• 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

E

EthanC

Banned
blame space said:
was Steve Avery really calling her cellphone using a *67 function multiple times? And he bought shackles at a store in town the same week Halbach was scheduled to come take the picture of the van?
Click to expand...

Yep. Unless you want to believe that Teresa lied about all the creepy shit he did to her. Yes to the shackles as well.
 
A

Agentnibs

Member
santi_yo said:
SlXR430.jpg


Now I want a movie of this story and I want Rick Moranis to portray him.
Click to expand...

Nah it should be Toby from the office. The guy is all smiles when the camera gives him attention just like Toby was when they would ask him about the Scranton strangler.
PaulLieberstein.jpg
Click to expand...
 
O

onadesertedisland

Member
EthanC said:
Yep. Unless you want to believe that Teresa lied about all the creepy shit he did to her. Yes to the shackles as well.
Click to expand...

Without Teresa to tell us that, what evidence is there to corroborate those claims? The shackles are tied to bullshit confessions from Brendan. The shackles were found by the police and needed a way to tie them to the crime to make Avery seem more brutal. I think the more likely truth to them is what Avery said the shackles were to be used for.
 
E

EthanC

Banned
onadesertedisland said:
Without Teresa to tell us that, what evidence is there to corroborate those claims? The shackles are tied to bullshit confessions from Brendan. The shackles were found by the police and needed a way to tie them to the crime to make Avery seem more brutal. I think the more likely truth to them is what Avery said the shackles were to be used for.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh OK so now Teresa's co-workers are in on the plot to frame poor Steven Avery too.
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
EthanC said:
Yep. Unless you want to believe that Teresa lied about all the creepy shit he did to her. Yes to the shackles as well.
Click to expand...

For someone that supposedly knows all of the points not in the doc, you sure seem to spout shit you don't know about. The shackles were bought 3 weeks before Teresa was killed, even before her previous visit to his property (Oct 10 I believe). So....he had the shackles and her on the property, and yet decides that's not the right time to kill her?

And "all that creepy shit" was one claim (that was not put in a report) that he opened the door with a towel on.
 
A

AniHawk

Member
Nafai1123 said:
For someone that supposedly knows all of the points not in the doc, you sure seem to spout shit you don't know about. The shackles were bought 3 weeks before Teresa was killed, even before her previous visit to his property (Oct 10 I believe). So....he had the shackles and her on the property, and yet decides that's not the right time to kill her?

And "all that creepy shit" was one claim (that was not put in a report) that he opened the door with a towel on.
Click to expand...

hearsay and conjecture's all the evidence i need.
 
E

Erigu

Member
EthanC said:
Citation
Click to expand...
You said "unless you want to believe that Teresa lied about all the creepy shit he did to her".

First off, you make it sound like the source is Teresa herself, when it obviously isn't. The article says her boss said she said. And the source for that article seems to be Ken Kratz.

Then, "all the creepy shit he did to her" = "he once opened the door just wearing a towel"? You sure made it sound a lot worse.

In both cases, I have to wonder: do you do that on purpose?
 
E

EthanC

Banned
Nafai1123 said:
For someone that supposedly knows all of the points not in the doc, you sure seem to spout shit you don't know about. The shackles were bought 3 weeks before Teresa was killed, even before her previous visit to his property (Oct 10 I believe). So....he had the shackles and her on the property, and yet decides that's not the right time to kill her?

And "all that creepy shit" was one claim (that was not put in a report) that he opened the door with a towel on.
Click to expand...

No, it was multiple claims that he would call her using *67 to hide his identity. She shared this with her co-workers. And it's something he again did the day she died. The bullshit excuse the documentary makers gave for leaving stuff like this out is hilarious "It would have made the documentary too long if we tried to cover everything". Translation: it would get in the way of the agenda they had.

AniHawk said:
hearsay and conjecture's all the evidence i need.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious in a thread about a case in which the defense's claim is that every bit of evidence was planted.
 
Revolutionary

Revolutionary

Member
Finally finished watching this. I feel for the Halbach family, but I couldn't help but think "Jesus Christ this guy is so gullible" every time her brother was talking to the press. He was there for every witness, testimony, piece of evidence, etc. How can he blindly follow the State and not suspect that something is up at some point?
Ah whatever. Pretty great watch. The interrogation/coercion scene with Brandon and the investigator was fucking disgusting, and that's not a word I use lightly.
 
