Anyone watching Netflix's Making a Murderer?

There were things I wondered about. Like after Strang cross-examined Colbourne, asking him about the license plate, it cut right to the credits. But they never really said what happened after that moment. It just seems like they should have done more with that.

Or the fact that Brendan Dassey’s brother’s testimony and the testimony of Scotty Tadych were both contradicted by the bus driver.

All of this seems so damning. If there’s any way the prosecution could explain or tried to explain it, I’d love to hear it.

X10

Evidently you didn’t watch the docs about the West Memphis Three, or “Crime After Crime”. The horrifying thing is that this isn’t even unusual.

A: :eek:
B: You are someone I can ask this question of…setting aside all the legalities and what not.
Why? Why do you believe that Steven Avery would commit that crime? Given what you know of his past, the status of his life at the time it happened, etc., what is it about it, apart from your disinclination to believe that the police would ever plant evidence ( :eek: ) why would you think that this man, at this time, would decide to rape, murder, dismember and burn this woman who had been out to the yard on many occasions previously? Why does that strike you as believable?

The WM3 documentaries are decidedly partisan. That case is not as “horrifying” as the documentary makers suggest.

I look forward to watching this and making my own mind up. Im one of those people who watch these shows and generally still believe the accused is guilty as hell.

Then why didn’t the defense have any uncontested evidence?
Why did the county officers conduct a search when ordered to stay away.
I’m not saying Avery is innocent (though I don’t think he murdered her) but the prosecutions case stunk.

.

Sorry, I was talking about the WM3 case. I assume *you *are talking about Making a Murderer. I havent watched that show to comment on the case.

If you are still having trouble viewing, Netflix put it on YouTube as well. I know sounds weird but true.

It’s been a long time since I watched the first or even the second and last, but I seem to remember that they were sent to death row (echols, at least) mostly because they were weird. I’d have to re-watch and dig deeper to debate it with you.

Back to this case: massively irritating statement made by the prosecutor in Brendon’s trial:" innocent people don’t confess" That is a big fat lie. Are prosecutors permitted to make false statements like that? I wonder if his defense corrected that?

I think the worst statement made by anyone involved with the case had to be something to the effect of “It would have been easier to get rid of Steven Avery rather than frame him…you know, just kill him.” That was my rip the record needle moment.

Wow, I missed that… Jesus. I hope the attention helps both of them get out, the way it did for the West Memphis 3… Money makes all the didference…

I finished it. Way to long. It’s clear Steven was framed for the first crime, Brendan was framed for the second crime, and if anyone knows whether or not Steven committed the second crime they didn’t tell us. Almost all of the series was based on the public record of events, I have a feeling there is much more that wasn’t brought out on the show.

I am aghast at the thought that Len Kachinsky is allowed to practice law. I cannot understand how the evidence obtained from the search by the Manitowoc Sheriffs was not thrown out. There can never be a semblance of justice in this case.

We finished this series last week and it’s been on my mind. To echo other posters, Manitowoc PD and sheriff’s department were some combo of the Keystone cops and the mafia. It’s unbelievable they didn’t recuse themselves from anything involving the Avery family or that another law entity didn’t order them totally off the case.

Brendan was clearly compromised by cognitive issues, this is what had me screaming at the TV. I so hope some competent innocence project has taken up his case, this young man is innocent. I want to send him money and chocolate chip cookies. Stephen’s parents also hurt my heart and I expected ma or pa to, at some point, to just drop dead from the stress and agony (and mom was clearly in very poor health to begin with).

Stephen . . . oh Stephen. I’m sure the officers and other colluding parties planted the key and possibly the blood. But I’m still bothered by the burnt body next to his trailer.

OTOH, Theresa’s male roommate struck me as shady. He inserted himself into the investigation, was key in finding her CRV, and fiddled around with her cellphone messages. The documentary suggests that the Keystone cops didn’t really investigate this guy.

  • Brendan’s skeevy and wholly incompetent slimeass of an “attorney.” I hope he gets disbarred and run out of county at the point of a pitchfork.

Can’t see why…as I thought before they said it, then they said it: it was undisputed that the “cremains” were moved. The question was: TO Steven’s trailer, or FROM? Since the overwhelming majority of cremains were found at the trailer, that leaves the question: why would someone move just a couple of bits somewhere else? Doesn’t it make loads more sense that someone burned the body somewhere else, then moved what they BELIEVED were all the bits over by Steve’s trailer, leaving a few bits in another location?

Somewhere in there they said something about that being the norm… (not really sure what kind of research has been done on moving things like that, I’d have to go back and find it…) and that’s what makes sense.

Offhand I can’t think of a single thing offered as evidence for Steve’s guilt that in any way leaves a question in my mind of “Well, maybe…” Even if something exists and I’m just not remembering, I’m pretty sure all the evidence or LACK of evidence (the garage, anyone???) makes any question about anything else utterly weightless.

My mistake then, apologies.

I finished the series and while it is still hard for me to wrap around my head that the cops would have gone that far to frame him- I thought the most telling evidence of Steven & Brendan’s innocence was the fact they did not find even one hint of Theresa’s DNA in that sloppy, cluttered trailer that she was supposedly killed in.

But there is some small amount of doubt- if Steven didn’t kill Theresa then it’s likely the cops did or at least discovered her body, burnt it and planted it on his property. Maybe the lawsuit really did piss them off that much but it’s still hard for me to make that stretch. They found her dead, shot in the head in the car and their first response was to burn her body and plant her and the car on Steven’s property as soon as they hear he was the last one to see her…that’s really what had to have happened if he’s innocent and it’s a hard one to swallow…

I have no doubt that Brendan is innocent and that anyone watching those confession tapes has to come to the same conclusion. His first lawyer should be disbarred and I find it unbelievable that he could not get some post-conviction relief at least.

I haven’t seen the netflix show, but reading this thread, the whole thing sounded so familiar to me. There is a radio lab episode that touches on Steven Avery:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/278075-are-you-sure/

The episode is more about the woman who was raped and was wrong in pointing at Avery for the rape.

I have to disagree here. The documentary doesn’t go into much detail on this, but there were other Averys living on the same lot. It’s possible that Steven is innocent but that a different Avery living on the property committed the murder.

Another possibility is that someone else committed the murder, and knew (1) the police didn’t like Avery (fairly obvious to most people in the area, I would think), and (2) that Halbach was recently at Avery’s place (less well known, but if it was someone she was close to, not improbable that they would know her schedule). They could have planted some or all of the evidence, then the police planted some or all of the rest.

I’m not saying either of those scenarios is what happened, just that they are alternatives to scenarios where the police either commit the murder and / or burn the body.

I think there’s a lot of things that might have happened. But, what I know didn’t happen is that the case against either of those two guys was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (unless this series was supremely dishonest). And I’m usually a guy who will still think the accused is guilty after these sort of documentaries (I’m lookin’ at you Adnan!).

This is what bothered me too. There were plenty of reasonable doubts presented, I thought. But, I also kept reminding myself that documentary producers have a narrative they want to present and an ability to heavily edit.

I also couldn’t figure out how Avery was guilty of murder, but not of mutilating her corpse, even though her corpse was mutilated. You telling me there’s reasonable doubt that he shot/hacked/burned her corpse, but not that he murdered her?