Support NeoGAF

[kame-sennin]

It's not supposed to be legal, but they allowed it, anyway. Like a lot of things shown in this documentary.

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.

The things that happen in this doc happen everyday, all across the country. The reason no one objected is because it's all very normal.

 

[The Beard]

WOW! You are right, those glasses look the same.

Here is Another lookalike I found recently:

Eerie, isn't it?

Whoa, talk about doppelgänger. Holy shit!

 

[plagiarize]

Yeah, so wow. Holy shit at the Dassey trial. "Only guilty people confess."

Utter bullcrap. What the fuck were the jury thinking in that one? Zero evidence supporting the 'confession'. Entering stuff into trial that was obtained when Dassey was interrogated without his lawyer... the same interrogation that got his original lawyer pulled from the case. Everything said under oath supported his innocence.

Surely with what we now know about the Reid technique getting false confessions from the young and mentally challenged at a higher rate than normal people, Brendan can get this bullshit decision released.

While I think Steven is guilty (but not beyond a reasonable doubt) I am completely convinced that Brendan is 100% innocent.

 

[NervousXtian]

So it seems quite a few think he's innocent because the trial was a sham and the evidence was tampered with.. but I'm still really leaning to him being guilty.

My thought is that he did it, but he was also essential framed for doing it.

I mean, I basically think they framed a guilty man.

 

[Applesauce]

Ultimately the documentary is about this WAY MORE than it is about Steven's guilt or innocence.

I totally agree. After the last episode I wasn't convinced he was innocent at all but it was clear the system was upside down and stacked against the defense the entire time.

 

[It's Reyn Time!]

So it seems quite a few think he's innocent because the trial was a sham and the evidence was tampered with.. but I'm still really leaning to him being guilty.

My thought is that he did it, but he was also essential framed for doing it.

I mean, I basically think they framed a guilty man.

Obviously this is totally anecdotal but the vast majority of people I've chatted with about this have no opinion leaning way or another as to whether Avery actually killed her. That's kind of the point of the whole documentary though - everything points to that being the same verdict the jury should've reached, we don't know.

To paraphrase Admiral William Adama, a not guilty verdict is not the same thing as being innocent.

 

[jred2k]

During closing statements, the prosecution say that the bill of sale and magazine prove that Teressa was in the trailer. How could that possibly be concluded?

 

[FlyinJ]

During closing statements, the prosecution say that the bill of sale and magazine prove that Teressa was in the trailer. How could that possibly be concluded?

It clearly states in the Auto Trader employee handbook that all employees must have a copy of the magazine on their person at all times. The only acceptable reason to remove the magazine from one's person is in the event of death.

Another piece of evidence Kratz presented at court that was cut by these biased film makers.

 

[The Beard]

During closing statements, the prosecution say that the bill of sale and magazine prove that Teressa was in the trailer. How could that possibly be concluded?

Yeah, that made zero sense.

Are you trying to tell me she couldn't have handed those to him outside? Because those items were inside, she had to place them there herself? Ridiculous.

 

[therealminime]

I (thankfully) have finished watching this and wow what a show. It's easily one of the most depressing and enthralling pieces of documentary filmmaking ever. It takes incredible use of the medium (10 long, detailed as hell episodes). Not having any narration allows for so much more immersion and way less bias. I hope, deep in my soul, that we get a season 2 in 5-10 years that is just 10 hours of redemption.

 

[plagiarize]

Obviously this is totally anecdotal but the vast majority of people I've chatted with about this have no opinion leaning way or another as to whether Avery actually killed her. That's kind of the point of the whole documentary though - everything points to that being the same verdict the jury should've reached, we don't know.

To paraphrase Admiral William Adama, a not guilty verdict is not the same thing as being innocent.

Right. The defence don't have to prove an alternative culprit. They don't have to prove innocence, but to the way the DA puts it to the jury that's what this defense needed to do, which is bullshit. I don't have to prove who did it, I just have to prove reasonable doubt that my guy didn't.

I can't fathom how a jury go from 7 thinking innocent, 2 undecided and 3 thinking guilty to unanimous guilty. I can't fathom how Steven is guilty of murder but not of desecrating a corpse.

 

[Jmanunknown]

So it seems quite a few think he's innocent because the trial was a sham and the evidence was tampered with.. but I'm still really leaning to him being guilty.

My thought is that he did it, but he was also essential framed for doing it.

I mean, I basically think they framed a guilty man.