B

BronsonLee

Member
Revolutionary said:
Finally finished watching this. I feel for the Halbach family, but I couldn't help but think "Jesus Christ this guy is so gullible" every time her brother was talking to the press. He was there for every witness, testimony, piece of evidence, etc. How can he blindly follow the State and not suspect that something is up at some point?
Ah whatever. Pretty great watch. The interrogation/coercion scene with Brandon and the investigator was fucking disgusting, and that's not a word I use lightly.
Click to expand...

Remember, the family really has zero reason to believe Steven or Brendan at all. The State likely presented them with their version of events and they just went with it. That's what most people would do.

The family isn't going to have such unrestricted access or read/watch everything involving the case. Their hearts were broken enough.

RE: The Brother, he's not so much gullible as he is inexperienced in dealing with the press on a murder trial.
 
Y

yyzjohn

Banned
onadesertedisland said:
The article uses Reddit as a source, sorry that won't cut it friend.
Click to expand...

There's also conflicting reports right on Reddit.

It wasn't Teresa'a "boss" that spoke of the towel incident, it was a receptionist at Auto Trader. Also her testimony wasn't allowed. In addition, Teresa knew she was going to Steven Avery's property.

8:12AM - Pliszka testified before the jury that Avery called AutoTrader on Oct. 31, 2005, to request the photographer who had been out to the property previously.
If he was trying to conceal who he was, then why would he reference 'the photographer who had been out here before' which clearly would have been giving away exactly who it was?

11:43AM (From Day 2 Transcripts from Dassey Trial)
"Hello. This is Teresa with AutoTrader Magazine. I'm the photographer, and just giving you a call to let you know that I could come out there today, urn, in the afternoon. It would will probably be around two o'clock or even a little later. But, urn, if you could please give me a call back and let me know if that will work for you, because I don't have your address or anything, so I can't stop by without getting the -- a call back from you. And my cell phone is 737-4731. Again, it's Teresa, 920-737-4731. Thank you."

It's unclear why Teresa wasn't aware at this point that this appointment was at the Avery property, but it would seem that, given her message, she requested a call back before she would be able to come to the property to confirm where she was going. That would certainly help explain Steve Averys 2:30-ish calls to her

2:27PM - Teresa makes a 5 minute call to AutoTrader. Teresa talks to a woman from AutoTrader, Pliszka, and says “I'm on my way. I'm on my way to the Steven Avery property.”
It seems at this point, it has been clarified to Teresa where her appointment is at, so she was in no way 'tricked' or 'fooled' into going to the Avery property. She knew exactly where she was going, and likely had cleared up the confusion after talking to Avery himself.
Click to expand...

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...y_targeted_teresa_you_cant_have_it_both_ways/
 
O

onadesertedisland

Member
EthanC said:
No, it was multiple claims that he would call her using *67 to hide his identity. She shared this with her co-workers. And it's something he again did the day she died. The bullshit excuse the documentary makers gave for leaving stuff like this out is hilarious "It would have made the documentary too long if we tried to cover everything". Translation: it would get in the way of the agenda they had.



This is hilarious in a thread about a case in which the defense's claim is that every bit of evidence was planted.
Click to expand...

The defense's role is to establish reasonable doubt. The state's job is to prove guilt to a standard above that. There needs to be a better quality of evidence for the state for this to be true.
 
R

Reizo Ryuu

Member
jellies_two said:
For me at least, the finding of the car key was the most insanely difficult thing to believe.

If you don't buy that story, then everything else on the prosecution side becomes suspect.

Monotawk involved the neighbouring county to do the investigation in an attempt to make things look at arms length, neighbouring county cops searched multiple times, and those guys actually said the key was not there - not missed, but NOT there - then, two cops *from monotawk* county somehow get involved, and find it in plain view? with sweat on it (that was easily available to them because they had Steve in custody by that time)? seriously? thats what I saw in the documentary. Was that a biased view of the key, is there a different explanation for the key that makes it less likely to be planted?

if it was planted then the other DNA links can reasonably suspected of being planted as well, and at that point there is reasonable doubt that they have the correct killer. End of story. Nothing further to say.
Click to expand...

The defense actually tried to go deeper into this, when the questioned said that the key probably fell out of cupboard or some dumb shit.
They wanted to simulate the key falling but the prosecution objected, judge sustained it and it seems like it was never pursued any further.
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
EthanC said:
No, it was multiple claims that he would call her using *67 to hide his identity. She shared this with her co-workers. And it's something he again did the day she died. The bullshit excuse the documentary makers gave for leaving stuff like this out is hilarious "It would have made the documentary too long if we tried to cover everything". Translation: it would get in the way of the agenda they had.
Click to expand...

