OT: Making A Murderer on Netflix

[CloneIce]

Did I say he wasn't a bad person? I'll make that question easy for you... SA is a piece of ****. Are we clear on that now? I just hope I never have a family member allegedly commit homicide, because that makes me scum too, I guess.

You're right, you did say he shouldn't have been found guilty. It's a big thread and I've lost track of what all has been said by everyone. My mistake.

Well you did ask me if he kicked my dog or something, didn't you? Of course, in reality Avery was more likely to douse my dog in gasoline and light it on fire then to kick it. Anyway, my post about them being bad people and horribly stupid wasn't intended to indict everyone in his extended family. My apologies if it came off that way, I was thinking mainly of he and his wife.

 

[CloneIce]

So, everything you've said is "pointing out gaps", while everything everyone else has said is "taking it as gospel". Got it. You wonder why you aren't able to understand the responses you're getting...

When I saw posts indicating that people believed the story that there must be blood splattered on the gun for it to be the murder weapon, I pointed out that it was a .22. Several posters were not hunters or gun owners who would understand that a .22 rifle (the mafia's favorite weapon for up close and personal assassinations) is a low caliber rifle that isn't going to explode a head like a large caliber bullet. I pointed out the facts about the weapon, and that based on those facts, I didn't understand why people were repeating these lines as if they were conclusive. Even then people argued the basic facts of the physics of a .22 caliber bullet. I realize that people don't like it when someone points out that something they are certain of is flawed, but it was relevant to the discussion so I pointed it out.

 

[cyclone101]

When I saw posts indicating that people believed the story that there must be blood splattered on the gun for it to be the murder weapon, I pointed out that it was a .22. Several posters were not hunters or gun owners who would understand that a .22 rifle (the mafia's favorite weapon for up close and personal assassinations) is a low caliber rifle that isn't going to explode a head like a large caliber bullet. I pointed out the facts about the weapon, and that based on those facts, I didn't understand why people were repeating these lines as if they were conclusive. Even then people argued the basic facts of the physics of a .22 caliber bullet. I realize that people don't like it when someone points out that something they are certain of is flawed, but it was relevant to the discussion so I pointed it out.

I think people are talking more about blood in the garage than on the gun. You aren't ever going to get blood splattered on a gun, especially a .22, a low velocity, small caliber round. Even a .45 wouldn't cause blood to splatter all over a gun. That's just not how things work.

My take on everyone's opinion, at least people who have been around firearms or hunting, is the concern about the lack of blood in the garage. I seem to remember it being a concrete floor with several big cracks. It isn't going to be easy to get blood out of cracks. If they cut her throat, shot her in the head (with an exit wound), like Brendan claimed they did, unless there was something to catch all the blood, it wouldn't have been pretty in that garage.

 

[Gunnerclone]

I think people are talking more about blood in the garage than on the gun. You aren't ever going to get blood splattered on a gun, especially a .22, a low velocity, small caliber round. Even a .45 wouldn't cause blood to splatter all over a gun. That's just not how things work.

My take on everyone's opinion, at least people who have been around firearms or hunting, is the concern about the lack of blood in the garage. I seem to remember it being a concrete floor with several big cracks. It isn't going to be easy to get blood out of cracks. If they cut her throat, shot her in the head (with an exit wound), like Brendan claimed they did, unless there was something to catch all the blood, it wouldn't have been pretty in that garage.

I thought they slit her throat in the bedroom though? Where there was also no blood?

 

[cyclone101]

I thought they slit her throat in the bedroom though? Where there was also no blood?

Ah, that's right. Either way, if someone slits your throat, you're going to bleed like a stuck hog. If it went down like they said, where is the blood?

 

[Gunnerclone]

Ah, that's right. Either way, if someone slits your throat, you're going to bleed like a stuck hog. If it went down like they said, where is the blood?

