Making a Murderer
- Thread starter chemmie
- Start date
You are only seeing what the director wants you to see.
That being said, I agree Lawyers are scumbags.
That being said, I agree Lawyers are scumbags.
Yet again you prove that you have no ability to see one inch below the surface of any issue. Go watch Killing Fields on Discovery and see if that changes your mind.
Neither of you have watched it. Anyone who claims bias hasn't watched it.
The vast majority of footage is actual court footage and interrogations. It is sickening what these cops and lawyers did.
There is a mentally handicapped 16 year old in jail for life because of a 4 hour interrogation where he was alone without representation, and every single piece of the "confession" was fed to him...and that interrogation is sickening.
The vast majority of footage is actual court footage and interrogations. It is sickening what these cops and lawyers did.
There is a mentally handicapped 16 year old in jail for life because of a 4 hour interrogation where he was alone without representation, and every single piece of the "confession" was fed to him...and that interrogation is sickening.
I watched the entire series and it was very frustrating and sad what they did to Avery and his nephew. I saw a couple of snippets on the TV about some of the evidence that was not presented in the documentary and some of it seemed pretty damning against Avery. The producers of the series only showed what the defense was able to easily rebut. Based on what I saw both in the documentary and other snippets, I'm kinda undecided on his guilt but the entire process was a travesty and Avery and his nephew had no chance.
Isn't there like 14 pieces of evidence that the show doesn't bring up? I know all the weak minded fools are in an outrage, but the directors put only what they want you to see and they make it super sympathetic to the defense.
I think the whole thing is worth watching. It just keeps getting worse. It really made me uncomfortable at times.
A lot of people mention the bias of the documentary makers, but I think the video evidence does enough, even without the possible bias.
If anything, Branden should be released and his original lawyer should be disbarred. I just can't see how he could have been convicted with not a single shred of evidence other than a frighteningly coerced confession that he recanted on the stand during the trial.
A lot of people mention the bias of the documentary makers, but I think the video evidence does enough, even without the possible bias.
If anything, Branden should be released and his original lawyer should be disbarred. I just can't see how he could have been convicted with not a single shred of evidence other than a frighteningly coerced confession that he recanted on the stand during the trial.
10 hours of what the directors want you to see of the hundreds of hours of depos, interrogations, trials, etc. Vox has a pretty good takedown of it.
One thing they don't answer or even try to answer is who actually committed the murder? We have a dead woman who has been literally taken apart piece by piece and no clue as to who did it, other than the suspect.
Some of you people need to grow up and just watch the show. You simply cannot have an opinion until you've watched it. When Chemmie and I agree on something, that's big...major...earth shattering even.
I've read the recent interviews where the DA talks about how "biased" the show was and where he presented the "evidence" that was left out of the show. None of that was even able to move the needle on my belief that this dude is innocent.
Do I believe the police set him up? I can't quite take it that far...but jeez, this is insane.
I've read the recent interviews where the DA talks about how "biased" the show was and where he presented the "evidence" that was left out of the show. None of that was even able to move the needle on my belief that this dude is innocent.
Do I believe the police set him up? I can't quite take it that far...but jeez, this is insane.
10 hours and they still don't show a number of pieces of evidence that point straight at Avery. I don't excuse any misdeeds by police, or DA, But also don't doubt the likely hood of him being guilty.
Effer and I finished it last night wow. I agree, it absolutely shows a bias / conspiracy. Yes, it was a documentary, but damn, the collusion sure doesn't look good. Not to mention the coerced confession, I almost certain any terrified teenager would say whatever the investigators wanted to get to go home.
"I hope they let me out to see wrestlemania." That statement alone says a lot.
"I hope they let me out to see wrestlemania." That statement alone says a lot.
I’ve never stated I believe he is completely innocent. I just believe there is more than sufficient evidence to provide reasonable, very reasonable, doubt. There is also more than sufficient evidence to conclude there was serious wrongdoing by the police and/or DA. The information that was said to be left out of the show does nothing to change these opinions.
Strangely enough, the people mostly complaining about bias are people who haven't watched the show. Is the show biased? Of course. Is the filmed footage within the show biased? That is impossible.
I watched it and came away pissed off and slightly depressed. The guy and his half wit cousin were completely railroaded.