Why do you think he is guilty what evidence besides the obviously planted evidence makes you think he is guilty? If you think he is smart enough to commit murder and cover up the primary crime scene and leave no finger prints on her car or any her blood in his carpeted house or the garage you have to be fooling yourselves. Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey have a similar IQ.

 

[dan2026]

This whole series has left me confused and angry.
I cant get it out of my head.

I swear at some point in this, some braindead halfwit actually uttered the phase, 'well why would an innocent man confess to something he didn't do?'.

You dont have to have a phd in psychology to think of half a dozen reasons why that might of happened.
And I am sure hundreds of papers and thousands of cases have documented incidents where that very fucking thing has occured.

I couldn't believe my ears at the shear level of rot brained stupidity.
These are supposed to be educated fucking men!

Its not just this though. With the Brendan case how could a jury give a life sentence to a sixteen year old boy on the flimsiest of evidence? Hell unless I missed something there was not one single piece of evidence to prove he was even at the scene of the crime or even laid eyes on the murder victim!
It was all hearsay and conjecture. This is what stands in a court of law now?

I am laying awake at 3:30am thinking about this.

 

[HeySeuss]

There was an interview this morning on my local radio station. They basically said there was a lot more damming evidence that the prosecution presented that was not included in the documentary. Such as:

1. Avery had bleach all over his clothes that he wore that day.

2. Her car had the battery cables disconnected which indicated that the car was planned to be crushed, because the battery must be removed before the car can be safely crushed.

3. Avery's sweat/body oil DNA was found under the hood latch of the trunk and in the engine compartment of the vehicle.

4. The DNA found on the key was not blood DNA but body oil DNA, which couldn't have been planted.

After hearing that interview, it obviously doesn't excuse the bumbling and ethical issues of the investigation, but if true, does point to Avery looking more guilty than the documentary led us to believe.

 

[H.Cornerstone]

There was an interview this morning on my local radio station. They basically said there was a lot more damming evidence that the prosecution presented that was not included in the documentary. Such as:

1. Avery had bleach all over his clothes that he wore that day.

2. Her car had the battery cables disconnected which indicated that the car was planned to be crushed, because the battery must be removed before the car can be safely crushed.

3. Avery's sweat/body oil DNA was found under the hood latch of the trunk and in the engine compartment of the vehicle.

4. The DNA found on the key was not blood DNA but body oil DNA, which couldn't have been planted.

After hearing that interview, it obviously doesn't excuse the bumbling and ethical issues of the investigation, but if true, does point to Avery looking more guilty than the documentary led us to believe.

1. I've heard dassey clothes had bleach but not Averys. What about bleach in the house.

2. He had 3 to 5 days to crush the car.

3. This has been debunked multiple times. They can't tell where the DNA came from. And a cop pretty much admitted to contaminating it by not changing gloves.

4. See 3. Still doesn't explain how it has 0 of Tereseas DNA and it took them 8 times to find it.

 

[pooptest]

There was an interview this morning on my local radio station. They basically said there was a lot more damming evidence that the prosecution presented that was not included in the documentary. Such as:

1. Avery had bleach all over his clothes that he wore that day.

2. Her car had the battery cables disconnected which indicated that the car was planned to be crushed, because the battery must be removed before the car can be safely crushed.

3. Avery's sweat/body oil DNA was found under the hood latch of the trunk and in the engine compartment of the vehicle.

4. The DNA found on the key was not blood DNA but body oil DNA, which couldn't have been planted.

After hearing that interview, it obviously doesn't excuse the bumbling and ethical issues of the investigation, but if true, does point to Avery looking more guilty than the documentary led us to believe.

1. Bleach or not, there was no remanence of bleach anywhere in any crime scene and they can tell if blood has been bleached over. So, pretty weak argument on the radio show's side. There was also bleach on Brendan's pants, but a very small amount. I mean, they live/work in a salvage yard. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if his clothes were bleached often.

2. This could have been done by anybody.

3. There's 0 DNA in sweat unless dead skin cells are present, which isn't all the time. Also, the defense also refuted this because an officer checking for clues admitted to not changing his gloves after handling DNA of Steven Avery prior to checking the hood. It's as little as DNA transfer, they concluded. Also, moot.

4. You don't find it odd that none of her own DNA was on her own car key? Why would Steven wipe down a key with her DNA and replace it with his own. And then leave the key on there floor under a slipper? Huh?

