd expect them to.

I still have much more faith in our legal system than most, although there is no doubt the poor and disadvantaged are not treated the same as someone who can afford a great defense.

This was one of the most fascinating documentaries on this subject I've ever seen; details how the justice system often bullies people into accepting plea deals:

The Plea | FRONTLINE | PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plea/)

After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.

After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.

This has become the norm now in 'documentaries'. Almost all are agenda-driven.

I took some classes at UCLA film school and I remember the instructor -- who was a successful Hollywood producer -- said the first thing any documentarian should do is enlist someone with an opposite point of view and give them equal power. Only way to ensure balance, but of course almost no one does that these days.

After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.

Yeah. I started this two nights ago and was immediately obsessed and marathoned the rest of it. Some of the additional information is definitely suspicious, some of which wasn't allowed in court... and while it paints Avery in a less savory light, none of it still seems to be too damning or convince beyond some character assumptions. At the very least neither of them were given fair treatment by the authorities and especially Brendan Dassey deserves a new trial. Seeing how the family's reputation and socioeconomic status played into this was just icing on the cake. Very depressing and frustrating series, but fantastically done. Actually was kept up late last night thinking about it all.

I especially liked the lack of narration and just raw footage. It was of course edited but still allowed you to think it all through yourself at least.

After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.

There's just so much evidence in the doc. that creates enough reasonable doubt I just don't see how a jury could render a guilty verdict if they follow instructions. Wouldn't you agree?

And how could a judge let the DA submit so much tainted evidence?

There's just so much evidence in the doc. that creates enough reasonable doubt I just don't see how a jury could render a guilty verdict if they follow instructions. Wouldn't you agree?

And how could a judge let the DA submit so much tainted evidence?

I'm so jaded though, I witness many a court case where I don't feel prosecutors proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, reasonable doubt is not as universally understood/agreed upon as some people think it is. I certainly see why some people opt for a non-jury trial.

Even closing in on a month later, I'm still completely annoyed with the whole Holtzclaw verdict.

Steven Avery: Petitions calling for pardon of Making a Murderer documentary subject break 100,000 signatures | Americas | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/steven-avery-making-a-murderer-netflix-documentary-petition-pardon-a6794721.html)

After you watch the series, then look at all the discussions/articles online regarding some pretty critical stuff that was left out of the series.

Like what? I haven't seen anything that would have been considered substantial or admissible. The statements from other inmates about him wanting to torture women were not admissible even at the time of the trial. The phone records? *67 is used apparently used for call forwarding in that state, not call blocking. Also there were two fairly long phone calls placed after Steven Avery's on the call log. Not saying that makes him innocent but everything in its totality should at least cast a reasonable doubt on the suspect and the judicial process.

This has become the norm now in 'documentaries'. Almost all are agenda-driven.

I took some classes at UCLA film school and I remember the instructor -- who was a successful Hollywood producer -- said the first thing any documentarian should do is enlist someone with an opposite point of view and give them equal power. Only way to ensure balance, but of course almost no one does that these days.

It's hard to avoid bias but I think the documentary makes that point very clear. The filmmakers assert that they did not have an agenda going into the project and tried to include as much information from the trial for and against as possible. With so much raw footage and hard evidence it leaves quite a bit less room for interpretation than other documentary pieces. Of course their end conclusion is to shed light on an obviously broken justice system. Regardless of whether or not the court got the verdict right the process was tainted. The first case for sure and likely the second one as well.

Like what? I haven't seen anything that would have been considered substantial or admissible. The statements from other inmates about him wanting to torture women were not admissible even at the time of the trial. The phone records? *67 is used apparently used for call forwarding in that state, not call blocking. Also there were two fairly long phone calls placed after Steven Avery's on the call log. Not saying that makes him innocent but everything in its totality should at least cast a reasonable doubt on the suspect and the judicial process.

I'd have to go back through links I found online to some reputable articles and more importantly transcripts.