Half serious here but if Avery could get that cleaned up to that level, and get all traces of blood out of the garage, the guy deserves to go free just on effort alone. PD's should use him as a crime scene expert if that is the case...he's like the "Catch Me If You Can" guy at that point.

 

[CloneIce]

I think people are talking more about blood in the garage than on the gun. You aren't ever going to get blood splattered on a gun, especially a .22, a low velocity, small caliber round. Even a .45 wouldn't cause blood to splatter all over a gun. That's just not how things work.

My take on everyone's opinion, at least people who have been around firearms or hunting, is the concern about the lack of blood in the garage. I seem to remember it being a concrete floor with several big cracks. It isn't going to be easy to get blood out of cracks. If they cut her throat, shot her in the head (with an exit wound), like Brendan claimed they did, unless there was something to catch all the blood, it wouldn't have been pretty in that garage.

Agree completely, I never understood why people thought that either. The garage is more valid, and there are certainly many possibilities there... but I personally don't think the version of events constructed by the prosecution is accurate, and there is a good chance her murder never occurred inside the garage in the first place.

 

[ZJohnson]

After watching this, I am glad(lack of a better word) the murder trial I was on here in AZ was so blatantly evident that the mother killed her 3 year old child that there was no wavering and we basically discussed this for about a total of 5hrs. We convicted her to 76 years. It was one of the saddest most sickening things I have ever heard/dealt with. The bf is now in a Capital Case for murder as well for the same child. This whole case smells of corruption and a strong dislike for the Avery family.

 

[BiggerCy]

Making a Murderer will be the topic for the Dateline NBC on Friday night. Should be pretty interesting.

 

[CloniesForLife]

Just got to the part where they didn't find a single drop of her blood anywhere. That sealed it for me. No way he did this

 

[cycloneworld]

My wife and I just finished this last night. Most of our thoughts have been discussed here but a few things that stuck out to us:

1. Avery's defense team did a GREAT job. Comparing his defense to Brenden's was night and day. Shows what money buys you in this system. I'd love to hear more from his attorneys.

2. I think Avery did it but it couldn't have happened as the prosecution said. No blood, no DNA (except on the questionable items only discovered by the Sheriff's department) anywhere inside the house. Plus if she was killed in the trailer or garage, there is no way she would have been loaded back into her RAV4. All of this adds up to enough reasonable doubt (and yes, I've read about exclusions from the documentary but none of those mean much, if anything). I think there is a very small chance Brenden was actually involved. Has he said much more over the past 8 years?

3. I think Stang said it best about our criminal justice system that there is a "lack of humility". Everyone is so convinced of their opinions and thoughts that they don't take time to consider other options. And it applies to everyone involved in the trial...prosecutors, Halbach's family, the judge, jurors, the investigators. Tunnel vision. I've watched enough Dateline and 48 Hours to know this isn't unique to Wisconsin by any means.

 

[RayShimley]

My wife and I just finished this last night. Most of our thoughts have been discussed here but a few things that stuck out to us:

1. Avery's defense team did a GREAT job. Comparing his defense to Brenden's was night and day. Shows what money buys you in this system. I'd love to hear more from his attorneys.

2. I think Avery did it but it couldn't have happened as the prosecution said. No blood, no DNA (except on the questionable items only discovered by the Sheriff's department) anywhere inside the house. Plus if she was killed in the trailer or garage, there is no way she would have been loaded back into her RAV4. All of this adds up to enough reasonable doubt (and yes, I've read about exclusions from the documentary but none of those mean much, if anything). I think there is a very small chance Brenden was actually involved. Has he said much more over the past 8 years?

3. I think Stang said it best about our criminal justice system that there is a "lack of humility". Everyone is so convinced of their opinions and thoughts that they don't take time to consider other options. And it applies to everyone involved in the trial...prosecutors, Halbach's family, the judge, jurors, the investigators. Tunnel vision. I've watched enough Dateline and 48 Hours to know this isn't unique to Wisconsin by any means.

