I’m about halfway through it, and this is my opinion so far.
And Len Kachinsky is up there with Killgrave, Kingpin and Vee as the greatest Netflix villains of all time.
That test pissed me off. It’s the kind of experiment that I tell my students to avoid at all costs. One result (a positive) is meaningful, but the other result (no EDTA) means nothing. At least they could have tested the vial of blood in evidence to show that they could detect it in the presumed source. It still wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be much stronger. I’m assuming (hoping?) that there was a lot more testimony about the test that didn’t make it into the documentary.
I agree with many of the issues others have raised. Why would Avery not crush the car, or at least make some effort to deface it? How is there no blood evidence from Teresa in the house or the garage? I never quite followed what the bullet was supposed to be? It was in the garage floor, but had Teresa’s DNA. So…it supposedly went through her and into the floor in the corner, under a compressor? And why was Teresa’s DNA not found on her own car key?
The only evidence I can’t dismiss is the cremains in the quarry pit. Did the real murderer (or the police) burn the body there, without any of the Averys noticing? I find that a little hard to believe. And if she was burned off the property, why would they put most of the remains behind the garage and just a few in the quarry? I just can’t rectify that in my head.
There were also a couple of things I wish they had followed up on more. The first call that Colburn made to check the Rav4 license plate. Where was he at the time? How did he explain that call two days before the vehicle was found? The brother and maybe ex-boyfriend checking her phone messages. Did they delete any? Who was it that had been calling her repeatedly in the months leading up to her murder? Also, the ex seemed a little weird. I got the feeling that he was probably the one calling her. Did he have an alibi for the time of her disappearance? I can buy that if someone wanted to hurt her AND they knew that she was visiting the Avery place, they might see that as a good opportunity to get away with killing her.
Any thoughts on why Steven Avery seemed pretty relaxed when he got 2 calls from his former girlfriend while she was locked up on the day of the murder? If he has a low IQ, wouldn’t you think he would have some type of panic in his voice. He seemed pretty calm.
The “making of” feature about this series would be quite interesting too.
There’s several articles about this on the web. Basically, it’s a film school project. They picked it up when Avery was charged with murder. They kept filming because it was interesting and they felt shined a light on broader injustice in the system. They shopped it around about 8 years ago and no one was interested. Then, in 2013 they tried Netflix and got a deal.
They are still getting footage, so there may be a sequel.
I don’t think the frame up defense is a really good idea. It worked for OJ but there were a lot of other things in that case. I guess the lawyers decided it was their best shot at a defense.
To me the biggest issue was the lack of blood in the trailer and garage. I don’t think the DA was able to say anything about that. Maybe it means she was killed outside . Also I don’t see any motive other than maybe he raped her and killed her to cover up the rape.
Which is the biggest WTF. If there was zero her DNA in the bedroom and garage (other than the contaminated bullet—and only the bullet, but strangely enough not on her own key??), it doesn’t coroborate Brenden’s confession in the slightest.
That, and for me, the tampered vile of blood in Evidence look spectacularly suspicious.
No DNA from her on the key is also strange.
One of the filmmakers was a lawyer who went on to get a PhD in film.
Also for some trivia , the victim’s brother has worked for the GB Packers in the front office since right before she was killed.
I do find it strange that he bleached his garage and that while in prison for his rape, he used to tell guards that he would rape again.
Is that from the documentary? I don’t remember hearing either one of those facts or seeing it in any of the other articles I’ve read.
Binge watched it. The teenager got railroaded, clearly. I have no problem believing Steven Avery killed Teresa Halbach. I don’t think, however, the prosecution proved it, in what was shown in the documentary and certainly don’t think it went down in the way it was presented by the prosecution.
No it was from something I read on the net. I think it was called 12 facts we didn’t see in Making of a Murderer.
Right.
I’m not sure Steven is innocent, but he technically is until the prosecution proves he’s guilty, in which they came far short from doing according to what was presented in the documentary. Also, I believe the defense had created a huge window of reasonable doubt.
The one juror who had to drop out, unfortunately seemed adamant to acquit. I wonder if he was able to stay, he could’ve turned the original three around who felt he was guilty from the start.
Even if true. This case wasn’t about his past rape conviction (and ultimate exoneration due to DNA evidence pointing to Allen).
My problem is that, if I were one of the jurors, I would believe he was guilty of killing her but not in how the case was laid out. It would be a matter of acquitting based on shitty evidence and letting a murderer go free or convicting based on shitty evidence and putting a murderer away but for he wrong reasons.
I don’t know how true some of this stuff is, but now i’m reading that he may have molested Brendon, Teresa’s camera and piolet (whatever that is) were found in Stevens burn barrell, Steven had Teresa over previous times, once while only wearing a robe, apparently she complained to her boss about having to go over there. Lastly which I don’t see how this could hurt him, but he had a lot of porn on his computer.
I’m not done watching it yet; I will, however, say who I think did it if (generic) you PM me.
As for Avery being behind bars, then and now, to be perfectly honest, I don’t think that’s entirely a bad thing even if he didn’t do the crimes he was accused of. You do have to remember that he set a cat on fire. :mad: So what if he was young and drunk; that’s a sickening thing to do. There are some people who need to be removed from society, and IMNSHO he’s one of them.
Are you thinking of a Palm Pilot? People were still using those in 2005.
I just looked up “piolet”, and it’s a type of ice ax used by mountain climbers. Not a lot of mountains in Wisconsin.
Setting a cat on fire is unquestionably a horrible thing to do, but I don’t think it warrants spending the entirety of his adult life (minus a couple of years before the murder) in prison. Especially for a crime committed as a teenager.
While it may make you feel better, you can’t rationalize wrongful convictions by saying that other, unprosecuted crimes make it okay. We have to hold every conviction to same standard. Otherwise the justice system is a joke.