NY Daily News lists several things I remember noting..... Evidence that's missing from ?Making a Murderer' - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213)

I can't recall the non-blood DNA being on the Rav4 hood latch being presented in the series, but I do recall reading it in a transcript. Also Halbach's personal effects being in a separate burn barrel. I could be mistaken though. I've read so many transcripts and police reports that it gets a bit mixed up as to what I read and what I saw on TV.

I also recall when I read the transcript of Brendan Dassey's interrogation - that while investigators certainly led him along (as they almost always do), it wasn't as blatant as its edited to look in the series. Was it very troubling? Yes. But the series certainly edited it in a way to accentuate that point.

Not sure where you're getting that *67 was for call forwarding and not call blocking. If that's true, I'd love to see a link as that's fairly significant IMO.

I'd have to go back through links I found online to some reputable articles and more importantly transcripts.

NY Daily News lists several things I remember noting..... Evidence that's missing from ?Making a Murderer' - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213)

I can't recall the non-blood DNA being on the Rav4 hood latch being presented in the series, but I do recall reading it in a transcript. Also Halbach's personal effects being in a separate burn barrel. I could be mistaken though. I've read so many transcripts and police reports that it gets a bit mixed up as to what I read and what I saw on TV.

I also recall when I read the transcript of Brendan Dassey's interrogation - that while investigators certainly led him along (as they almost always do), it wasn't as blatant as its edited to look in the series. Was it very troubling? Yes. But the series certainly edited it in a way to accentuate that point.

Not sure where you're getting that *67 was for call forwarding and not call blocking. If that's true, I'd love to see a link as that's fairly significant IMO.

Bone fragments found in two different bone piles. What does that say?

What struck me the most was Colborn calling in the victim's plates two days before the vehicle was located on Avery's property, sans plates, and how his head appeared to be on the verge of exploding when the recording was played for him. That seems very damning to me, as does the mysteriously appearing key that nobody managed to find for a week of looking in the same small trailer.

There was definitely a bias in the making of the film, but I think the bias was less in favor of Avery, and more in opposition to good ol' boy behavior in this power loving sheriff's department. It's worth pointing out that apparently a lot of the people that could have helped make the documentary more balanced refused to participate.

I enjoyed the doc and of course I went on the internet to see what was left out!



Remains of Halbach's camera and Palm Pilot found in Avery's burn barrel

Although the bits of the Brendan interview with his original attorney's investigator shown in the film make it seem like all of Brendan's confession is coerced and that he's just saying what he thinks the investigator wants to hear, the full transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwgcpqtc/Transcript%20-%2005-12-2006%20-%20Dassey%20and%20O'Kelly.pdf?dl=0) blows this out of the water. It shows that he voluntarily goes into explicit detail about the killing and disposal of the body and these details did not come from leading questions.

In the same interview Brendan explains how he helped Avery move the RAV4 and that Avery lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. DNA was found UNDER the hood exactly where it would be if things happened the way Brendan described - this is NOT blood we're talking either, this is sweat/skin-cells. This is never mentioned at all in the show... even if you believe the blood was planted, how does his DNA get UNDER the hood where the battery terminal was if as Avery said he was never in the car...?

The "magic bullet" found in the garage with Halbach's DNA on it was also tested for ballistics... and was proved to have been fired by Avery's gun. A gun that was locked up in evidence since day one of the investigation.

Avery purchased handcuffs and leg irons exactly like the ones described by Brendan just two weeks before the murder



All in all I enjoyed The Jinx better.

There is bias in everything. Everything. So, that should be understood when embarking on viewing any material via the television, paper, Internet, and even daily conversations.
However, this did cross my mind: what aren't we being told? I only assumed that the creators thought that the fact that he was incarcerated and "lost" was evidence alone. Basically, they were already showing us the other side of the story, at least before the Halbach incident.

Nonetheless, the overarching theme (I haven't finished the series yet, so this is what I've noticed only up to the point I'm at) is beyond trying to showcase both sides fairly, and instead is trying to showcase small town politics and abuses of authority and power in general.

