Vincent Alexander
Member
Thanks for this. I just watched and it was pretty good. I think I have a mancrush on Strang.
-
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
Is there any proof of Avery telling prisoners that he planned to rape and murder women when he got out? The fact that that story is coming from Kratz makes me not believe it.
RepairmanJack
Member
It honestly just seems handled exactly like the prosecution. Picking and choosing specific details without context that wasn't covered in the doc to just do the opposite of the doc. I figured there would be stuff like this popping up.
I always think it's weird that when any kind of support is given to anyone or any thing immediately there needs to be people picking through everything with an attempt to paint it in a negative light. It always just picks out the worst looking things no matter how they're sourced and ignores literally everything else including reason.
Mackenzie 92
Member
It's hearsay from a convict so even if he gave a sworn statement, it may not amount to much or be admissible.
That said we have seen the crazy death threats that Avery sent to his first wife, and now his fiance Jodi from the doc is claiming he sent her some crazy threats as well and that she believes he is guilty.
plagiarize
Banned
Even the guilty deserve a fair investigation and a fair trial. Avery got neither. And if anyone deserved both of those things, it was someone who was previously clearly wrongfully convicted and spent 17 odd years in prison for something he didn't do.
Whether he's guilty, or a good person or not, doesn't come into it.
We can believe he is guilty of killing Halbach, and it certainly makes us feel better if we do, since he's in prison for it. But planting evidence, conflict of interest, etc etc... doesn't justify getting a conviction even if its the 'right' conviction. Trials have to be based on real evidence.
Every scene the Manitowoc guys set foot on, anything found after that point, or by them, should have become inadmissible after that moment. The conflict of interest was clear. That the guys who found stuff were the guys targeted by Steven's case... they shouldn't have been anywhere near that crime scene.
It throws absolutely everything into question, which is why it shouldn't have happen. Maybe the other police would have found all the same evidence eventually. Maybe it wasn't planted. But the suspicion of that would be massively reduced. That remains the biggest injustice for me in all of this. They shouldn't have been there, yet they were, and stuff *they found* was allowed as evidence in court.
Personally, I think he's probably guilty. But that investigation and trial should never have led to a conviction.
Whether he's guilty, or a good person or not, doesn't come into it.
We can believe he is guilty of killing Halbach, and it certainly makes us feel better if we do, since he's in prison for it. But planting evidence, conflict of interest, etc etc... doesn't justify getting a conviction even if its the 'right' conviction. Trials have to be based on real evidence.
Every scene the Manitowoc guys set foot on, anything found after that point, or by them, should have become inadmissible after that moment. The conflict of interest was clear. That the guys who found stuff were the guys targeted by Steven's case... they shouldn't have been anywhere near that crime scene.
It throws absolutely everything into question, which is why it shouldn't have happen. Maybe the other police would have found all the same evidence eventually. Maybe it wasn't planted. But the suspicion of that would be massively reduced. That remains the biggest injustice for me in all of this. They shouldn't have been there, yet they were, and stuff *they found* was allowed as evidence in court.
Personally, I think he's probably guilty. But that investigation and trial should never have led to a conviction.
I had to stop when they started with anti liberal rants
The universe would implode from the internet's inability to work out that moral ambiguity.
plagiarize
Banned
I listened to some of the first episode. When the guy mistook Stevens parents talking about knowing for a fact he was innocent in the first case for being them talking about the second case I tuned out. They knew he was innocent for a fact in the rape case because he was with them all that day and was never by himself. That's what they are talking about there. That they were basically called liars when they said he was with them, and that he was thrown in prison for something they knew he hadn't done.
If that doesn't make you lose faith in the police what would?
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I read through the first couple and he seems very biased in his evaluation of the evidence which is something you can't really do when you are accusing someone else of bias.
RustyNails
Member
I think there are lot of people due to whatever reason, automatically are on the side of police in any incident. I have seen people defending eric garner and freddie gray's death. Even people defending Zimmerman. Its a tribe mentality of sorts and has lots of deep seated interest. I think that ugly mentality is showings its rearing its head after the popularity of Avery's case. I think we SHOULD be suspicious of any person in authority and never give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure many are good people but we saw what can happen with Avery.
bishopcruz
Member
I don't really fault people that much for it. We are naturally tribalistic, and both the left and right do it on different issues. It just bugs me that police misconduct ended up becoming a political issue in general, as it should be something that everyone can get behind. What I think that Making a Murder has done well is actually bridge the gap so to speak, people from all walks of life are both pro the series, and against it.
