-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Making A Murderer - Netflix 10-part documentary series - S1 now streaming on Netflix
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
The Silver
Member
on episode 5, someone explain this shit to me about the defense not being allowed to bring up another suspect.
So you have no doubt at all, on what grounds if I may ask?
The Paradise Lost documentaries.
Aarglefarg
Member
The Staircase (including The Staircase 2).
After they're done playing on their PS4?
The Central Park Five is on Netflix USA. Ken Burns joint.
I'm recommending it to anyone who might possibly be interested. I think it's better than The Jinx.
stump sock
Member
congrats, you've just been selected for jury duty.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
A ruling by the judge, I am assuming was based on the amount of evidence presented against Avery.
It didn't make much sense to me either.
stump sock
Member
it has the opposite effect in me. I don't want to have to deal with systems as fucked as this
You admit that the circumstances don't make sense and evidence is sketchy. Then you say he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
Do you realize that those two things contradict each other?
More of the doc series to come?
http://mashable.com/2015/12/30/the-making-of-making-of-a-murderer/#O2GIan2EkkqN
http://mashable.com/2015/12/30/the-making-of-making-of-a-murderer/#O2GIan2EkkqN
chris121580
Member
I binged watched this yesterday. Made for a depressing day to say the least. Like others mentioned, I can't get past the calling in of the license plate. It makes no sense. I also can't process that the car was found in the junkyard in the span of 20 minutes. Her entire explanation was off from God leading her to it to just looking incredibly uncomfortable on the stand. And how fucking cringeworthy was it to see O'Kelly crying over the ribbon? And then crying again referring to the ribbon again? That shit was so incredibly fake.
I also thought Steven's lawyers were absolutely phenomenal. They could not have done a better job poking holes in the State's case. I just can't process someone being in jail wrongfully for 18 years only to commit murder 2 years after he's out...it just doesn't make sense to me and neither does the fact they found no blood anywhere in his house or garage. It's unfortunate what happened to Brendan..totally screwed...but his made up story really screwed Steven over before his trial even began which wasn't fair. Does anyone else think Steven should've taken the stand in his trial?
I also thought Steven's lawyers were absolutely phenomenal. They could not have done a better job poking holes in the State's case. I just can't process someone being in jail wrongfully for 18 years only to commit murder 2 years after he's out...it just doesn't make sense to me and neither does the fact they found no blood anywhere in his house or garage. It's unfortunate what happened to Brendan..totally screwed...but his made up story really screwed Steven over before his trial even began which wasn't fair. Does anyone else think Steven should've taken the stand in his trial?
RustyNails
Member
I didn't get the whole blue ribbon thing. His "crying" was extremely fake. What was it about?
Basically the judge tasked the defense to prove Steve's innocence rather than laying the blame on other suspects. He limited the scope so that the focus of the trial is on Steve alone rather than meandering in different directions towards other, albeit sketchy subjects. This obviously hampered the defense as they weren't allowed to point fingers.
Richard_Venom
Member
I think his tears became uncontrollable after he realized how bad he F up Brendan's life. But he can't just admit it so he said he was crying about the blue ribbon.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
I think the Jinx might be better for me because Durst is such a strange man and how it ended. One of the most jaw dropping moments for me.
Rocket786
Member
So watched the whole thing and it's just devastating. I can't see how there is not reasonable doubt in either of the two cases.
A question I had was the prosecutors claim that Teresa died in Avery's trailer or garage? It seemed like Brendan was saying that she was tied to a bed in the trailer, but then there's a bullet found in the garage indicting Avery shot her there. I'm just confused as to where the alleged murder took place, and for the love of god, where is all the blood if it happened?!
A question I had was the prosecutors claim that Teresa died in Avery's trailer or garage? It seemed like Brendan was saying that she was tied to a bed in the trailer, but then there's a bullet found in the garage indicting Avery shot her there. I'm just confused as to where the alleged murder took place, and for the love of god, where is all the blood if it happened?!
Bits N Pieces
Member
One thing I felt was a little weird,
why didn't he take the stand?
You don't watch many law shows do you
What the fuck am i reading here? It doesn't make any sense what you are saying.
The prosecution argued both sides in both cases, that she was killed in the garage in Steven's case and killed in the trailer in Brendan's case...and won both cases against them. It boggles the mind and is encroaching in to unethical behavior if you ask me. It is something Dean Strang touched on in an interview with local news someone posted a link to just recently in this thread.
The whole thing is crazy.
HalfBakedProphet
Member
the prosecutor's timeline was ever changing and never made complete sense.
