Thank you!
-
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
Thank you!
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
That was evidence from his original trial not the second trial, so it's bearing on this trial was purely as a potential source of blood.
That is actually the norm for Judge's when determining one's sentence. Criminal history plays a huge part in sentencing.
Applesauce
Boom! Bitch-slapped!
Paradise Lost is an HBO doc so it's available on HBO Go or HBO Now and Amazon Prime.
I highly recommend an app called Fan TV. In addition to Netflix it will search Amazon Prime and other popular streaming services like HBO etc. It's a must have if you're cord cutter.
Well Thin Blue Line has a "happy" ending at least.
See, that's the problem with the jury system overall. Their job is NOT to determine who is guilt or not. The jury's job is to determine if there is reasonable doubt - and from there a verdict has to be rendered. Doesn't matter if he was guilty or not, that's not even the point. The trial was an unconstitutional farce.
See, that's the problem with the jury system overall. Their job is NOT to determine who is guilt or not. The jury's job is to determine if there is reasonable doubt - and from there a verdict has to be rendered. Doesn't matter if he was guilty or not, that's not even the point. The trial was an unconstitutional farce.
The worse part is Brendan's 'trial'.
He was clearly not mentally fully competent.
He was bullied and coerced into giving a confession. (THIS IS LEGAL?!)
His story literally changed every time he told it.
Even assuming he did ANYTHING, surely they would take into consideration he was vulnerable and easily lead by an oppressive force. ie 'Stephen Avery'.
All this into consideration. How did he get a fucking life sentence!?
And then they wouldn't even let him have a retrial.
I don't want to shout 'CONSPIRACY!' but someone clearly has a vested interest in making sure those two never see the light of day again. Nothing else makes sense.
He was clearly not mentally fully competent.
He was bullied and coerced into giving a confession. (THIS IS LEGAL?!)
His story literally changed every time he told it.
Even assuming he did ANYTHING, surely they would take into consideration he was vulnerable and easily lead by an oppressive force. ie 'Stephen Avery'.
All this into consideration. How did he get a fucking life sentence!?
And then they wouldn't even let him have a retrial.
I don't want to shout 'CONSPIRACY!' but someone clearly has a vested interest in making sure those two never see the light of day again. Nothing else makes sense.
It's not supposed to be legal, but they allowed it, anyway. Like a lot of things shown in this documentary.
They're just words, and do more harm on his reputation than anything else.
But I suppose that's what she wanted.
Which one did you like the most? No spoilers please, but I wanna try some of them. :3
The hardest part about all of this is that everyone is an interested party. Keep in mind that Jodi has an axe to grind.
Future PhaZe
Member
agreed
kavanf1
Member
Cool, thanks for the recommendation.
LaserBuddha
Member
It was really shitty of the judge to act like he had just gotten out for one crime and them committed a worse one. He made it sound like the rape charge was legit instead of acknowledging that this guy was behaving himself in prison for 18 fucking years over something he didn't do. If you deserve anything for going through that, you deserve credit for those two decades of being crime-free.
Fourth Storm
Member
I just watched episode 4. Did anyone catch when Brendan was speaking to the judge about switching lawyers? It sounded like he started to say, "He kn..." and then caught himself and said, "He thinks I'm guilty."
I'm not convinced of their innocence at this moment. There definitely seems to be some police corruption involved and certainly there are some unlikable characters in that sheriffs department, but I don't know.
I'm not convinced of their innocence at this moment. There definitely seems to be some police corruption involved and certainly there are some unlikable characters in that sheriffs department, but I don't know.
Is there an article somewhere?
The editing implies the judge meant the rape charge, but there were other crimes also:
From his wiki
Nice to see those lawyers are taking his case. The one (Zellner) is really high profile with this stuff. I guess she got the real murderer to confess for a murder on which someone was on death row. That's pretty badass.
I'm glad she's a woman too. It'll be nice to have her rip apart kratz during it after what he did during the trial and after. I'm assuming his unprofessionalism will have to be put to question in any new trials or whatever comes of this.
I'm glad she's a woman too. It'll be nice to have her rip apart kratz during it after what he did during the trial and after. I'm assuming his unprofessionalism will have to be put to question in any new trials or whatever comes of this.
What gets me is how they wouldn't let them have any retrials or do-overs or anything.