There's too much to get into in detail, but the fact that Dassey couldn't even get a re-trail AFTER it was shown that his first defense lawyer was ASSISTING THE PROSECUTION AGAINST AVERY is mind blowing. They forced some bullshit confession out of him after 4 hours of twisting his 70 IQ brain into a pretzel without a lawyer there and used that as the entire basis of the case against the kid. Yet not only level of appeals thought he should at least get a re-trial.
The Sherrifs office cops that framed him the first time were responsible for " finding" every key piece of evidence against Avery. Stuff that wasn't found the first 5-8 times the other guys went into the exact same buildings.
Oh, and in the Avery case the little weasel DA says that he actually drug her to the garage to kill her. Then in the Dassey case, the same DA, talking about the SAME WOMAN, says that she was killed in the bedroom after being raped by both men. I can't even understand how a Prosecutor can put forth a different story on how someone died when you're trying 2 people that supposedly killed her together.
There's too much to get into in detail, but the fact that Dassey couldn't even get a re-trail AFTER it was shown that his first defense lawyer was ASSISTING THE PROSECUTION AGAINST AVERY is mind blowing. They forced some bullshit confession out of him after 4 hours of twisting his 70 IQ brain into a pretzel without a lawyer there and used that as the entire basis of the case against the kid. Yet not only level of appeals thought he should at least get a re-trial.
The Sherrifs office cops that framed him the first time were responsible for " finding" every key piece of evidence against Avery. Stuff that wasn't found the first 5-8 times the other guys went into the exact same buildings.
Oh, and in the Avery case the little weasel DA says that he actually drug her to the garage to kill her. Then in the Dassey case, the same DA, talking about the SAME WOMAN, says that she was killed in the bedroom after being raped by both men. I can't even understand how a Prosecutor can put forth a different story on how someone died when you're trying 2 people that supposedly killed her together.
This.
I don't even know how it is legal. I know they are two completely different trials, but how do you convict two people for the same murder with two different explanations of how the murder happened?
Here's the Vox.com article on it. Take it with a grain of salt, because, well, Vox.com, but it brings up some salient points:
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/8/10734268/netflix-making-a-murderer-avery
The whole things stinks of a framing, yet a jury convicted this guy and he had good lawyers. If he truly slit her throat in his bedroom, where is all that blood spatter? If he shot her in the garage, where is any other piece of her DNA in that garage? Why was any piece of evidence discovered by Manitowoc County officers even admissible, if they were instructed to stay out of the crime scene? If anything, this was a really sloppy investigation and the case against Avery is pretty weak overall. What was the established motive? Why did Avery call Halbeck three times on the day she went missing (and using *67)? Why is Avery's DNA found under the hood of her SUV?
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/8/10734268/netflix-making-a-murderer-avery
The whole things stinks of a framing, yet a jury convicted this guy and he had good lawyers. If he truly slit her throat in his bedroom, where is all that blood spatter? If he shot her in the garage, where is any other piece of her DNA in that garage? Why was any piece of evidence discovered by Manitowoc County officers even admissible, if they were instructed to stay out of the crime scene? If anything, this was a really sloppy investigation and the case against Avery is pretty weak overall. What was the established motive? Why did Avery call Halbeck three times on the day she went missing (and using *67)? Why is Avery's DNA found under the hood of her SUV?
the *67 bit is irrelevant. I don't know why he'd use it, but he told 4-5 people that she was coming to take pictures and he had used her before. She had filed with her company that she's visited the Avery yard in the past and pictured his cars.
Not sure the DNA on the hood matters considering there was blood inside the car yet not a single shred of DNA in there. Either he had to have gloves on, thus making bleeding onto the car impossible, or he didn't and they would have found finger prints. It just points to more targeted DNA planting by these cops.
Not sure the DNA on the hood matters considering there was blood inside the car yet not a single shred of DNA in there. Either he had to have gloves on, thus making bleeding onto the car impossible, or he didn't and they would have found finger prints. It just points to more targeted DNA planting by these cops.
So, here are the things the prosecutor says was left out, none of which seem more incriminating than anything else that wasn't left out:
So, nothing purposely left out of the documentary changes my opinion. They still have no DNA, no murder weapon, no idea how she was murdered, no motive (other than Avery being a creepy guy)...nothing. But they do have a lot of questionable evidence.