As for those who trust the cops, I get it. Most people in this country have had nothing but good interactions with the police, which makes sense, because honestly MOST cops are good people, and even the bad ones aren't going to be assholes in every interaction. The problem is, that there is very little oversight and accountability in law enforcement, and a lot of that is coming to the fore now.
Because of overcriminalization, and an often blind faith in law enforcement though, injustices happen, and that breaks my heart every damn time.
Whats up with O'Kelly and the bit of light blue ribbon? Did I miss something, why's the man crying?
You and me both.
BronsonLee
Member
LOOK AT THE RIBBON
electroshockwave
Member
I guess it was something to emotionally manipulate Brendan. Then when he was in court some crocodile tears.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
But was it Theresa's ribbon or something? Even if it was though why's the man crying over it, asif he cares that much about the victim. Looked shady as hell.
I think it was just a random ribbon that was placed on a tree near Teresa's church.
I think he was crying because he realized he's a giant piece of shit for manipulating Brendan the way he did.
BronsonLee
Member
You should be thinking of how much of a shit you are instead, O'Kelly!
It was a fakeout. He did it to get out of trouble for being a piece of garbage.
Vampire On Titus
Member
FUCK ITS JUST TOO SAD!!!
yeah. dude should eat a bunch of dicks in prison. i hated how he sprang up and called Kachinsky the second he manipulated Brendan into all those drawings and confessions on that sheet. You can tell he wanted to say something boisterous like "we got him!"
I marathoned this whole series in two days and my mind is a blurr.
I dont know if the two guys were innocent or not, but there was so much dodgy bullshit around the case that I don't know how the jury could reach a unanimous gulity verdict.
Every bugger surrounding this came off looking creepy, corrupt or outright villainous.
The cops, the proscuters, the investigators, the family interviewed on the stands.
Also America if this is how you usually deal with vulnerable, borderline mentally disabled suspects, that is fucking disgusting.
Bullying and threatening them into a confession!!
Litterally planting facts into their heads!!
AND THIS IS ALLOWED IN A COURT OF LAW!?
I dont know if the two guys were innocent or not, but there was so much dodgy bullshit around the case that I don't know how the jury could reach a unanimous gulity verdict.
Every bugger surrounding this came off looking creepy, corrupt or outright villainous.
The cops, the proscuters, the investigators, the family interviewed on the stands.
Also America if this is how you usually deal with vulnerable, borderline mentally disabled suspects, that is fucking disgusting.
Bullying and threatening them into a confession!!
Litterally planting facts into their heads!!
AND THIS IS ALLOWED IN A COURT OF LAW!?
He wanted to distract the court and try and garner sympathy for himself while he was forced to read him advocating his client's entire family be killed or sterilised.
The man is pure evil.
That's BS. That should be an Netanyahu debarment.
Anyway, someone needs to get his cell # and spam his phone with a myriad of dick pic texts. All day, all night. Hell, make sure to even do it from a burner to make sure you don't get caught.
And when he gets his number changed, do it again.
This guy is the scum of the earth.
Finally watched it over the course of the last week or so.
Super interesting. I love stuff that goes very in-depth on specific events. Huge fan of NPR for that reason too. I hope more stuff like this is made that brings to light some of the interesting and troubling issues with our legal system.
Super interesting. I love stuff that goes very in-depth on specific events. Huge fan of NPR for that reason too. I hope more stuff like this is made that brings to light some of the interesting and troubling issues with our legal system.
storafötter
Member
An interview with Stevens ex-fiancee. What she thinks and how his relationship with her was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0
I always wondered what his ex wife thinks of him today and his other children. I will say I dont doubt at all that he is an abusive person.
Just a warning about the awful youtube comments which are upsetting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0
I always wondered what his ex wife thinks of him today and his other children. I will say I dont doubt at all that he is an abusive person.
Just a warning about the awful youtube comments which are upsetting.
If this show thought us anything, it's to have an open mind about people and not to seek out revenge on them for things we think they've done. Yeah, he comes across as a real piece of crap sometimes but that doesn't give people on the internet the right to harass him, this attitude can be kind of disgusting and I've seen it a lot in the community surrounding this show.