I'm still torn on whether I think he did it, but definitely beyond a reasonable doubt. I'd say in terms of likelihood:

1. Steven Avery killed her, but Brendan was not involved and it did not happen as the prosecution described (i.e., she was not killed in the trailer)
2. One of the other male family members on the compound killed her and framed Avery. There are some theories pointing to SA's brother-in-law (Brendan's step-dad) that are very troubling.
3. It happened as described by the prosecution.

 

[ThatllDoCy]

There is a podcast called Real Crime Profile. It is two profilers that review cases and give their insights into the behavior of the victims and defendants. Then they give their opinion. They did three episodes on the Avery case, and I found it fascinating. Lots of insight into the people, and the police work.

I highly recommend it.

 

[cyclone101]

Plot twist! [video=youtube;bW7Op86ox9g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g[/video]


Interesting theory.
http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-serial-killer-theory-edward-wayne-edwards-2016-1

 

[Skidoosh]

After stewing on it and watching a few interviews with the directors:

The series was less about whether Steven was guilty/innocent and more about showing you how broken the current system is. Just the fact that the 2nd case got handled so laughably bad given such a high profile case alone should make you think. At least Steven had a fighting chance with those lawyers, people like Brenden will get railroaded 10 times out of 10.

 

[cmjh10]

Finally watching this. On episode 6. This is the greatest frame job ever correct?

Also, the entire Avery family did themselves no good during the ENTIRE process.

 

[NetflixAndClone]

Finally watching this. On episode 6. This is the greatest frame job ever correct?

Also, the entire Avery family did themselves no good during the ENTIRE process.

Except he actually did it. The film makers did a good job only presenting one side and making it look like he was innocent. If you examine both sides it's clear he killed the woman.

 

[clonedude]

Except he actually did it. The film makers did a good job only presenting one side and making it look like he was innocent. If you examine both sides it's clear he killed the woman.

I would say the film was obviously one sided, but there is no way you could possibly prove without a reasonable doubt that he did it. Yes, he may have done it, but that isn't how our justice system works. There is more than enough reasonable doubt that he did it, so he must be found not guilty.

 

[Skidoosh]

Except he actually did it. The film makers did a good job only presenting one side and making it look like he was innocent. If you examine both sides it's clear he killed the woman.

If you cannot prove he did it without planting all kinds of evidence, then he should not be convicted. That's how its supposed to work, because in the real world there is no perfect crime.

And even if you think the evidence (mainly the key and the car) weren't planted, then why were both of these smoking guns found by Manitowoc officers who were not supposed to be involved per their own press release.

 

[NetflixAndClone]

If you cannot prove he did it without planting all kinds of evidence, then he should not be convicted. That's how its supposed to work, because in the real world there is no perfect crime.

And even if you think the evidence (mainly the key and the car) weren't planted, then why were both of these smoking guns found by Manitowoc officers who were not supposed to be involved per their own press release.

Ill say someof the evidence that was left out and tell me if you think he probably did it? Because it's pretty clear to me that he probably did.

1. He dumped oil on a cat and lit it on fire (That sounds pretty unstable to me)

2. He threaten a woman gunpoint along with other numerous criminal activities

3. In the months leading up to Halbach's disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

4. Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn't want to go out to Avery's trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

5. On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

6. The bullet with Halbach's DNA on it came from Avery's gun, which always hung above his bed. (hard to frame a man using a gun he sleeps with0

7. Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he's purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he'd had a tumultuous relationship -- at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

8. Here's the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey's illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach's car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don't believe the police would plant -- or know to plant -- that evidence.

9. Teresa's camera and palm pilot were found in Avery's burn barrel.

Don't get me wrong the cops and DA didn't sound like good people, but Avery was clearly the bad guy. Even Brendan said he did it and Avery used to touch him. With this evidence it's clear why the jury said he was guilty.