- Avery's animal cruelty was glossed over: Completely irrelevant. So, this proves he was an asshole. Being an asshole doesn't mean you're a murderer.
- Kratz claimed that Avery's DNA was found under the hood of Halbach's car: This is the only interesting thing left out. It is intriguing. But, given that there is very good evidence some evidence was planted, believing this was also planted isn't far-fetched.
- Kratz said Halbach's phone, camera, and PDA were found burned on Avery's property.
- He also said that Halbach's tooth was found in the fire pit. These things are exactly like the bones. There were plenty of questions surrounding the bones. Why would any of this evidence be different?
- Kratz claimed that ballistics found that the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery's rifle: The bullet that was found 8 months later. And, the gun was kept in the same evidence locker as the opened vile of Avery's blood? Very possible the gun was shot elsewhere, especially considering her DNA was found nowhere else.
- Avery stalked Halbach at her work (Autotrader), according to Kratz. "Stalked" is a controversial word, here. He answered the door wearing a towel, once. He requested her for shooting photos of the cars. He made her feel uncomfortable... intriguing, but not much substance to it.
- Avery called Halbach three times on the day she went missing: They were doing business together that day. He had every reason to call her.
- The third call, Kratz claims, was an alibi call deliberately made after Avery allegedly abducted her. An alibi call? Only if you believe the rest of the evidence. It could have been a "Thank You" call, for all anyone knows.
- While in prison, Avery allegedly told another inmate that he wanted to build a torture chamber. Completely inadmissible.
So, nothing purposely left out of the documentary changes my opinion. They still have no DNA, no murder weapon, no idea how she was murdered, no motive (other than Avery being a creepy guy)...nothing. But they do have a lot of questionable evidence.
Killing a pet intentionally is more than just "being an asshole". That combined with the torture chamber comment and the written threats against his ex-wife could be construed as establishing a pattern of violent behavior. Avery was no saint. And with his girlfriend locked up for DUI, he very well could have been stalking Halbach as a sexual desire - and maybe took it too far. Who knows? But the bottom line is that there isn't enough evidence to convict him, aside from the confession. There's no body. There's no weapon. And there's no motive. There's only opportunity and tainted evidence.
There's also the fact that the officer (Colbourn) had called in and identified the plates/car type of Halbach before it was actually reported "found".
He stated he was looking at the exact plates/car at that time.
That asshole Lenk lied about when he went to the salvage yard and never signed in.
Not to mention the entire premise is absurd. They basically said that he killed her (in the room or garage, their story changes), then put her in the trunk of her car sitting outside, then took her out of the trunk only to burn her at the pit directly behind his home, then decided to lazily leave the car on his own property with a few branches over it, instead of using the crusher that was on the property. And since there's no prints, they want you to believe that he did this while wearing gloves, yet someone still managed to bleed from his finger on very small, select spots of the car interior.
They also did not find a shred of the girl's DNA inside his home, anywhere, despite telling a story that he raped her, mutilated her, cut her throat, then shot her in the head.
He stated he was looking at the exact plates/car at that time.
That asshole Lenk lied about when he went to the salvage yard and never signed in.
Not to mention the entire premise is absurd. They basically said that he killed her (in the room or garage, their story changes), then put her in the trunk of her car sitting outside, then took her out of the trunk only to burn her at the pit directly behind his home, then decided to lazily leave the car on his own property with a few branches over it, instead of using the crusher that was on the property. And since there's no prints, they want you to believe that he did this while wearing gloves, yet someone still managed to bleed from his finger on very small, select spots of the car interior.
They also did not find a shred of the girl's DNA inside his home, anywhere, despite telling a story that he raped her, mutilated her, cut her throat, then shot her in the head.
So, the guy was falsely imprisoned for 18 years, finally had been allowed to taste a bit of freedom, was in the midst of suing his wrongdoers with a great legal team, had public support behind him, and was going to finally receive some financial compensation for his years of being framed, but instead said "F*ck it, my girlfriend is in jail for a little while, let's rape and butcher a woman in the most obvious, idiotic way possible"?