Strang said Steven is a private person, which would explain his use of *67. The fact is we have a recorded phone call of Teresa talking to Steven on Oct 31st and she does not sound concerned.

I'm not sure you understand what reasonable doubt is, and that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. Using *67 is not evidence of a crime.
 
H

HalfBakedProphet

Member
JBuccCP said:
I haven't read all of Dassey's transcripts yet but I've started reading through the 2/27 interview at the high school and I'm not understanding why people are saying the earlier interviews weren't corerced or were better.
Click to expand...
All of the Brendan interviews are junk. Especially so considering there is such a lack of physical evidence to back up any of his 7 different versions of the events

And the interviews are on YouTube! People can watch them for themselves without being subjected to that evil filmmakers bias
 
R

ReignofSparrows

Member
Can someone please explain to me the supposed takeaway from the *67 evidence? What does that show?

Is it reasonable to conclude that he was trying to hide his identity from Teresa when she had spoken with him before and was on her way to take pictures of a van outside of his house? Do we even have any evidence that she was wary of interacting with him? The one statement I've read does not indicate that despite the characterizations in this thread.

Further, is it reasonable to conclude that he was setting up for an alibi when he never denied that she came to his property to take the photographs?

Is there some other reason this is supposedly damning? I'm not seeing it.
 
W

wachie

Member
*67 makes you a murderer, there I said it.

*67 is useless in Teresa's case because she's coming to Avery's junkyard, she knows she might see Avery in a towel
 
O

onadesertedisland

Member
ReignofSparrows said:
Can someone please explain to me the supposed takeaway from the *67 evidence? What does that show?

Is it reasonable to conclude that he was trying to hide his identity from Teresa when she had spoken with him before and was on her way to take pictures of a van outside of his house? Do we even have any evidence that she was wary of interacting with him? The one statement I've read does not indicate that despite the characterizations in this thread.

Further, is it reasonable to conclude that he was setting up for an alibi when he never denied that she came to his property to take the photographs?

Is there some other reason this is supposedly damning? I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...
I don't get why there is some subtle notion that Teresa didn't want to work with Avery. If she didn't, why would she agree to go back to the address where he lived to take photos? If the management wanted to keep his business but not alienate a photographer, why not send a different photographer? I just don't get the idea that she didn't want to work with him.
 
A

aerts1js

Member
EthanC said:
No, it was multiple claims that he would call her using *67 to hide his identity. She shared this with her co-workers. And it's something he again did the day she died. The bullshit excuse the documentary makers gave for leaving stuff like this out is hilarious "It would have made the documentary too long if we tried to cover everything". Translation: it would get in the way of the agenda they had.



This is hilarious in a thread about a case in which the defense's claim is that every bit of evidence was planted.
Click to expand...

*67 is useless in this case. Do you think she blindly drove to Avery's property without knowing he was going to be there? Do you think he painted over his business sign with just a *67 so she wouldn't know where she was at? You are looking at this case with an extremely narrow view. I know a couple of people that used to dial *67 all the time because they were private people that thought it prevented the government from tracking/listening in on them. As far as I know they didn't commit any murders. I lived a couple hours outside of Greenbay in the late 90's-2008..
 
M

MonorailCat

Member
aerts1js said:
*67 is useless in this case. Do you think she blindly drove to Avery's property without knowing he was going to be there? You are looking at this case with an extremely narrow view.
Click to expand...

Maybe she forgot that the Avery Junkjard on Avery Road was home to Steve Avery.
 
R

Rur0ni

Member
onadesertedisland said:
I don't get why there is some subtle notion that Teresa didn't want to work with Avery. If she didn't, why would she agree to go back to the address where he lived to take photos? If the management wanted to keep his business but not alienate a photographer, why not send a different photographer? I just don't get the idea that she didn't want to work with him.
Click to expand...
It's because it paints Avery more with the creep brush (that he may be) and thus more capable of carrying out the murder, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that she had a problem with him. As far as him requesting her, I'm more likely to request someone I've dealt with before as well. You already have a relationship.
 
M

Miles Quaritch

Member
EthanC is crazy invested in Avery being guilty.