Now, to some other details… I'm not excusing Avery, I don't even know the whole story and for all we know he did commit the second crime. But immediately in the third or fourth(?) episode, *potential spoiler ahead* I noticed that the Avery family wasn't allowed on their own property for days after the vehicle was found. A LOT could have been set up and planted by only a couple hands and minds "in the know." And it was clear that they weren't going to let DNA be their downfall this time as I noticed the DA and other investigators made sure to throw in the term "DNA" whenever discussing the case.

Just another observation. But, I think, without knowing too much of the current state, *potential spoiler ahead* we'll find out that whether Avery did it or not, perhaps one of the last themes of the series is to showcase how a traditionally non-violent man becomes so after being in our prison system for years. Hence another potential meaning behind "Making a Murderer."

I can't hold keeping the family off their property against prosecutors. This would be considered very common practice. The reality of the size of the potential crime scene simply extended the process even longer.

I agree that this series is a lot more than guilt or innocence - its how the system reached that conclusion, regardless of the reality.

One thing to keep in mind is that filmmakers are often very guilty of what they are accusing lawmakers and our justice system here: Presenting only part of the information and with a predetermined bias.

You can bet they started this project with the idea that Avery was innocent and was being abused by the system. How is that any different than when lawmakers started with the bias he was guilty?

Uhhhhhhh.... hopefully you're taking the Devil's advocate position here.

Uhhhhhhh.... hopefully you're taking the Devil's advocate position here.

Agreed. There is a huge difference between private filmmaker's bias and the bias of the government's criminal justice system. The filmmaker did not take an oath of office for their job.

With regard to items left out of the documentary, were the shackles Avery purchased weeks prior found and admitted as evidence? Did they have her DNA on them? Was the blood under the hood admitted, too?

Something that does not seem to be discussed much is that the insurance would not pay out for Avery's suit because the County's policy does not cover gross neglect and malicious prosecution. The officers and county would be on the hook for the $36 mil if Avery won the suit. Seems like a pretty big motive to make something happen. These same officers are the ones volunteering to go to the scene and finding all of the evidence despite the department saying they would not be involved.

Another interesting thing is that everyone knew she was coming to take pictures that day. Avery made no secret of it and when officers came to investigate, he let them in and let them look at whatever they wanted. These seem like the actions of someone with nothing to hide.

I am now a little more than halfway through and can't wait to finish so I can research all the info and evidence independently.

The filmmakers clearly went into this thinking Avery was unjustly convicted....

Another thing I learned in film school: Filmmakers have all types of subtle ways of manipulating the viewer's response to any scene. For example, when the prosecution brought on a witness they producers obviously thought was dubious, they would play ominous tones and make sure to cut in the witness and the various attorneys to show certain expressions and reactions.

I can almost guarantee you a lot of that was out of sequence. Like the prosecutor looking displeased or flustered... Very likely they inserted that somewhere else to help cast the scene in a certain context.

And of course, just creative editing in general -- what you put in and what you cut out -- is massive. Almost anything can be taken out of context and made to look a certain way.

Filmakers also use lighting, camera angles and many other little tricks to help create certain impressions, often without the viewer even being aware. That's great for drama, not so much for 'factual' documentaries.


I will research this in depth when I finish all the episodes but it's very obvious there was an agenda here and I want to learn the facts myself rather than just taking the shows as presented.

One thing I really want to research is Brendan Dassey's attorney that was ultimately dismissed.

We was portrayed as almost an evil person, using an investigator to brow-beat Brendan into confessing to something he didn't do. And all the while implying that was also to get at Avery.

I strongly suspect that was all very overblown and the clips they showed of the attorney were hand-picked to fit into this conspiracy narrative.


I use this example because it's very hard to believe that all these people -- including this particular attorney -- were/are such horrible people that they would do anything to get Avery. It's all just so far-fetched with way too many people from the FBI to a bunch of people in the sheriff's office to the judge and the attorneys...

I'm not saying bias didn't enter in, just that the level of conspiracy by that many people in that many completely different organizations is incredibly hard to fathom, especially since so few of them had anything to gain and everything to lose.

Okay, I finished the series.

Was very compelling and interesting but I have little doubt Avery was in fact guilt of murder.