Here's another opinion for (probably shitty) lawyer and sports blogger Clay Travis:
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/on-making-a-murderer-011016
This excerpt from another article explains the *67:
"Kratz cites Halbach's October 10, 2005 visit to the property owned by Avery's family for a photo shoot for AutoTrader magazine: According to Kratz, Avery allegedly opened his door "just wearing a towel."
"She was creeped out [by him]," Kratz says by phone, later adding by email: "She [went to her employer and] said she would not go back because she was scared of him."
At 8:12 a.m. on Oct. 31, the day Halbach was killed, Kratz says Avery called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send "that same girl who was here last time." He says that Avery knew Halbach was leery of him, so he allegedly gave his sister's name and number to "trick" Halbach into coming.
"Phone records show three calls from Avery to Teresa's cell phone on Oct. 31," says Kratz. "One at 2:24 [p.m.], and one at 2:35 â both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn't know it him...both placed before she arrives.
"Then one last call at 4:35 p.m., without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up...so tries to establish the alibi call after she's already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn't need the *67 feature for that last call."
Then Travis opines:
"The documentary gave us no motive, strengthening the idea that Avery was framed. But with these added details that weren't included in the documentary it would seem that Avery's motivation was lust, he was attracted to Teresa, made advances, may have been rejected, raped and killed her. I believe that story. "
http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/on-making-a-murderer-011016
This excerpt from another article explains the *67:
"Kratz cites Halbach's October 10, 2005 visit to the property owned by Avery's family for a photo shoot for AutoTrader magazine: According to Kratz, Avery allegedly opened his door "just wearing a towel."
"She was creeped out [by him]," Kratz says by phone, later adding by email: "She [went to her employer and] said she would not go back because she was scared of him."
At 8:12 a.m. on Oct. 31, the day Halbach was killed, Kratz says Avery called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send "that same girl who was here last time." He says that Avery knew Halbach was leery of him, so he allegedly gave his sister's name and number to "trick" Halbach into coming.
"Phone records show three calls from Avery to Teresa's cell phone on Oct. 31," says Kratz. "One at 2:24 [p.m.], and one at 2:35 â both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn't know it him...both placed before she arrives.
"Then one last call at 4:35 p.m., without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up...so tries to establish the alibi call after she's already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn't need the *67 feature for that last call."
Then Travis opines:
"The documentary gave us no motive, strengthening the idea that Avery was framed. But with these added details that weren't included in the documentary it would seem that Avery's motivation was lust, he was attracted to Teresa, made advances, may have been rejected, raped and killed her. I believe that story. "
I guess a mystery fairy flew into the evidence room, opened the sealed container, used a needle to puncture the vile of Avery's blood, all for the purpose of making fairy blood cookies.
That's the only other plausible explanation for that, unless it was of course used by a cop who had access to the room and a need to replicate Avery's blood elsewhere.....
That's the only other plausible explanation for that, unless it was of course used by a cop who had access to the room and a need to replicate Avery's blood elsewhere.....
In theory it may make sense.
It all falls apart when you understand that there was not a shred of DNA evidence ANYWHERE! If a person brutally captures a person, ties them, rapes them repeatedly, cuts their neck with a blade, drags them through the house, shoots them in the head, etc you're going to have a shit ton of DNA. It would take them weeks to collect all of the NDA since it'd be so f*cking widespread.
Also, unless he'd be the first rape suspect in history to use a condom, they surely would have found DNA "in" her if she was raped.
But none of this was found. The entire DNA evidence in the case exists in the form of tiny blood spots inside the car and something on the hood. Which means it would have to be an Act of God cleanest rape/murder crime scene in history.
Well, we don't have any idea where the murder took place and her body was burned, so there's no way to do a rape kit.
Huh?
The Prosecutor explicitly said that Avery killed her in the garage. Of course he later said he and Dassey killed her in the bedroom. He didn't present it by saying "we don't know where she was killed"- he said it quite clearly according to his theory.
Either way, he didn't prove her DNA existed in either location. There's no DNA to prove that she even entered the house.
Speaking of DNA- her own DNA wasn't found on her key. The one that magically appeared on the 6th search of a tiny room, and just happened to be found by the local assholes. How would it be possible to not find her DNA on her own key but find Avery's?
