-
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
Vampire On Titus
Member
Did you watch the series yet? This information is covered early on.
This is now circling back around to information the documentary did cover. The letters and running his cousin off the road were in like the 1st two episodes.I don't understand how Jodi switching her story changes this (I know this isn't your claim). You can believe her story when Steven Avery was the love of her life and she fought intense police pressure to to remain with him as long as she could. Or you can believe he's an abusive monster who drove her to eat two whole boxes of rat poison. Either way what Jodi thinks of Steven Avery as a person isn't material to whether or not he killed Teresa Halbach.
It would help everyone to read new developments on the MaM subreddit, though, for sure.
Why not question this? The eating two boxes of rat poison thing is weird. The fact that she was interrogated several times being prompted to turn on steven and hasn't now until 10 years later is at least odd. This coming out of the Nancy Grace camp sets off red flags in itself. Grace is extremely biased and herself had a history of fabricating evidence as a prosecuting attorney.
I'm not gonna go down a conspiratorial road here and try and say definitively that Jodi is lying. But I will acknowledge suspicious elements surrounding her reveal and remain neutral on her reliability. I can't know for sure. But I'm reticent to believe whole heartedly cause some shit dosent look right.
Mr. Mister
Member
Once your presume innocence (or to be fair guilt) you'll shape the narrative to fit the needs.
Ultimately there are a lot of low IQ people, in fact the majority, that are not torturing cats and running people off the road. When I look at everything he has been involved with in total I just can't except all outs and excuses.
Ultimately there are a lot of low IQ people, in fact the majority, that are not torturing cats and running people off the road. When I look at everything he has been involved with in total I just can't except all outs and excuses.
So despite the complete lack of sense in the prosecution's case and the abundance of corruption and incompetence during the investigation, it comes down to Avery being guilty because he's previously committed some completely different crimes. That checks out.
Vampire On Titus
Member
You can't use them as evidence that someone is a murderer. The severity of the cat story cant be confirmed. The criminal report doesn't give detail and everyone is getting the "doused in gasoline" and tortured narrative from one uncorroborated article 10 years ago. As well as Ken Kratz. The fact is that the extent of this crime is not truly known. Steven's word is the only 1st hand account that's surfaced to my knowledge. It's certainly plausible someone would down-play the severity to make themselves look better. So I understand a reason to examine his claim critically. But so far that's only left a big question. What's not in question though is that he admitted his guilt to that crime and was punished for it.
Running his cousin off the road has never been excused. His motivation has been explained. Why he was compelled to do something wrong, that everyone acknowledges as such. His motivation for killing Teresa Halbach has never been explained. Which is why people are combing through his history looking for indiscretions to paint him as this inevitable killer in the making. Even if they have to twist, spin or outright lie to do it. It's unrelated character assassination in an attempt to make up for a lack of compelling evidence.
Mr. Mister
Member
...that's what a trial is.
10, 20, hundreds of hours of two sides "painting" a portrait.
We SHOULD have questions about any case that raises questions. Your point is completely absurd.
Mr. Mister
Member
Umm. He was on trial and they presented evidence of the frame up and he was found guilty. The questions were presented and found to not be relevant.
YOU were presented with just the side that paints him in a good light complete with dramatic music and everything. I admire the documentary for showing how easy it is to make people jump in to grand conspiracies and be emotionally manipulated.
hey_monkey
Banned
A short list of things that should not matter:
-Steven Avery is a shit person.
-Steven Avery has a short temper.
-Steven Avery didn't get along with some people.
-If he hadn't been in prison for 18 years for someone else's crime, Steven Avery might have done this or that.
I'm appalled and how often, here and elsewhere, I've heard related statements used as lazy justification. Want to know how/why people fabricate evidence in court cases? Can't believe it? Here it is. You see it in these arguments. We are very good at deciding certain people should probably go away just in case.
The Avery family is a lot of things, including a prime example of how people with issues beget more people with issues. SA couldn't stay out of jail but was father or stepfather to what, five kids before 23? How many if he hadn't been in prison? Who could say. Tons of people in that family just ripe for petty crimes or worse, as well as systemic victimhood. I grew up like this, even lived in a salvage yard for a while. My father was very like Avery, only with more basic cleverness, I think. It makes me hate him a little on a personal level. But none of that should matter. ALL that should matter is that there are enormous gaping holes in the state's case against these two individuals, there's no explanation for what happened to Halbach, and a grave miscarriage of justice occurred during these trials. We don't convict for stupid or mean or potential. At least, we shouldn't.
-Steven Avery is a shit person.
-Steven Avery has a short temper.
-Steven Avery didn't get along with some people.
-If he hadn't been in prison for 18 years for someone else's crime, Steven Avery might have done this or that.
I'm appalled and how often, here and elsewhere, I've heard related statements used as lazy justification. Want to know how/why people fabricate evidence in court cases? Can't believe it? Here it is. You see it in these arguments. We are very good at deciding certain people should probably go away just in case.