Just don't buy the elaborate conspiracy theories, especially because so many people would have had to been involved and most of them had little to no ax to grind with Avery and as the prosecutor pointed out in his closing statements, you would also have to believe the police killed this young woman then the FBI and everyone else who was involved were happy to go along. It's just way, way too much to believe.

The most compelling part of the entire thing were the two defense attorneys. Both super smart, compassionate and persuasive. And of course, they were both presented in the most sympathetic and positive light by the documentarians. So much so, they both now have huge fan clubs on Twitter and are now being considered sex symbols.


All this reminds me of the Jerry Seinfeld bit about watching shows about animals... When the perspective is from that of the innocent antelope minding it's own business, you find yourself cheering with all your might for it to escape the evil and vicious lion. But when it's shot from the lion's point of view, you are pulling for the lioness to pull down the anonymous and random antelope so she can feed her cute and cuddly cubs; to do what it was born to do.

In this series, Avery was the antelope and it was shot from his perspective.

I literally just finished also, there is know doubts in my mind that the entire town hated and was embarrassed by this family, calling it a one branch family tree. I would agree with that statement, this one of the most f'd up families and down right ugly bunch of people I've ever seen. With all that being said, I feel as though Avery was set up, their are too many damning facts against the investigators and you have to go back to the 18 years of false imprisonment, because that's where it all started. I tend to look at everything from a conspiratorial POV, for whatever reason but it allows me to realistically ask myself can I see a police officer in a small town do something like this? Well I know for a fact it can, I had an uncle that was OHP in Greer county that committed some horrible crimes and was fired back in the 70s, a lot of it was covered up and made to go away....

This article pretty much mirrors my feelings:

Steven Avery Is Guilty As Hell (http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/making-a-murderer-subject-steven-avery-is-guilty-as-hell/)


I was convinced of many things watching the 10-part series: I was convinced the criminal justice system and Manitowoc County were likely corrupt, and that many people in that office wanted to see Avery end up back in jail. I was convinced that I was being manipulated by directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos (more on this later). I was definitely convinced that Avery was guilty of the murder. And, believe it or not, a viewer could believe all those things simultaneously.

I'll start by saying I think it's far more likely that Avery is guilty than not.

That said, I have the following issues.
1. No blood, DNA, or physical evidence in the Avery trailer. No way was the victim bound, raped and stabbed there.
2. No evidence of shackles being used on the bed. These would have left some sort of marks.
3. No blood from the victim in the garage. None. Anywhere.
4. Except on one bullet, which was also tainted by the lab tech. Useless evidence IMO.
5. No fingerprints from Avery on the victim vehicle. But blood all over the place
6. The bone fragments from places off the Avery property were not, as far as k can find, tested or proven to be from the victim.
7. The deleted voicemails, could have been Avery, could have been anyone.
8. No effort to look ant other subjects.
9. The initial interrogation of Dassey.
10. Dasseys lawyer and the awful, awful, job he did.
11. Dasseys statements should have been inadmissible.
12. The vial of blood with the needle hole.
13. The deputy calling in the license plate at an odd time, with more information than expected at that point.
14. The RAV4 key.

It really does keep going. There's a lot of damning evidence, mostly circumstantial but powerful nonetheless to implicate Avery. But I really don't think they made their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conspiracy theories aside, there was all this evidence:

1. Avery's house was the last place she was seen alive
2. They found her car hidden on his property (Avery's sweat DNA was on the hood latch, something they left out of the film)
3. Found her car key in his house (with Avery's DNA, again from his sweat, not blood).
4. Her car had blood with Avery's DNA
5. Bullet found in garage matched ballistics for Avery's gun in his bedroom (left out of the film)
6. The found her Palm Pilot in Avery's burn barrel (also left out of the film)
7. Found her bone fragments in his burn pile and at two other locations on his property
8. Avery had bought shackles a few weeks before (again, left out of the film)
9. Avery lied when he said a conviction for animal cruelty was just "being young and dumb"; he had actually doused the poor cat in diesel fuel and thrown it into a fire (yes, left out of the film because it would make him appear to have a vicious cruel streak)
10. His nephew came home with bleach on his jeans and told his mother he had been helping Steven clean his garage floor (left out of the film, but they did state that bleach removes any DNA evidence)
11. Avery had called the victim many times at work and specifically requested her to come to his house on multiple occasions, including the day she was killed

He was incredibly guilty and not nearly the victim the filmmakers made him out to be.