Later today, I'll compile a list/overview of interesting videos/interviews, photo albums and articles to read for those done watching the TV show, but can't get enough. It'll all be related to the TV show/the story, not other cases and stuff.
Assuming you guys would be interested in that!
Assuming you guys would be interested in that!
RustyNails
Member
Yes pls!
So, it's okay for him to sext his fat ugly dick to an abuse victim, but god forbid he receives some dick pics. I'm not saying put his head on a stake or physically harm him. But to each their own.
storafötter;192122807 said:
Listened to the first two minutes and just seems like she's in it for the attention. Not once is she ever shown with bruises or is it mentioned in the documentary he abused her. I don't think his first wife, either.
Second, if she was abused so often then why call him when he's in prison after you just got out for a DUI? That's what led you to be forced to vacate the town and move elsewhere. It also led to her to be unable to, legally, contact Steven in any way, whether it be phone or letter.
I mean, if someone recommends I finish it, I will, but just seems like a grab at the overwhelming attention this has gotten and she wants her 15 minutes of fame.
The thing that makes me think she is lying, or at least partially lying, is she says she reported his abusive behavior many times. Don't you think if there were police records showing Avery being abusive towards women those would have come up during the trial? As far as I know, nothing like that was brought forward and so it likely didn't exist.
Mackenzie 92
Member
There's plenty of reports and he was even arressted but no charges.
I believe her. She's pretty typical of a classic abused woman. And violence towards women seems to be a Avery family tradition so its not a big stretch to believe Steven partook.
BronsonLee
Member
And they don't exactly shy away from the fact that he threatened the ex-wife while he was in prison, too.
She doesn't really get much out of it if she's lying.
She doesn't really get much out of it if she's lying.
Haha uhh yeah I guess... Or Avery seems guilty as shit. The dude lit a cat on fire intentionally and maintains it was an accident. He sent disgusting death threats to his family who doesn't come to his rescue in defense of his character to this day. He fits the profile. He's violent, low intelligence, abusive, sadistic. He joked about hiding the body ffs, I know its not actual evidence but cmon it just speaks more about his character which is already poor.
I'm pretty sure any sane man would threaten his ex-wife if she were sending letters saying she can't handle the kids and will kill them all.
What else do you say in the letter to her? "Oh, please don't do that."
They already debunked this and Scott Tadych(sp?) even agreed with Steven it was in reference to a deer. And I think they even mentioned that joke took place a day before she was reported missing.
SubScorpianZero
Member
I binge watched the entire documentary in one sitting, I'm torn. I started off thinking they were innocent, and that this was a man on a power trip (Lieutenant Lenk) that had to make sure Steven Avery was found guilty again, for his own conscious, and to prevent Avery from suing for the millions he was rightfully owed.
I believed this all the way till about the end of the movie. Then I started to lean towards him being guilty and still think he is. There was a lot of shady maneuvers pulled to make sure they could have enough evidence on him, but at the end of the day, I think he did it. It's a tragic story.
Kudos to Netflix for an entertaining/educational/insightful documentary.
I believed this all the way till about the end of the movie. Then I started to lean towards him being guilty and still think he is. There was a lot of shady maneuvers pulled to make sure they could have enough evidence on him, but at the end of the day, I think he did it. It's a tragic story.
Kudos to Netflix for an entertaining/educational/insightful documentary.
LaserBuddha
Member
What about the parts they couldn't fake, like there being zero blood/DNA in his house and garage? Unheard gunshots? There are a lot of seemingly impossible feats and illogically sloppy actions on the part of Avery if he really did this. And if you accept that there was planting/tampering, which evidence do you wholeheartedly believe that led you to believe in his guilt?
phazedplasma
Member
right there with you dude. Just finished central park 5 and am about to start paradise lost...
That fact he could perfectly clean up all blood and dna evidence in his house and the garage but yet would leave bones in his yard and her car in the family lot make no ducking sense.
SubScorpianZero
Member
-Her disappearance right after visiting his home is a pretty big coincidence.
-The fact that there was someone calling her and harassing her from a blocked number which was mentioned in the movie, I cant see where I found it, but Avery had also been calling her from a blocked number at times (not mentioned in the movie).
-Jodi mentions he constantly mentioned he'd threaten to kill her and get away with it. She mentions him saying that all women owe him for what the first one did to him.
-The coincidence of the bonfire.