The Avery family is a lot of things, including a prime example of how people with issues beget more people with issues. SA couldn't stay out of jail but was father or stepfather to what, five kids before 23? How many if he hadn't been in prison? Who could say. Tons of people in that family just ripe for petty crimes or worse, as well as systemic victimhood. I grew up like this, even lived in a salvage yard for a while. My father was very like Avery, only with more basic cleverness, I think. It makes me hate him a little on a personal level. But none of that should matter. ALL that should matter is that there are enormous gaping holes in the state's case against these two individuals, there's no explanation for what happened to Halbach, and a grave miscarriage of justice occurred during these trials. We don't convict for stupid or mean or potential. At least, we shouldn't.
hey_monkey
Banned
Guilty of murder somehow, but not mitigating the corpse, with stories that differ for the same crime in two trials, with a jury with three individual at least who has personal connections to those being indicted, three people who were later revealed to have argued down the others.
It's not as pure or simple as you want to paint it.
Mr. Mister
Member
Definitely not pure and simple. I'd never argue that.
But look at how this thread paints his ex girlfriend in a bad light but readily believes that jurors were pressured story. Blinders.
Also - side note - the cat burning story is totally relevant because it shows he needs no motive to commit a heanous act.
hey_monkey
Banned
In a similar light, the stories about the jurors line up with what I've seen and read about the trials. Strang and Buting were brilliant, and caught all manner of people in their bullshit, but Scott and Bobby vs the bus driver, the FBI guy (who was a moron), the contaminated test, Lenk's inability to tell the truth, the dig/burn sites being investigated against all protocols... these were all clear, clear proofs that, even without conspiracy/evidence planting, there were problems with the prosecution the size of Texas. But they didn't (and sometimes couldn't) push them in a very clear and simple way for a jury sitting through days of testimony. Can I then believe that a few jurors who believed SA was guilty, thanks to connections/press coverage/etc could sway other people, when you've got 12 people who may or may not have deep understandings of the law? Uh, yeah. I don't think that's blinders or conspiracy. I think that's simply the American jury trial system. That's often how it functions.
Vampire On Titus
Member
Yeah, the point is he didn't get a fair trial with the presumption of innocence as the accused. He got a damn near sham trial where the jury pool was poisoned by the prosecutions media stunts. That press conference with that horror story based on the coerced Brendan Dassey confession -- the charges from which weren't allowed at trial -- damn near ensured Steven could not get a fair trial. And he didn't.
And people have continued to research afterward and it's largely true that the facts presented in the documentary hold up. Also with the tawdry "grand conspiracy" line. Nobody has ever suggested this massive conspiracy and everyone and their mother was in on it. It's been maintained from the beginning this could have been the work of one or two detectives trying manipulate evidence. This is a cheap reduction to the absurd argument. Nobody is claiming every law enforcement official in both Manitowoc and Calumet county were out to get Steven. But there's clear evidence suggesting misconduct in both Stevens last two convictions.
Nappuccino
Member
It's hardly relevant--it's an attack of character, one that proves nothing about what Steven did the day of the murder.
I'm sympathetic to both his ex-wife and ex-girlfriend, but I don't see evidence erases my reasonable doubt on any level.
You do realize that the jury went in initially with a 7 not-guilty, 3 guilt, and 2 abstained, right?
A juror even spoke out about worrying for his safety judging against the police.
Also, 2 of the jurors had worked/had a relative working at the sheriff's office.
You're entitled to your opinion, but either way, the defense provided enough reasonable doubt to get a not guilty conviction.
Yes, he burned a cat, God forbid. Michael Vick was involved in dog fighting resulting in the death in tons of dogs. He'll definitely be murdering someone sometime in his lifetime. /s
Mr. Mister
Member
lol. Attack of character? Dude he burned a cat for no reason. That's not an attack of character it's an indictment of character.
Fourth Storm
Member
Holy shit, I know he was proven innocent of that charge, but what the fuck road are you going down with arguments like this?
Nappuccino
Member
Which has nothing to do with this case. Evidence rules over character, and there just isn't that much evidence. Just because you're a shit person doesn't mean you should go to jail because a murder was committed near you.
Mr. Mister
Member
Maybe I don't understand how the system works but if what you are describing is true he wouldn't be in prison.
You are entitled to your opinion but I'm happy that no matter what internet dectives think that he will be in prison for the rest of his life.
hey_monkey
Banned
And yet his character, no matter how often you say it, has very little to do with a case without a clear story that even explains how this woman died and how the scene was handled. Being a shit person is simply not enough.
But by all means, keep repeating it.
Vampire On Titus
Member
You don't know the specifics of this crime. These posts you're making are disingenuous at best. There's no reason to ever burn a cat but he did have a motivation. He was a drunken dipshit in his late teens/early twenties and his other drunken dipshit friends dared him to throw a cat over a fire.
Even taking into account the worst case, uncorroborated, scenario for the events of this crime. Killing a cat when doesn't mean 30 years later you're going to kill a human. It's not the telltale sign of psychopathy people think it is. Plenty of people kill animals when they're younger and kill no humans later in life.