Even with all the dodgy evidence, investigator bullying and tampering, all of the bullshit surrounding this case.
The whole thing stinks of corruption to high heaven.
They always say the innocent have nothing to fear.
I wish that were true.
Even with all the dodgy evidence, investigator bullying and tampering, all of the bullshit surrounding this case.
The whole thing stinks of corruption to high heaven.
They always say the innocent have nothing to fear.
I wish that were true.
Fourth Storm
Member
Yeah, I didn't buy that they were just "innocently" tossing the cat over a fire. All in good fun, right? As I'm sure many of you know, there are statistics out there showing the correlation of animal abuse and violent offenders.
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=8011
What a great series, I was completely captivated from start to finish. What a mess though. Hard to say what to think about it all. The investigation was so poorly done that we'll probably never get to the real truth of it. Even IF Steven did it, I can't imagine that it happened the way the prosecution said it did. None of the evidence adds up. Like, even if you ignore the signs of obvious tampering and planting of evidence, it all points towards Steven, but creating a story that connects all the dots still involves a lot of jumping through hoops and making Steven look like a genius in terms of making certain evidence disappear but looking like a huge idiot in terms of leaving other evidence in the worst places possible.
obijkenobi
Member
I mean, thats how shitty the cops and prosecutors involved were. They made someone who lit a cat on fire sympathetic. That takes real effort.
PrivateWHudson
Member
I'm about 6 or 7 episodes in, and have a question...
Anyway, I'm leaning toward the
I see people suggesting that Steven wiped down the Rav4 to get rid of fingerprints, and just missed the blood due to it being hard to see at night/haste/oversight. However, I thought they said somewhere that the only way to avoid fingerprints was to wear gloves, which would have prevented any blood from his finger getting on the car as well.
They should be able to tell gloves vs. wiped down right? If Theresa's fingerprints were on the handles and steering wheel, then the killer wore gloves, and there wouldn't be blood. Also, I wonder if the ex-boyfriend's prints were found in the car and dismissed as just someone that had driven her car prior to the incident.
They should be able to tell gloves vs. wiped down right? If Theresa's fingerprints were on the handles and steering wheel, then the killer wore gloves, and there wouldn't be blood. Also, I wonder if the ex-boyfriend's prints were found in the car and dismissed as just someone that had driven her car prior to the incident.
Anyway, I'm leaning toward the
boyfriend or brother as the killer. They are both more shady than Steven. I wonder if their is any inheritance or something involved.
It really isn't. If someone came to your house to take a picture of your car then ended up missing, you'd be fine with people assuming you killed that person? Being the last person to see someone means nothing. Sure, it's a little suspicious, but it by no means proves anything simply for the fact that you saw someone before they disappeared.
Avery was known to be a private person and hid his number regularly. Also, the voicemails were deleted. All signs point to the boyfriend or brother. "Guessed her password." come on now.....
Watch the documentary. Her body language doesn't show any of these feelings.
Avery himself said he had a fire that night. His burn pit was for burning and appeared to be a regular occurrence.
If true, this is horrendous and can't be excused.
This was after he was in prison for 18 years right? A "normal" person wouldn't do this but imagine being him and feeling like a third of your life was taken from you.
All of the police investigation is shady and shouldn't be trusted. All evidence was tainted as someone else pointed out.
He may be guilty but the evidence provided did not prove that he was. You have to keep in mind that the cat situation probably led people to vote he was guilty in his first case. It made him look bad. Also, if he did do it, why would he not use the car crusher to get rid of the evidence? It doesn't make sense.
Booker.DeWitt
Member
the fact that he killed a cat by fire is not relevant to this case. has nothing to do with it. Even if he had truly raped the victim in 1985, that does not make him a murderer.
SneakersSO
Member
Look, i'll be the first one to admit that while I don't think Steven Avery was a peach, that doesn't mean he's guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach. The moment that I heard the audio tapes where Brendan was telling his mom that Steven was potentially sexually abusing his nephews & nieces, I knew that Steven is likely an unhinged, potentially dangerous person. And in some ways, who knows what he might've done these last few years had he been free.