Doesn't mean there weren't also some errors and misjudgments by law and legal professionals along the way.

Conspiracy theories aside, there was all this evidence:

1. Avery's house was the last place she was seen alive
2. They found her car hidden on his property (Avery's sweat DNA was on the hood latch, something they left out of the film)
3. Found her car key in his house (with Avery's DNA, again from his sweat, not blood).
4. Her car had blood with Avery's DNA
5. Bullet found in garage matched ballistics for Avery's gun in his bedroom (left out of the film)
6. The found her Palm Pilot in Avery's burn barrel (also left out of the film)
7. Found her bone fragments in his burn pile and at two other locations on his property
8. Avery had bought shackles a few weeks before (again, left out of the film)
9. Avery lied when he said a conviction for animal cruelty was just "being young and dumb"; he had actually doused the poor cat in diesel fuel and thrown it into a fire (yes, left out of the film because it would make him appear to have a vicious cruel streak)
10. His nephew came home with bleach on his jeans and told his mother he had been helping Steven clean his garage floor (left out of the film, but they did state that bleach removes any DNA evidence)
11. Avery had called the victim many times at work and specifically requested her to come to his house on multiple occasions, including the day she was killed

He was incredibly guilty and not nearly the victim the filmmakers made him out to be.

Doesn't mean there weren't also some errors and misjudgments by law and legal professionals along the way.

Out of curiosity, what do you make of Brendan Dassey and his entire trial now that you're done watching?

...
8. No effort to look [at] other subjects.
...


This is an overriding issue in many, many arrests and subsequent prosecutions.

It doesn't take a top to bottom conspiracy to take someone down despite being innocent (not referring to Avery in particular, just defendants in general.)

It only takes busy people who do not ask questions when some LEO says that's the guy, or the gal.

If the LEO making the announcement is less than honorable, and folks just don't really care, and they don't by and large, bad things can happen to good people.

Out of curiosity, what do you make of Brendan Dassey and his entire trial now that you're done watching?

I think he was stone cold guilty as well.

The whole "they coerced him to confess so they could convict Avery" is a very weak argument because he never testified against Avery and I don't think they used his confession at all in Steven's trial and Brendan was prosecuted after Steven.

Not only did he confess, he told his mom on recorded telephone calls that he did it as well. Why on earth would he do that if he wasn't involved? And how would he know the details about her murder if he wasn't there?


The whole situation is sad and I have no doubt that our system can exploit those who are poor and slow (both Brendan and Steven had well below normal IQ's) but I have absolutely no doubt not only where they both guilty, that these were horrific crimes and if this story had been told a different way, both of them would be seen as monsters rather than victims.

If you they did this, they deserve the wrath of the public, not the sympathetic out-pouring that has been seen.

'Making a Murderer' filmmakers: Original juror believes Steven Avery was framed - TODAY.com (http://www.today.com/popculture/making-murderer-filmmakers-our-goal-was-question-us-justice-system-t65161)
Found this very interesting, a juror essentially saying they were trading guilty votes, and feared for their own lives if they weren't able to reach a verdict.

I haven't watched it, but for what it's worth his guilt and a corrupt, over-aggressive grudge-bearing prosecution are NOT mutually exclusive.

The first 2-3 episodes are gripping but IMO it then devolves into one huge, massive conspiracy theory that just doesn't make any sense.

Fortunately, the legal system operates outside the legislative branch so when public sentiment is stirred up in this way by people who have a large audience and clear agenda, it can still operate independently and without interference by public sentiment, which is often misplaced.