It's not relevant to the facts of the case and it's absolutely brought up as character assassination.
Nappuccino
Member
Part of the problem is that the jury seems to have been swayed beyond the evidence and arguments presented in court. When only 3 jurors were going to convict before the discussion (7 were going to acquit), and they come back with a guilty verdict, something else came into play. Appeals to personal safety by at least one of the jurors seems to have come into play.
The system doesn't work just because 12 people believe someone is guilty.
Mr. Mister
Member
To you. One of the biggest things brought up is what was the motive. I'd say torturing an animal for no reason shows he doesn't need a motive to inflict harm. That is unarguably relevant to a motive argument.
Nappuccino
Member
You should actually read the thread--Avery was a dumb, drunk kid with bad friends and never denied his actions. He expressed regret for what he'd done.
And again, that specific moment has nothing to do with murdering a woman 30 years later. Plenty of kids have done bad things to animals and never once murdered someone later in life.
hey_monkey
Banned
You are aware a new attorney with a very impressive history of getting cases overturned just took him on, right? You think she'd do that if it was this simple? Because she likes losing?
...there are all matter of people arguing it, in fact.
It was more of a point people keep saying he raped someone. He didn't. He wasn't even involved in that crime. And my point was, even if he wasn't convicted, it wasn't even rape to begin with. It was sexual assault at the most. People seem to paint him as some kind of rapist that got off.
Mr. Mister
Member
I agree with you, btw. I just mentioned I wouldn't question it because even if he indeed was abusive before, that doesn't mean he would kill Teresa for absolutely no reason, specially when the evidence can't corroborate with the theory the prosecution shoddily put together.
This is really all that needs to be said about that incident. The fact that it's discussed when it comes to the Teresa Halbach murder shows how weak the case against Steven Avery really is.
I'm being as disingenuous as you have been.
The cat thing proves nothing. No one, no one is trying to claim Avery is a saint. Pointing out his early crimes and yadda yadda yaddaing over all the incompetent and knowingly deceitful shit from the prosecution and investigation is bullshit. Killing a cat is neither motive nor evidence of a murder some 20 years later.
Mr. Mister
Member
So how are previous crimes not relevant? Previous crimes are basic trail 101 stuff or have you not been paying attention to the criminal justice system?
Nappuccino
Member
Previous crimes are hardly evidence to a crime. Sure, they might make a person a likely suspect, but the rest of the work comes down to the present case
I don't think this:
1. Petty burglary
2. Burning a cat to death
3. Running a woman off the road and waving a gun around
4. Rape and murder
is a well documented psychological profile of criminal escalation. I don't think the prosecution ever even tried to say that. All they were saying with the previous crimes was "look, he's kind of a shitbag, don't give the defense any benefit of the doubt, just trust what we say about him".
Mr. Mister
Member
Vampire On Titus
Member
It's not but it's the best the prosecution could try to cobble together a motive where there was none. At first I thought Mr.Mister was just new to the case and hadn't researched all the information coming to light in wake of the documentary. At this point I'm convinced he's arguing in bad faith.
They did not.
It's definitely not.
It's really not, except in the very broadest of terms. A couple very different crimes don't draw a direct line to rape and murder.
If you can overlook all the gaping holes in the prosecution's case and declare him guilty within a reasonable doubt simply because the defendant has a criminal history, you're part of the problem.
Mr. Mister
Member
And I feel like you are arguing in bad faith and brushing off all the evidence pointing to him doing it. Ultimately this is an unwinnable argument so I'm jumping out. We will just have to agree to disagree as we both see things from entirely different perspectives.
I know you're jumping out, but what was that again?
Mr. Mister
Member
Cant resist taking the bait but you can't be serious with that question. Come on.
I would argue that a not very well-documented incident with a cat 20-something years before a murder-charge is not very relevant. There are much more relevant past crimes when it comes to Steven Avery, but past crimes still don't make someone guilty.
Well, I saw alot of questionable evidence. Nothing that proved him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and nothing that couldn't be argued by the defense. Who had a better case, in my opinion.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Some of the emotional reactions in this thread make me terribly worried to see some of these people on juries. Yeah, it was horrible that he did that to the cat, but in allowing your emotions to take control, you're basically substituting reasonable doubt for outrage.
LaserBuddha
Member
Police procedurals have engrained the "serial killers start with pets" meme into our collective consciousness. When my dad was growing up in the 40's and 50's you'd think an entire generation of rural youth were going to be serial killers, for all the awful stuff that happened cats at the hands of bored kids back then.
In closing arguments Kratz had the gall to say to the jury "Reasonable doubts are for innocent people." That should tell you all you need to know about why it was brought up in court.
In closing arguments Kratz had the gall to say to the jury "Reasonable doubts are for innocent people." That should tell you all you need to know about why it was brought up in court.
There isn't really any evidence that isn't questionable on some level so people will bemoan our naïveté without ever getting around to proving it. The prosecutor himself can't come up with a shred of solid evidence in his complaints about what was left out.
Similar threads
- Locked