However, I can look at the other incidents Steven has been involved in independent of the Teresa case. People keep bringing up Steven's history with women as a potential motivator, and not realizing there are people on that property that day with unfounded alibi's, that not only fit that same criminal framework, but their actions had been occurring & escalating within the 30 days of Teresa's disappearance. And not only that, Steven's brother, the person who I think DID do it, had a history of stalking & harassing women who had conducted business on the Avery property within the last 30 days from Teresa's disappearance.
So is Steven Avery an all-around bad guy? In many ways, absolutely. He ain't some average innocent bystander. But truth be told, I don't really believe the documentary made him out to be that. Just because he is seemingly innocent of Teresa's murder & Penny's 1985 rape case, doesn't mean he is an all-around innocent person. If we're going to lock up Steven Avery or anyone in this country, we should be doing it for the crimes they DO commit, not the ones they haven't.
However, I can look at the other incidents Steven has been involved in independent of the Teresa case. People keep bringing up Steven's history with women as a potential motivator, and not realizing there are people on that property that day with unfounded alibi's, that not only fit that same criminal framework, but their actions had been occurring & escalating within the 30 days of Teresa's disappearance. And not only that, Steven's brother, the person who I think DID do it, had a history of stalking & harassing women who had conducted business on the Avery property within the last 30 days from Teresa's disappearance.
So is Steven Avery an all-around bad guy? In many ways, absolutely. He ain't some average innocent bystander. But truth be told, I don't really believe the documentary made him out to be that. Just because he is seemingly innocent of Teresa's murder & Penny's 1985 rape case, doesn't mean he is an all-around innocent person. If we're going to lock up Steven Avery or anyone in this country, we should be doing it for the crimes they DO commit, not the ones they haven't.
victreeb3l
Member
Hey guys, is this show appropriate for a 14 year old or too graphic/mature? My little brother and I watch a lot of shows together and I think he'll enjoy this.
That incident was before his arrest/conviction for the rape. It was thought to be related to why Manitowoc County had it out for him, because the cousin he ran off the road was married to a cop
SneakersSO
Member
TBH, depends on how 'mature' you feel your brother is. It doesn't really show anything graphic, but it does describe graphic acts, although some of them are potentially (& mostly) fabricated. In some ways, its a good lesson for the younger generation that tells them that cops aren't always your friend, even though there is plenty of other current societal on-goings that can attest to that.
victreeb3l
Member
We watched some Gangland episodes together. They discussed some graphic and violent acts in that show which I didnt think was bad or inappropriate. But it was also pretty tame all things considered. He's relatively mature for 14 but I still want him to avoid things that are too violent or sexual.
Took a look at the parental guidelines on IMDB for this show and I'm on the fence about a few things. I guess I'll watch a few episodes ahead of time and make my judgment then.
Anyone else see this too?
I always saw Rashida Jones
Mass_Pincup
Banned
But I remember that she broke her restraining order regarding the Avery's family while Steven was in jail. Did I made it up or did it happened?
SneakersSO
Member
It happened, although the story that was told in the documentary made it seemed 'innocuous'; she was going to court on the same day that Steven was going to court for his case & they saw each other. At least, thats what was said in the documentary.
LaserBuddha
Member
Clearly it's Gina Gershon.
It's Reyn Time!
Member
To be Lenked or to be Colburned should really be slang by this point.
I lost my keys but they Colburned out of nowhere near my shoes.
I told my wife I was with my friends on Friday night, but she somehow knew I was Lenking.
I lost my keys but they Colburned out of nowhere near my shoes.
I told my wife I was with my friends on Friday night, but she somehow knew I was Lenking.
plagiarize
Banned
The thing that makes me want to slap Kratz the most, is that he says that past stuff isn't relevant at the start of the trial, then brings all that cat burning stuff up to show what kind of person Steven is, then gets all pissy when the documentary brings up his own problems.
What also gets me the most annoyed watching, is when the cops refuse to acknowledge Steven's innocence in the rape case. 'I don't know that he didn't do it' and that bullcrap. Yes. You do. He had an alibi. The victims description matched the guy who the state police told them to look into better than it matched Steven's. The same guy who managed to leave a pubic hair on the victim.
These same people who apparently can't see any wrong at all in working on a case where an external entity had been brought in to avoid any questions of conflict of interest.