-Burned his pet cat alive at a young age because he thought it was fun (a psychotic act that tends to show his state of mind at a young age, even before years of false imprisonment).
-Running his cousin off the side of the road, and pointing a gun at her (not loaded I know). Not a very stable mind.
A few other things that I'm failing to remember right now. I also found a few things suspicious from the police department (finding the car within 10 minutes, inquiring about her license plate two days before it had been found, no bloodstains/struggling found in the room, etc).
But like I said, my gut is leaning more towards him having done it. If I was in the jury though, with the evidence provided, I would have to rule not guilty. But I do think he did it (not in his room or garage).
They already explained this, too. With that amount of blood (5 pints in the human body, correct?), no amount of bleach could cover it up with the fancy lights they use to check for blood.
Also, they jackhammered his garage floor and checked in the cracks in the floor and found no trace of blood. Only a couple drops of deer blood which supposedly took place before the murder. Again, considering if he did nothing at all, then the garage is just another cog in the prosecutions' wheel of nonsensical logic.
Why wasn't there blood on any of the tone of crap he had in the garage? It was full of junk yet they found no blood on any of it? And they didn't find the bullet until months after? Come on, man... And there was no DNA / blood blowback on the .22 he owned.
Someone mentioned right after the murder that Scott Tadych was desperately trying to sell a .22... Who knows.
He wasn't calling her from a blocked # when she mentioned it to her boss, or whoever. He said it looked like she recognized the number and immediately discarded the call. Didn't seem like she was threatened with her life and no proof it was even Steven to begin with. She mentioned to nobody that she felt uncomfortable around him or that she was frightened by him.
And what bonfire? Do you mean te fire that they've already proven couldn't have been hot enough to scorch / turn bones into ash like that? Gotcha.
And with Jodi, that's still are here say. It doesn't make sense that she risked going back to jail JUST so she could try and spend time with him / talk to him while he was initially incarcerated the 2nd time (before going to trial). Oh, but all of a sudden, "he beat me, I was scared all the time," etc. It just doesn't make sense.
Only a few things from the police department? Every piece of evidence was tainted. And why was the seal on his evidence kit from his 1985 crime sliced open and scotch-taped over like a 4 year old's school project. Then again, it doesn't seem like that town/county breeds many intelligent people, no offense. Every person involved, prosecution included, seems to have the IQ of a rock. It's sad and it comes down to Steven and Brendan were taken advantage of. Brendan being an almost bigger tragedy if his plight wasn't overshadowed by this being Steven's 2nd innocent conviction, with Steve's initial 18 year incarceration he was finally exonerated for.
SubScorpianZero
Member
Like I said, based off the evidence, not really enough to prove him guilty in court. But it fits his character and there were quite a few coincidences, IMO more leaning towards him having done it than not.
edit: the fire pit wasn't the only place he could have burned her at, mentioned in the movie as well. you can say it's here say, but it's still his ex gf coming out with her side of the story (obviously while she was living with him with no job/anywhere to go, she would stick by him).
I straight up believe that blood was tampered with and she was not killed there. Same with the key, and possibly bullet. There was definitely fishiness on the part of the department to make sure he was guilty, likely thinking there was no way they could get caught tampering with the evidence.
Do you really think the judge will allow a new/fair trial based on that, considering how shitty and biased he was towards everything? Especially what he told Steven right after his verdict. So many things slipped them purposely. They chose to ignore TONS of stuff that basically screamed "not guilty", just so they could convict him.
They don't WANT a new trial, so they will not allow it, even if there are obvious massive sinkholes in the story.
Daffy Duck
Member
Probably in any other case, maybe. But here, these guys were convinced he still raped Penny years ago, and they would do anything to get him for that and turn a blind eye to any 'tampering' because he's guilty in their eyes. Hell the judge even went all pre-crime on him and said his past crimes all escalated and who knows what he will go on to do in the future.....
Magic.
Central Park 5 I watched as well this week, do you know if Paradise Lost is somewhere on Netflix? (any region)
kavanf1
Member
Moreflicks.com is helpful for finding out if a show is on Netflix, and what region it's available in.
If this is the Paradise Lost you are referring to, it doesn't appear to be on Netflix, only Apple Store or Vudu: http://www.moreflicks.com/titles/movies_paradise-lost-the-child-murders-at-robin-hood-hills_1996
Similar threads
- Locked