5. If he did shoot her in the head/body 11 times in the garage then why no blood splatter on any of the 500 random pieces of junk strewn across the garage. Or walls. No bleach would be able to cover that up, either. They also jackhammered the garage floor and found no evidence of blood. Only small traces of deer blood, which would've taken place before the murder. So, kinda rules out her being in the garage entirely. Oh, only after 4 months of searching we find a crushed bullet on the ground in almost open view. Riiiiiight. Either they have the worst CSI team or it was planted. Actually, the former wouldn't surprise me considering how everything else is handled by that sheriff's department.


Tired of these stupid ass interviews with no knowledge of the case, just an opinion we're supposed to take as gospel.

 

[José Mourinho]

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.

Just watched this and it's a bit strange after having watched the doc. If memory serves, she spent time living on the Avery property after getting out of prison by which time Steven had already been pinched for the murder. But in the interview she talks about wanting to get away from the constant abuse. Surely that was the perfect opportunity, particularly since she claims she believed he was guilty from the start.

I don't know, I think it's perfectly believable that he treated her like crap and potentially did slap her around. I wouldn't be surprised if he insisted she acted up to the cameras either, but nothing about her appearances in the doc ever really give that impression.

Not sure what to make of her story really. Can't say she doesn't appear genuine in the interview though.

 

[Dalek]

 

[pooptest]

Just watched this and it's a bit strange after having watched the doc. If memory serves, she spent time living on the Avery property after getting out of prison by which time Steven had already been pinched for the murder. But in the interview she talks about wanting to get away from the constant abuse. Surely that was the perfect opportunity, particularly since she claims she believed he was guilty from the start.

I don't know, I think it's perfectly believable that he treated her like crap and potentially did slap her around. I wouldn't be surprised if he insisted she acted up to the cameras either, but nothing about her appearances in the doc ever really give that impression.

Not sure what to make of her story really. Can't say she doesn't appear genuine in the interview though.

Exactly. They interview her after she gets out of prison and she goes back to his place while he's in jail. "Can't get away from him"? So, just leave since he can't do anything to you? No, I'll just sit here and drink (illegally) until he's released so I can get beat some more. Ruin my record some more with my parole officer. Almost get sent back to jail again. So genius... But yes, sorry, she can't stand his non-existent abuse while he's in jail.

 

[Vincent Grayson]

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.

My 11 year old watched bits and pieces of it with me, since I was watching it within earshot of her.

She found it incredibly fascinating, and IIRC, there's really nothing graphic (aside from some descriptions).

Hell, I think she might've been more pissed off at the outcome than I was. She's got a real anger over injustice anywhere she sees it.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Up to the FBI part. I wish they went further into the EDTA thing. I can't belive they FBI didn't take the samples themselves... How do they know the blood wasn't watered down too much in the swabbing process to detect the EDTA? Hell, for all I know they swabbed fresh Steven blood from the bathroom floor.

 

[KaoteK]

Since watching this series I've watched The Central Park Five, The Thin Blue Line and am on Paradise Lost 2. Kind of been a bummer of a week watching all these.

I watched those before I saw MoM (except for Paradise Lost which I saw a while ago) and it's made for a thoroughly depressing week.

I chose to love in a third world country that's as corrupt as fuck, and it's hard to imagine this stuff going on here...

Another good (in a depressing way) documentary is The Trials of Darryl Hunt.

 

[Fuu]

Since watching this series I've watched The Central Park Five, The Thin Blue Line and am on Paradise Lost 2. Kind of been a bummer of a week watching all these.

Don't watch Dear Zachary anytime soon.

 

[Ayt]

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.

Agreed. Unfortunately, this case and the comments spawned from the documentary show just how easy it is to manipulate people based on their judgments of the character of the accused.

There was an interview this morning on my local radio station. They basically said there was a lot more damming evidence that the prosecution presented that was not included in the documentary. Such as:

1. Avery had bleach all over his clothes that he wore that day.

2. Her car had the battery cables disconnected which indicated that the car was planned to be crushed, because the battery must be removed before the car can be safely crushed.

3. Avery's sweat/body oil DNA was found under the hood latch of the trunk and in the engine compartment of the vehicle.

4. The DNA found on the key was not blood DNA but body oil DNA, which couldn't have been planted.

After hearing that interview, it obviously doesn't excuse the bumbling and ethical issues of the investigation, but if true, does point to Avery looking more guilty than the documentary led us to believe.

Did it occur to you to verify if any of this was valid?

#4 in particular. What? "Body oil" DNA couldn't have been planted. What does that even mean?

 

[Bradach]

Do we still need spoilers?