A complete refusal to accept any evidence that suggests his position might be wrong or on shaky ground....madness.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
So fucking wild that we are focusing on Avery 67ing his calls when no one is talking about others breaking into her voicemail and deleting potential evidence.

Blowing my mind on the lack of uproar. If I knew my ex broke into my voicemail and messed around with the messages by "guessing" my password, I would get a fucking restraining order on her.
 
D

Dalek

Member
RustyNails said:
So fucking wild that we are focusing on Avery 67ing his calls when no one is talking about others breaking into her voicemail and deleting potential evidence.

Blowing my mind on the lack of uproar. If I knew my ex broke into my voicemail and messed around with the messages by "guessing" my password, I would get a fucking restraining order on her.
Click to expand...

Yeah-again this is the one thing that blows my mind the much. It seems like such a crucial piece of evidence-a person goes missing and someone-after her death-deletes the messages.
 
M

Miles Quaritch

Member
RustyNails said:
So fucking wild that we are focusing on Avery 67ing his calls when no one is talking about others breaking into her voicemail and deleting potential evidence.

Blowing my mind on the lack of uproar. If I knew my ex broke into my voicemail and messed around with the messages by "guessing" my password, I would get a fucking restraining order on her.
Click to expand...

Also found the excessive denial of the ex that he was ever on the Avery property pretty suspect.
 
R

ReignofSparrows

Member
There is certainly interesting and potentially damning evidence in this case, but without getting into that, I think the *67 detail is a decent barometer of someone's ability to analyze the evidence here. It's one of the least probative pieces of information we have, so I would be highly skeptical of anyone who finds it important let alone bangs on about it for the purposes of rebuttal.
 
D

Dalek

Member
Nafai1123 said:
The defense questioned someone who worked at Cingular wireless and showed that, because there were new voicemails received days after, some messages HAD to have been deleted because her mailbox was full.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why they couldn't ask the Cingular agent if they stored the voicemail's on their servers and if they could be retrieved.
 
R

Reizo Ryuu

Member
Nafai1123 said:
The defense questioned someone who worked at Cingular wireless and showed that, because there were new voicemails received days after, some messages HAD to have been deleted because her mailbox was full.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, they said the voicemail was either deleted manually, or by itself to make room for new messages.
 
H

Hazmat

Member
Miles Quaritch said:
Also found the excessive denial of the ex that he was ever on the Avery property pretty suspect.
Click to expand...

There wasn't excessive denial, they asked him if he was there when the car was found, and he said that he wasn't.

I'm not saying that Avery did it, but people who are willing to write off all the evidence against him and then point the finger at the brother or the ex-boyfriend or the other Avery family members just don't make any sense to me. Maybe Teresa's brother should have doused a cat in gasoline and thrown it into a fire, then maybe the documentarians might have gone out of their way to make him look like a decent guy.
 
N

Nafai1123

Banned
Dalek said:
I don't understand why they couldn't ask the Cingular agent if they stored the voicemail's on their servers and if they could be retrieved.
Click to expand...

I would assume they would've done this if it was possible.

Reizo Ryuu said:
Well to be fair, they said the voicemail was either deleted manually, or by itself to make room for new messages.
Click to expand...

Ah yeah that sounds familiar.

Hazmat said:
There wasn't excessive denial, they asked him if he was there when the car was found, and he said that he wasn't.

I'm not saying that Avery did it, but people who are willing to write off all the evidence against him and then point the finger at the brother or the ex-boyfriend or the other Avery family members just don't make any sense to me. Maybe Teresa's brother should have doused a cat in gasoline and thrown it into a fire, then maybe the documentarians might have gone out of their way to make him look like a decent guy.
Click to expand...

The point is, there was no investigation done into anyone else. We don't even know who to point the finger at because we don't know anything about the people that were actually close to Teresa. It's not about "writing off evidence," it's about questioning the limited, suspicious evidence available. Bottom line is it doesn't matter who you point the finger at, if you can't definitively prove Steve was guilty then he shouldn't have been convicted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
22K
Elysium44 replied
I Am A Killer (Netflix Original Documentary Series)
18
2K
DeepEnigma replied
The Confession Tapes | Netflix True-Crime Documentary Series - Out Now
25
7K
Clyde Donovan replied
The story about how a Missouri man was wrongfully convicted of killing his wife is such an infuriating miscariage of justice
35
6K
SpoopySpeedster replied
'Making a Murderer' subject Steven Avery denied new trial
3 4 5 6 7
308
36K
BronsonLee replied
Top Bottom