You can go back a page and watch Brendan's March 1st confession and it's all over the place. That's all they had to work with and in return the cop's timeline is just as nonsensical. It is two or three different stories stitched together into a Frankenstein's monster of a scenario
BoogerFart
Banned
This post is scarier.
RustyNails
Member
Even though the prosecution acted unethically, there is no check in the criminal justice system that looks for course correction. If you demonstrate X is not possible in case A, the law should forever exclude X from ever being brought up during a related trial. But it doesn't and that's the fundamental problem. Because slimy lawyers gonna slime. The system needs to be changed.
Another question I had was that the next lawyers Brendan had (a middle-aged lawyer and an older lawyer) also failed him just like Len Kachinsky but not as disastrously. Why did they cut off the taped interrogation where Brendan calls his mom and tells her they got to his head and messed with him? Were they just inept?
I don't know if he did or not, but when you say "the placement of the evidence at hand are sketchy", doesn't that raise DOUBT in your mind? He's supposed to be shown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In my mind, the timeline and evidence left much room for doubt and I wouldn't have been able to convict him the way the documentary presented the evidence.
Denton
Member
Seen the whole thing at work with a colleague over the last two days.
Most frustrating, depressing, riveting, infuriating piece of television I have ever seen.
The most heartbreaking thing about it is that as I am typing this, I know that those two men are in prison, at this very moment, still.
And all those assholes, Lenk, Colborn, Kratz, O'Kelly, Kachinski (christ what a snake piece of shit) are free. And the killer is free too (my money is on either the brother, or the exboyfriend).
Also, Strang and Buting. What an amazing people. I know, lawyers, expensive, not doing it out of goodness of their hearts. But damn if I am ever accused of a crime, I want people like that to represent me. Just outstanding people.
Most frustrating, depressing, riveting, infuriating piece of television I have ever seen.
The most heartbreaking thing about it is that as I am typing this, I know that those two men are in prison, at this very moment, still.
And all those assholes, Lenk, Colborn, Kratz, O'Kelly, Kachinski (christ what a snake piece of shit) are free. And the killer is free too (my money is on either the brother, or the exboyfriend).
Also, Strang and Buting. What an amazing people. I know, lawyers, expensive, not doing it out of goodness of their hearts. But damn if I am ever accused of a crime, I want people like that to represent me. Just outstanding people.
tauroxd
Member
Going to quote myself to see if I get any answer... Obviously Jude Willis was very biased against Avery, but that made me wonder if things could be a littler better with a better judge.
A judge can overrule a jury's guilty verdict under certain circumstances. He can also declare a mistrial. A judge can't overturn an innocent verdict though.
Forsete
Member
So I have watched numerous crime docus.
The Staircase
Paradice Lost 1-3
Murder on a sunday morning
And this is just as good. Fantastic stuff, Netflix needs to add more of these docus.
However, I am not sure sure Steve was innocent. The kid, probably. But on Steve they actually have evidence. And I don't believe the cops planted that stuff. The blood (so the FBI was in on it? Since they couldn't find the chemical which keeps the old blood from the vial from coagulating?)? The bones? The keys? The magazine?
Not buying it. I feel for the boy though. Poor guy.
The Staircase
Paradice Lost 1-3
Murder on a sunday morning
And this is just as good. Fantastic stuff, Netflix needs to add more of these docus.
However, I am not sure sure Steve was innocent. The kid, probably. But on Steve they actually have evidence. And I don't believe the cops planted that stuff. The blood (so the FBI was in on it? Since they couldn't find the chemical which keeps the old blood from the vial from coagulating?)? The bones? The keys? The magazine?
Not buying it. I feel for the boy though. Poor guy.
I'm not 100% convinced Steven is innocent either. I don't get how anyone could consider an AutoTrader magazine as evidence though? Teresa worked for AutoTrader, she could've handed one to Steven before she left. Steven could've picked one up from a store to get the phone number off of.
The key was most definitely planted. First of all, it was a standalone key. Who just carries a single key? Where were her other keys? The key had none of Teresa's DNA on it, which would imply that it was cleaned. Why would Steven take the time to clean the key, only to leave it in his bedroom in plain sight? His blood in Teresa's car, and the nice sized cut on his finger are definitely red flags. I just don't understand how he could've bled all over the place without leaving a single fingerprint? Was he wearing gloves? Then how could he have left blood? Did he wipe all of his prints off, but chose to leave all of his blood? For someone that should be aware of how DNA works, that doesn't make sense either.
Brendan got screwed so hard. There wasn't a stitch of evidence linking him to the murder. Just a "confession" from a clearly mentally challenged 16 year old. The first interview he gave made perfect sense (which I believe to be what actually happened) and fell in line with the evidence, but the investigators kept pushing him until he came up with a ridiculous story that couldn't possibly be true according to the evidence. Sad.