Spoiler

I'm genuinely confused as to how they proved beyond reasonable doubt that Brendan was guilty.
Literally all they had was his confession which was clearly coerced.
Outside of that confession there is no actual evidence linking him in any way to the crime unless I missed something.

 

[Ayumi]

Do we still need spoilers?

Spoiler

I'm genuinely confused as to how they proved beyond reasonable doubt that Brendan was guilty.
Literally all they had was his confession which was clearly coerced.
Outside of that confession there is no actual evidence linking him in any way to the crime unless I missed something.

Nah, no need to spoiler stuff unless it's stated in the OP.

If they were so determined on nailing Steven based on planted evidence and plot holes, convicting Brendan based on a recorded (obviously forced) confession was a gold mine to them, imo. For them it was probably stronger than what they "had" on Steven.

 

[A.D. Skinner]

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.

It isn't graphic in content really, only in information. Also, there is a part of the show you're only allowed to watch if you're 15 or older and it's crucial information so, I'm not sure what to suggest.

Spoiler

That is a joke.

 

[Ayumi]

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.

It isn't graphic in content really, only in information. Also, there is a part of the show you're only allowed to watch if you're 15 or older and it's crucial information so, I'm not sure what to suggest.

Spoiler

That is a joke.

I think the only thing that can be considered graphic is some of the evidence (

Spoiler

burnt bones

), but it's not really.. Gross.

 

[MWS Natural]

Just finished watching this and I have lost the tiny bit of respect that I had left the the US criminal justice system and police. Perhaps this hits home for me as my own father was wrongly convicted of murder and did 8 years before reversing his case and proving his own innocence. Many of the things done to him like planting evidence and prosecutorial misconduct were the exact same things I saw here. Really makes me sad for all of the thousand of innocent people who have died in jail or are still there.

 

[Monkey_Plunkett]

During his opening in statement in court when Kratz referred to Halbach as "this little girl....sorry, this young woman" I just laughed and thought, yeah I see what you did there you sly cunt. It was so transparent

Conversely when referring to Brendan Dassey he called him a young man, rather than a young boy.

I'm glad he's now getting some sort of comeuppance though it probably isn't anywhere near what he deserves.

 

[pringles]

2. Her car had the battery cables disconnected which indicated that the car was planned to be crushed, because the battery must be removed before the car can be safely crushed.

That doesn't really fit for me, but I guess without knowing what type of procedure they usually used when crushing cars makes it hard to say. But if he was preparing to crush the car, why was disconnecting the battery the only thing he found time to do in several days?

I really do think Steven may be guilty, but the evidence doesn't really line up well enough for me to not have serious doubt. No theory of how the events unfolded make enough sense, they all seem to require Steven to go from criminal mastermind to complete idiot at various times, and nothing seems to really tie all the various pieces of evidence together in a satisfactory way.

I like the theory of Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey being involved.

 

[Fourth Storm]

Agreed. Unfortunately, this case and the comments spawned from the documentary show just how easy it is to manipulate people based on their judgments of the character of the accused.

The same can be said for those who are totally convinced of this man's innocence based on a single documentary. There's little doubt that there was police corruption involved, and perhaps the man should legally be free because of that. We can't "know" that he's innocent, however. People have every right to use the available information to make a character judgement and form their own opinion. There's a reason that the FBI uses profiling to catch killers. It's not evidence of anything, but it supports the portrait of a pretty deranged mind.

 

[ManUnkindH]

I only saw the first episode, can anyone spoil me the ending with spoiler tag of course? I have no time to view other episodes.

 

[EthanC]

Agreed. Unfortunately, this case and the comments spawned from the documentary show just how easy it is to manipulate people based on their judgments of the character of the accused.

All it proves is how easy it is to influence opinion with a stupidly biased "documentary".

In newer news about the murder, apparently Nancy Grace(blech) interviewed Stephen Avery. In her interview he admits Halbach was there that day. He had no further explanation for why he called her phone after the visit. A call he claimed to authorities was made to see where she was and to ask her if she still intended to come photograph the vehicle.

 

[Ayt]

The same can be said for those who are totally convinced of this man's innocence based on a single documentary. There's little doubt that there was police corruption involved, and perhaps the man should legally be free because of that. We can't "know" that he's innocent, however. People have every right to use the available information to make a character judgement and form their own opinion. There's a reason that the FBI uses profiling to catch killers. It's not evidence of anything, but it supports the portrait of a pretty deranged mind.