I think Steven is no saint. Him and his family certainly did a number of bad things, but that's no justification for sending him to prison for something he didn't do, in the rape case, or in throwing procedure out the window to try and pin the murder on him even if I think he committed that one.
As I've said, everyone has a constitutional right to a fair trail. If anyone deserved a fair trail it was Steven Avery, and he didn't get one. So guilty or not, the ruling should be thrown out. The evidence found by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office, or on crime scenes that they had an opportunity to taint, should not have been admissible. No relatives of staff or volunteers at the Manitowoc County Sheriff's should have been on the jury. Brendan's inadmissible confession shouldn't have been detailed on television in a press conference.
The integrity of our legal system, and it's duty to protect innocent people from being wrongfully convicted is not worth sacrificing just to see one bad guy put away. If there is no accountability for events like this, then they will repeat, again and again, and I can't think of a better lesson for law enforcement and the courts than seeing a guilty guy released because *they* didn't afford this person due process.
I haven't seen Brendan's trial yet, but I can't even begin to understand how they'll get a conviction. He recanted his 'confession'. There is zero physical evidence. Steven certainly isn't going to say he did it. How the hell can that lead to a conviction? I'm prepared to get very angry.
If the police do not follow due process in investigating a guilty party... and the evidence is all tainted, that person should walk, and the blame for that should entirely fall on the shoulders of the police.
H.Cornerstone
Member
No, that was right before he was accused for the rape case. I believe it was started else where in this thread he was sentenced to 6 years in prison for that? Not sure if true.
He isn't the smartest guy and she was spreading pretty bad rumors about him so that was his way of dealing with it.
Rin Tohsaka
Banned
Fuck I lost my car keys, luckily I found them on my 7th search of my room.
BronsonLee
Member
Still can't believe Steven got exonerated for the rape case based on one pube
PUBES CAN'T HELP YOU NOW, AVERY
PUBES CAN'T HELP YOU NOW, AVERY
The only thing that doesn't add up with the Jodi story for me is that the police obviously really had it out for him. If she had that rat poison to get to the hospital and told them they would've been all over that. Also, why the hell would you drink rat poison, just say you feel like your appendix is going to burst or something.
She didn't really seem too worried during the series either.
She didn't really seem too worried during the series either.
Applesauce
Boom! Bitch-slapped!
Once they get their guy in their sights these people will do pretty much anything to get and keep their guy locked up. In another doc I watched about that man from Texas, the prosecutor withheld evidence from the defense. Years later the DA kept blocking DNA testing for 7 years that ended up exonerating him. I just don't get how these people can look themselves in the mirror every day.
That is what really shocked me most about this series. I know the cops are corrupt as fuck all over the country but I was really amazed at what the state will do to make that conviction stick.
They couldn't care less for two poor rednecks. They were probably guilty of something right?
they obviously do it out of disgust of the crime so their blinders don't allow them to see more than what's in front of them "he was the last to see her alive! he killed her!", plus they fear if they get this wrong, that it's on them. thus people keep denying motions, blocking shit, etc. Imagine how bad everyone from the lowest rung to the highest will hopefully look if/when Steven gets exonerated of this. I can only image his revenge civil suit going after the entire state and not just Manitowac County. $36m was nothing. He should get $100m+
i am obviously on the side that he is innocent. i am looking past all the bullshit in his past and chalk it up to what poorer country folk, especially a large family who more or less live on a compound, do for fun and how they act when heated towards one another.
as another posted pointed out, Steven lashing out as his first wife in those letters is kinda what some rational people would do when their wife tells them in a letter "i am sick of these kids. i can't take raising them alone, i am gonna kill them all so i can be rid of this life".
LaserBuddha
Member
Some of the blame rests on us the populace, when D.A. S have to show a strong record of convictions to get re-elected, and one high profile loss can screw them. We should be at peace with whichever verdict a jury of our peers comes to, but we gauge the success of a D.A. on guilty verdicts. I don't feel like it should be an elected office because it needs to be feasible to have a D.A. that cares more about finding the truth than winning.
Ultimately the documentary is about this WAY MORE than it is about Steven's guilt or innocence.
And this is why I don't like judges and prosecutors being elected.
Sniper McBlaze
Member
Anyone else see this too?
WOW! You are right, those glasses look the same.
Here is another lookalike I found recently:
Eerie, isn't it?
Similar threads
- Locked