Dirtyshubb
Member
Maybe I have watched too many crime shows but when someone does that it's because they already know that the person is dead, if someone is just missing no one would accept they were dead a few days later like that.
-
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
That was my feeling but given the brother was a potential person of interest it seemed an odd thing for him to say.
Edit
Then later he says "We heard on Monday night she was alive and we have to keep believing that." A pretty sharp turnaround.
SneakersSO
Member
Also, after re-watching episode 5, it is UNBELIEVABLE to me that law enforcement would interrogate two potential key persons of interest (the roommate & the ex) in the same room, and then more ridiculous to not even ask for an alibi of either person.
It's a well-known statistic that the majority of murders like these are by well-known people to the victim, like a roommate or an ex/spouse. How you don't even begin to build a timeline of their activities that evening is MIND-BOGGLING.
It's a well-known statistic that the majority of murders like these are by well-known people to the victim, like a roommate or an ex/spouse. How you don't even begin to build a timeline of their activities that evening is MIND-BOGGLING.
LaserBuddha
Member
When they've clearly already decided Avery killed her before anyone knows she's dead, it makes perfect sense. If you were a piece of shit cop like most cops, you rather find the real killer or protect jobs and pensions of a bunch of cops?
This here is the primary message of The Wire. Institutions-as a whole- exist to perpetuate their existence, not to actually go out of their way to solve problems. It's easier to take photos of "Dope on the table" by doing a small time drug bust-but to actually solve the larger issue and arrest the drug kingpin takes work and might not produce "Results" for a very long time-and will cost you and your department reputation and pay.
forknknife
Banned
That guy was the worst piece of shit of all, ugh, I hope he dies in a horrible way.
Don't forget the guy in the first episode who made the sketch of the rapist from a description and was so proud of it he hung it on the wall. He said he trusted that sketch more than DNA evidence.
It's pretty telling that he and Lenk still aren't convinced Steve was wrongly imprisoned for the rape. They're all sketchy as fuck.
BronsonLee
Member
MonorailCat
Member
What are you talking about. He is a god.
His crude copied paintings are way fucking better than DNA evidence.
He should be president.
You've somehow managed to give him too much credit. He didn't even use the victim's description, he used the out-of-date Steven Avery mugshot, right?
So Steven Avery was obsessed with Theresa halbach. He would always request her and only her every time he needed photos taken. He even came out to greet her once with an exposed robe once.
Could Steven have killed her? Possibly. But the police 100% planted evidence to make sure he goes away forever.
Could Steven have killed her? Possibly. But the police 100% planted evidence to make sure he goes away forever.
PopcornMegaphone
Banned
That isn't a fact.
Also, it's possible he requested she take the photos because she was good at her job.
He's dead now by the way. In a strange coincidence he died of a heart attack the day before the Avery trial was to start. But yeah his comment about "I didn't see the DNA evidence" or "I don't believe everything I read in the papers" was hilarious. He's basically saying the DNA evidence is shit and Avery was guilty of the 1985 rape.
I was wondering why he suddenly disappears in the documentary.
BronsonLee
Member
And he only did like one sketch! And he was so proud of it!
Damn, they did him dirty. Didn't even say he passed away or nothin'.
To be fair, the defense's case in the trial uses those same arguments to discount the blood in the car. Different situations of course but it's not hard to see why people might scoff at the accusation that blood in the car is not a smoking gun.
Yeah I was wondering too.
But fuck that guy. What a fucking asshole he was. "Herp derp I framed my drawing I don't care about anything."
And was her DNA on the shackles? Was her DNA on the bed or anywhere in the room where Steven supposedly locked her up? Where Brendan "says" they stabbed her, and at one point (after being heavily pushed in that direction by the police) says Steven shot her?
You're as stupid as the prosecutors. You find this vague barely-there "evidence" but have absolutely no cohesive story to explain what happened.
A key found in his room with no DNA of Theresa and no explanation of why Steven would bring the key to his room at all.
A bullet found in the garage with no blood on it and barely enough DNA to run 1 test. But no blood found in the garage itself so when that comes up later our story will be that she was shot in the car.
Her bones found behind his garage, right in his burn pit, a damning piece of evidence! Except they were moved there, and bonfire could not create the amount heat needed to burn the bones as fully as they were. And bones found in 2 other locations with no explanation of why Steven would either A) move those bones if the pit behind his garage is the original burn spot, or B) move the bones back behind his garage if there was another burn location.