I had mentioned a documentary called Capturing the Friedman's and this series seems to be the exact same vein and in the case of Jesse Freeman, they used proceeds from the film in an attempt to overturn his conviction. As I learned more about the case, I became furious because this guy and his father had molested dozens of young boys and many were forced to testify all over again and dredge up their childhood horror in order to satisfy a new investigation. In the end, the panel charged with reevaluation concluded Jesse (and his father, who had long ago killed himself in prison) was just stone cold guilty,and the film had purposely left out tons of very relevant info and evidence simply to stir up controversy and cast doubt on their guilt.

Great drama and compelling filmmaking, but fortunately our legal system is above all that.

The whole situation is sad and I have not doubt that our system can exploit those who are poor and slow (both Brendan and Steven had well below normal IQ's) but I have absolutely no doubt not only where they both guilty, that these were horrific crimes and if this story had been told a different way, both of them would be seen as monsters rather than victims.

Since you believe Avery is guilty of the murder, are you OK with the obvious police tampering and planting of evidence as a method of ensuring the conviction of a confirmed perpetrator? That's kind of the point of the series, to illustrate a very obvious institutional bias against a person that led to him being falsely imprisoned for 18 years, and then sought to ensure he was put back in prison until he died. If he murdered the girl, the true evidence should have been left to stand on its own, the county -- which was supposed to have no involvement in the investigation because they had a real interest in smearing Avery -- ended up being responsible for finding most of the evidence on the property, long after other investigators failed to find it (the bullet, the key, etc.).

The key is especially troublesome. It had Avery's DNA, but it didn't have the key owner's DNA on it (only Avery's DNA was found on the entire key/lanyard). And I don't know about you, but my car key is attached to a keychain with a number of other keys attached to it, but for some reason the victim was driving around with what appears to be a spare key? Not only that, but the key leaped from its very secure hiding place to a very obvious spot after, if I remember correctly, 8 days worth of searches and shakedowns, including that very book case/night stand being emptied and inspected, with no key found.

The burden is on the prosecutors to prove guilt. If that process is tainted by unethical actions by the investigating parties, it throws the entire situation into question. Had Avery been convicted without their involvement, the case would still be just an obscure case of a guy who got a second chance after a wrongful conviction and screwed it up because he was a scumbag after all. Instead, we've got a guy that may or may not have done the murder, but the evidence pool was so f*cked up and questionable that the very unlikely manner in which the evidence was stumbled upon by Manitowoc County deputies actually created more reasonable doubt than there likely was initially, and now the County authorities are the scumbags!

Great drama and compelling filmmaking, but fortunately our legal system is above all that.

Is it?

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

Again, full disclosure: I haven't watched it. BUT, what troubles me is that an obviously agenda-driven documentary could rally so many to demand PRESIDENTIAL PARDON, etc. for someone who sounds awfully guilty regardless of what happened in the courtroom. If anything, police and prosecutorial misbehavior should get him another trial...NOT automatic freedom.

There are many, many people who are legitimately locked up despite being innocent. It DOES happen. If people want to make a difference there they should look into The Innocence Project, which doesn't take in cases until their legal experts are CONVINCED not only that a person MAYBE should have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but that they are actually INNOCENT of the crime for which they've been convicted.

^

The defense attorneys didn't prove anything in terms of tampering. All they did was make a bunch of unsubstantiated inferences.

For example, let's take a huge leap of faith and say the blood sample was tampered with... They still found her car hidden on his property, found Avery's DNA (through sweat) on the latch hood, etc.

Absolutely nothing they questioned was ever proven to be true and if it had been, there was still a mountain of evidence against him, much of which was conveniently left out of the film.


The only reason this was the subject of a documentary was the sexy twist about Avery having been previously wrongly convicted than exonerated after 18 years.

Other than that, Avery was just another scumbag murderer who had a couple of charismatic defense attorneys who did their best to find something -- anything -- to cast reasonable doubt on his guilt, which was their job. And who were given a big audience and sympathetic position by two filmmakers with a clear agenda.

And BTW, I don't think their agenda was they truly believed Avery was innocent. It was more about creating drama and interest in their series, which clearly worked.

For those who believe Avery was innocent, I would like to hear how you think this woman came to be killed.

And do you also believe many members of two different police forces, the FBI, the prosecuters, investigators and judge were all in on it too? Certainly seems like they would all have to be.