I agree. I certainly wouldn't claim he's obviously innocent or that he's a good person. Character profiles have nothing to do with what happened with his trial unless you think it is fine to railroad someone because of your perception of their character.

 

[BronsonLee]

I only saw the first episode, can anyone spoil me the ending with spoiler tag of course? I have no time to view other episodes.

Spoiler

LOOK AT THE RIBBON

 

[Frodo]

Spoiler

LOOK AT THE RIBBON

 

[Homeboyd]

I only saw the first episode, can anyone spoil me the ending with spoiler tag of course? I have no time to view other episodes.

Spoiler

Guilty until proven innocent. Defense couldn't prove his innocence. So life in jail for SA, no possibility for parole. Life in jail for BD, possible parole in 2048. Cops who planted evidence get promoted. Kratz sexually harasses domestic abuse victim. That about covers it.

 

[Erigu]

All it proves is how easy it is to influence opinion with a stupidly biased "documentary".

It's also really easy to show up in a thread and repeat the same things over and over again without ever acknowledging the counter-arguments... I bet that might also influence opinions, too!

 

[Booker.DeWitt]

The documentary is biased towards the defense, the name says all : MAKING A MURDERER

However, as the filmmakers said since day one, the role of documentary is not to prove Steve's innocence. It is to show how fucked up the american system is and to show that anybody can get fucked by possibly tampered evidence. Also creates a discussion about the method of interrogation, specially with minors who have mental disability.

Because of this documentary, Tennessee just passed a bill with some rules on how to interrogate minors. So the main goal of the documentary is to get people taking about the legal system, and it is working. Even the Steve's lawyer has said he is not 100% sure if he is innocent or not

 

[BronsonLee]

Oh shit EthanC is back

Sup nerd

 

[poppabk]

All it proves is how easy it is to influence opinion with a stupidly biased "documentary".

In newer news about the murder, apparently Nancy Grace(blech) interviewed Stephen Avery. In her interview he admits Halbach was there that day. He had no further explanation for why he called her phone after the visit. A call he claimed to authorities was made to see where she was and to ask her if she still intended to come photograph the vehicle.

Where is this information coming from? As far as I am aware he never denied that she showed up and the call establishing an alibi was supposition by the police, not something that he actually claimed.

 

[aerts1js]

Where is this information coming from? As far as I am aware he never denied that she showed up and the call establishing an alibi was supposition by the police, not something that he actually claimed.

You're responding to EthanC, the guy that never backs up his claims with sources.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

The documentary is biased towards the defense, the name says all : MAKING A MURDERER

Yeah it is. Of course. There's a reason they delve into the human drama so much with Steven's family. But it's not so biased as to actually misrepresent the prosecution's best arguments. It's not as biased as people easily swayed by the endlessly debunked Ken Kratz emails (as well as the slew of articles essentially republishing that same list) want it to be. There's more pro Steven evidence left out of the doc than anything else.

It's good that people are trying to think critically about the information the documentary presents. But actually be diligent. Truly look at all the information surfacing in the wake of the documentary's popularity. Don't just look at the first opposing argument and go "hah I knew it, dumb biased doc!!! wake up sheeple!!!" Most especially always take everything that comes from Ken Kratz with the utmost scrutiny. The information he presents has proven time and time again to be several times more biased than the series could ever hope to be.

(btw not directing this at you, just using that quote as a jumping off point)

 

[spyder_ur]

The documentary is biased towards the defense, the name says all : MAKING A MURDERER

This is true, but I had a thought (might be obvious and have been discussed). I interpreted the title 'Making a Murderer' to allude both to the obvious reference of 'making' or convicting someone in a case, as well as the idea that somehow his first mistaken imprisonment term somehow made him a killer.

I'm not sure the content of the series supports that though; they don't dig too much into the psychological impact of his first prison term. In fact, they paint his life after getting out to be on an upward trajectory.

 

[-griffy-]

The documentary is biased towards the defense, the name says all : MAKING A MURDERER

Nah, the title could go two ways: The prosecution creating the evidence to falsely make Steven Avery a murderer; or the events in Steven Avery's life that put him on a path that eventually turned him into a murderer.

That's why it's a good title.

 

[entremet]

This thread is huge. Wow.

Has anyone read the rebuttal from the DA?

 

[Dalek]

This thread is huge. Wow.

Has anyone read the rebuttal from the DA?

 

[Straight Edge]

Has the Avery family received compensation for their cooperation with this show?

 

[i_am_ben]

Once you start completely ignoring anything that Brandon says, it becomes more feasible that Avery is guilty.