All anecdotal evidence, wrapped in the suspect intentions of the people "finding" them, and all without any reasonable or logical story to connect them.
xplicitone
Member
How about Teresa's video about:
her dying, that was a bit weird don't ya think? Who did she do that video for and did anyone see it prior to her death?
Can you elaborate on this? I heard about it from a co worker but I haven't been able to find anything online.
KingHenrik30
Member
I believe it's at the beginning of episode 2
xplicitone
Member
They showed a video that she made of herself talking to the video. She basically said she lived a good life and if she dies today, she'll be ok with it. It was in the beginning of her part of the series, probably episode 2 or 3.
She was probably being harassed a lot and knew something might happen. They just never mentioned that video ever since so that's what I'm curious about.
She was probably being harassed a lot and knew something might happen. They just never mentioned that video ever since so that's what I'm curious about.
BronsonLee
Member
I'm pretty sure parts of it are played again later during the trial, but I don't think any context is ever given to the video's creation.
xplicitone
Member
I know they replayed some video of her talking again during the beginning of the post-conviction scene, but it was basically to show her living a good and happy life, from what I understood of it. I assumed it was a seperate video but either way, yea, it wasn't anything significant in regards to the trial.
Permanently A
Junior Member
Just started watching. I liked The Jinx so I'm hoping this will be similar, although so far this is kind of dry. Not sure how this will stretch to 10 episodes. It is pretty amusing how everyone suddenly can't remember things though.
BronsonLee
Member
Some people have commented on that (I have too, on the other side of it, really).
Basically, the documentary is going to be skewed to be sympathetic towards Steven. The brother is the spokesperson for the Halbach family. He has zeeeeero reason to believe Steven whatsoever. He's also not exactly media trained.
We have the benefit of hindsight, the family didn't, basically. Highly emotional times and whatnot.
Aarglefarg
Member
I think the documentary says it was recorded three years beforehand.
The first moment I saw him I thought "This guy did it". He seemed way more interested in just getting a conviction then hearing what actually happened to his sister.
arts&crafts
Member
Just finished...
lets completely remove steven avery from this conversation....how in the hell did that Jury convict Brendan? or even how did even have enough to charge him on just a a half confession that they agree didnt even happen
I read in an article that there was also DNA found on the hood of the vehicle, was that blood as well or fingerprint DNA? The bits about Brandon being molested by Avery also make me strongly believe Avery did it and forced Brandon to help. That kid shouldn't be in prison, he should be in therapy.
chicko1983
Member
Only has zero reason to believe Steven if he doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty"
ReignofSparrows
Member
If I recall correctly, the video of Teresa talking about her hypothetical death came three years prior to her murder. While it makes good drama to contextualize the video in terms of any possible harassment she received immediately preceding her death, it just isn't accurate.
Most people have probably pondered the same hypothetical she did, it's just an awful coincidence given her murder.
Most people have probably pondered the same hypothetical she did, it's just an awful coincidence given her murder.
I think this is exactly why the show provides so many of his comments. He's one more part of the process that has disregarded the presumption of innocence.
HerbertFish
Member
He doesn't have to.
chicko1983
Member
what do you mean?
Its US constitutional right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty" as far as I am aware (I'm from Australia so not 100% sure on US constitution).
His sister's charred bones were found right next to this guy's home. If that happened to your sister, do you really think you'd be able to walk into the first day of the trial over a year later with a completely open mind that presumes his innocence?
That protects you from the justice system treating you as guilty before a conviction. It does not protect you from being judged in the court of public opinion, and certainly doesn't protect you from a victim's brother believing that you did it and hating you for it.
Exactly. We had much, much more information at our disposal. To the uninitiated, and certainly someone thirsting for vengeance, Steven seemed obviously guilty at the beginning. As the picture became clearer, and doubts were cast, the believing brain did its thing.
HerbertFish
Member
On fox news the prosecutor was just on. Stevens defense guy on after break.
He's not actually part of the trial beyond offering testimony for one part that had little to do with the murder itself. He has no obligation to remain impartial and start from the position that Steven Avery is innocent.
anything new?
Similar threads
- Locked