Just a note on my previous post: I just searched out and read a story which states that the Wisconsin Innocence Project - which helped clear Avery's prior, bogus rape conviction - was going to work with his attorneys to see if this merits a new trial. That's fair, if it is proven that there was juror misconduct, for instance, as has been alleged just this week. That is very different from outright exoneration/pardon, which is what so many watchers of this show seem to be looking for.

Avery's attorneys said that unless there is new evidence found, they have very little hope in any sort of appeal.

All this alleged misconduct was researched and brought up in court in Avery's trial and as I said, they couldn't prove anything.

Just a note on my previous post: I just searched out and read a story which states that the Wisconsin Innocence Project - which helped clear Avery's prior, bogus rape conviction - was going to work with his attorneys to see if this merits a new trial. That's fair, if it is proven that there was juror misconduct, for instance, as has been alleged just this week. That is very different from outright exoneration/pardon, which is what so many watchers of this show seem to be looking for.

Calling for a pardon is extreme and ill-informed, which is typical of the type of person that puts in (or signs) petitions demanding unlikely things of the President.

I'm not saying Avery is innocent, and if Avery's guilty, he deserves to be in prison. But there would be enough evidence for me as a juror to say there's reasonable doubt and submit a not guilty verdict due to the contamination of the investigation by the county, which I believe the defense did a good job of illustrating. Yes, it might allow a potential murderer to go free, but with what appears to be so much meddling with the evidence, there's too much doubt thrown into the mix to convict with confidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation

But you don't have nearly the information or evidence the jury had.

This series was about 6 hours of running time and the huge majority was not Avery trial footage.

The Avery trial was 6 WEEKS. And in the end, they reached a unanimous verdict, which is darn hard to do with 12 people.

My gut - and a watching of the documentary and full reading of all available court documents - tells me Avery is no upstanding citizen and that he is most likely guilty of the murder. In my opinion the series didn't do anything to make me actually question his guilt. What it did do is highlight what I think happens more often than people like to admit -- police and prosecutors make up their minds early on who is guilty and then they often tailor their evidence to support that presumption of guilt instead of seeking truth and justice. In this case, prosecutors and police went even further and initially framed an innocent man (in the first trial) and then conspired on some level (most likely minimally) to plant evidence to ensure Avery was found guilty at the murder trial.

3. No blood from the victim in the garage. None. Anywhere.
4. Except on one bullet, which was also tainted by the lab tech. Useless evidence IMO.

The DNA on the bullet was non-blood DNA.

The DNA on the hood latch was also non-blood DNA. If Avery was bleeding enough that he got blood by the ignition and other parts of the interior of the car, why was his blood not on the hood latch or battery?

Pete-
What are you thoughts on the two County detectives volunteering to be on site, despite the department saying they would stay out of the investigation, and then being the only two to find the major pieces of evidence? Is that just creative film-making?

Also, why did the FBI get involved for a state prosecution? The documentary shows the agent say that the FBI gets involved to ensure no public corruption but the request for the FBI made no mention of that of that reason. More selective editing?

My gut - and a watching of the documentary and full reading of all available court documents - tells me Avery is no upstanding citizen and that he is most likely guilty of the murder. In my opinion the series didn't do anything to make me actually question his guilt. What it did do is highlight what I think happens more often than people like to admit -- police and prosecutors make up their minds early on who is guilty and then they often tailor their evidence to support that presumption of guilt instead of seeking truth and justice. In this case, prosecutors and police went even further and initially framed an innocent man (in the first trial) and then conspired on some level (most likely minimally) to plant evidence to ensure Avery was found guilty at the murder trial.

I think this is a fair assessment.

However, there was so much evidence against Avery I don't think they needed to plant anything and would have greatly risked his conviction by doing so. Remember, their big embarrassment (if the documentary is to be believed) was that they falsely convicted him the first time. So willfully planting evidence then being found out would have been much more devastating than failing to get a conviction.

I have no doubt that that sort of thing goes on but I suspect in this day and age with advanced forensics, cameras everywhere and the free flow of information, it happens much less.