How do you explain the tampering of the blood vial?
How do you explain the burnt bones at the quarry? He killed her at the house, brought her body to quarry, burned it, then returned bones to his bonfire? Why would he only move some bones to the quarry?
How did he meticulously clean up blood everwhere except the Jeep? Why would he keep the jeep on his property instead of crushing it?
Why was Theresa's DNA not located anywhere on the key?
These are questions that make all the evidence highly questionable for me.
They covered this: the test is only good enough to verify if the chemical IS there, not that it is not. It shouldn't have been used.
tauroxd
Member
Thanks for the anwser. So I better judge would have helped Steven.
BronsonLee
Member
A judge rarely, if ever, uses that option. That's basically a once in a career thing.
HBO had a movie a few years ago called Indictment, about the McMartin Preschool trials that happened in California during the child abuse and satan abuse panics that were going on at the time. One thing that was discovered during the trial was that the interrogators could get the kids to say absolutely anything during their interviews. The kids ended up reporting that the teachers on the school sacrificed animals, took them on an airplane to another location, etc. One boy said a teacher brought a horse to the school and killed it by hitting it once with a stick.
The problem of course was that the questioners knew what they wanted to hear, and guided the kids to say the right words. If you have faith in humanity, assume that they did it unintentionally. The same thing happened with Brenden, and was obviously 100% intentional. How that confessions survived any kind of court challenge is amazing.
Sutton Dagger
Member
I think a lot of people have a hard time with the concept of 'not guilty' vs 'innocent'.
"If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must deliver a verdict of not guilty. This does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt."
Based on the evidence shown I would have to issue a not guilty verdict, that does not mean that Steven Avery is innocent.
"If the judge or jury are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they must deliver a verdict of not guilty. This does not mean that the defendant is innocent. It means only that the prosecution did not convince the judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt."
Based on the evidence shown I would have to issue a not guilty verdict, that does not mean that Steven Avery is innocent.
RustyNails
Member
Don't know if you paid full attention to the evidence.
EDTA test: If the tests come back negative (as they did in Avery's case), it simply means the result is inconclusive. It's a positive-only test.
AutoTrader: What about it? Steve was looking to sell the van. In their neck of the woods AutoTrader did the work if you wanted to sell your car. So he had the magazine with him.
Bones: They were moved around in at least 3 different places, pointing to the allegation that they were burned somewhere else and then moved. If you are going to kill someone and burn their bodies, you don't do it in front of your bedroom. Besides, they had an incinerator where some of the bones were found too. Why not burn it all there? Someone burned the body and dispersed them around the salvage yard.
Magic Key: So this key has been used a million times by Teresa. Not a single speck of her DNA was found on the key anywhere, not in the crevices or spots. Only Steve's DNA was conveniently there. They checked the bedroom 6 times. Key was not there. 7th time Lenk comes to the bedroom and all of a sudden he points to the key being on the floor.
Magic Bullet: Same thing as Keys. Never found in sweeps done before. Lenk shows up and suddenly the bullet is found too. Also I forgot that one testing lady royally screwing the pooch over DNA testing. She contaminated the evidence with her own DNA and her organization's codebook says in such instances the results are inconclusive.
Rocket786
Member
I just can't comprehend how this can happen when two people's lives are at stake. If Steven Avery's trial "proved" that the murder happened in the garage, then that should throw the idea of Teresa being tied up to a bed and Brendan raping her out the window. You can't have her killed in the trailer and the garage!
And once again, I ask wherever she is killed, where is the blood?! From the way I look at it, sure it is far fetched that detectives planted the evidence. Far fetched but POSSIBLE. Teresa being killed in the trailer or the garage and having no blood is IMPOSSIBLE! How can a jury overlook this? I just don't get it...
Look at Brendan's first interview. He says Steven tied Teresa up and cut his finger in the process. Then he puts her in the back of her RAV4, stabbed her (the only place her blood was actually found), then drove the RAV4 to the location it was later found. He then transported her body back to the house to burn it.
I don't know why the prosecution didn't run with this version (his first version and the most believable) of his story.
PrimaNocta
Member
Branden also said Steven slit her throat in the bedroom where no evidence of blood was found. You can't pick & choose what to believe in his statement. Steven worked in a junkyard, where u can easily get cuts on your hand. I can relate with that because my dad owned a auto parts junkyard for about 15 years he had had plenty of cuts & scrapes on his hands/arm.
Compelling?? Bro, people are marathoning and losing losing sleep over this. It's one of the most compelling things Ive ever watched. It's insane, I'm engrossed. YES, watch it.
Similar threads
- Locked