Steve's attorneys talked about how they had ideas of who other suspects might be but never revealed them on the doc. Would be interested in that list.
Brendan's stepdad creeped me out the little bit he was shown.
Brendan's stepdad creeped me out the little bit he was shown.
Yes, the prosecutor said that, but that's just his theories. There's literally no evidence that a killing took place in either location.
This rather lengthy passage from Travis's article makes some good points.
"Now if I'm the defense attorney of an alleged or convicted murderer -- a role I've actually had in my life as a lawyer -- you can pick away at the evidence. The key may well have been planted -- in fact, I think it probably was. The bullet fragment being found months after the fact is suspicious. There not being any blood in the house or the garage doesn't make sense if Halbach was murdered there. The blood inside the car is suspicious. (But Kratz points out that there was also DNA found under the hood of the car that wasn't blood, a fact left out of the documentary).
But none of those things change the fact that a murder happened. Indeed, they are really just confusing details. Why did Avery ever need to get inside the car? Why does the car matter at all? In fact, why in the world would Avery have ever gotten inside the car? And why would he keep it on his lot? None of the details surrounding the car make sense, but do they really matter?
We know a woman was murdered and her bones turned up in a fire pit directly outside the home of the accused. And we know her car was there too. So we know that the woman arrived at the house on that afternoon and no one can prove she ever left. If Steven Avery didn't kill her, who did? And if she ever left his property, wouldn't someone have seen her or wouldn't she have contacted someone? If she never left his property then someone had to kidnap her and take her away, before returning her burned remains to the Avery home. Or someone else had to kill her on the Avery property without anyone in the Avery family realizing it.
Given these undisputed facts, the only real defense you have is that someone else killed her and the cops framed Avery.
Then you're faced with a problem, why would someone do that?
The Avery defense team's answer: Because they were afraid of the civil judgments that Avery might win in a trial that was still years away from going to court. Remember, the depositions were just taking place. The trial itself, if it ever went to trial, which is highly unlikely in a civil case, was years away. Even if their goal was to frame Steven, why do it now? They had years to wait.
More importantly, do you really think a couple of cops killed Teresa Halbach and planted her body and her car? Even Avery's attorney's didn't argue that. They argued that Teresa was found dead and the cops immediately decided to frame Steven for it. That's just not logical. So cops found Teresa dead and rather than pursue the case they immediately decided to frame Steven because of his lawsuit?
And even if they did, that's a tough conspiracy to pull off because the DAs have to not catch them and then the DAs have to prove to 12 jurors that Avery murdered Teresa beyond a reasonable doubt. In a much derided clip in the documentary they play Sheriff Petersen of Manitowoc County saying it would have been easier to kill Steven than frame him. While it's not what you'd want your sheriff to say in public that's 100% true. If silencing Steven was the goal, framing him for a murder he didn't commit is infinitely more difficult than just killing him.
Here's the other thing -- all of this requires that the police not pursue the real murderer. They have to have willfully ignored the fact that a 25 year old innocent victim was killed in order to frame Steven for it. They have to have found her dead body, burned her dead body, snuck her car onto the property, all to frame Steven Avery.
It just doesn't add up."
The documentary tries to suggest that maybe, perhaps, her ex-boyfriend might possibly be a suspect, but doesn't really expand on that.
It didn't stop the SAME sheriffs dept from not pursuing the real rapist in Avery's original case. So I don't think it's a stretch that they didn't pursue the real killer in Halbach's murder.
And that's what made me most sick about that first trial. Not only did Avery get sent to jail, but the guy that the police were told to look for went on to commit at least 2 more assaults.
AND THEN THE COURTS CLEARED THE DEPARTMENT OF ANY WRONGDOING OR NEGLIGENCE!!!
AND THEN THE COURTS CLEARED THE DEPARTMENT OF ANY WRONGDOING OR NEGLIGENCE!!!
There's no doubt that the cops and DAs were awful in this case. Hell, the prosecution in Orange County, FL had more on Casey Anthony and she walked. It just seems far more plausible to me that they're inept and incompetent, rather than involved in a conspiracy over a lawsuit, which they ended up settling a few months later.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
🚨 Conference Realignment Mega Thread: Clemson sues the ACC 🚨- Latest: Chase the Knight
-
-
