Making a murder

[Vander Blue Man Group]

First, you don't know what I'm basing my opinion on and it's based on more than just a documentary.

Second, as Vander pointed out, Avery was already wrongly convicted once, so why couldn't that happen again? I agree that if a jury convicts, it is extremely likely that the person is guilty....however looking at the evidence in totality here, I can't be nearly that conclusive.

Besides if juries conviction was the standard, why have an appeal system? And I have no idea why his appeals were rejected, may have nothing to do with his guilt or innocence

Another interesting fact shared in the documentary was that I believe on the first day of deliberation seven of the jurors thought he was innocent, three thought he was guilty, and two were undecided.  Of course, people can change their minds during the deliberation process but there is also the factor of the personalities involved.  Maybe a couple of those jurors had their minds made up before the trial and were extremely strong-willed and pushed those other nine jurors in a different direction.  It's just not as cut-and-dried as some of the posters here believe, IMO. 

Also, in regards to Avery specifically requesting her and blocking his number before calling her - being a creep perv doesn't necessarily make you a murderer.  Of course, it doesn't help either. 

[Lennys Tap]

Also, in regards to Avery specifically requesting her and blocking his number before calling her - being a creep perv doesn't necessarily make you a murderer.  Of course, it doesn't help either.

And don't forget a previous visit that creeped her out when he came to the door in nothing but a towel. Being a perv doesn't make you a murderer but when the object of your perversion ends up dead after you've made sure she shows up at your place it sure doesn't look good for you.

[Lennys Tap]

Second, as Vander pointed out, Avery was already wrongly convicted once, so why couldn't that happen again?

Is a guy who's already been hit by lightning once more likely to be hit by it again than anybody else?

If anything, I would think the fact that he'd already been unjustly convicted of a serious felony and then exonerated might work to his benefit. I'm sure the jurors knew it and might be more sympathetic. And the judge and prosecutors knew their every move would be even more scrutinized than usual.

[mu03eng]

Is a guy who's already been hit by lightning once more likely to be hit by it again than anybody else?

If anything, I would think the fact that he'd already been unjustly convicted of a serious felony and then exonerated might work to his benefit. I'm sure the jurors knew it and might be more sympathetic. And the judge and prosecutors knew their every move would be even more scrutinized than usual.

First lightening is arbitrary and without awareness so it is by it's nature random. Being wrongly convicted of two different crimes could go either way. People could be more on their toes to not let it happen again or there is incentive to "make this one stick". So I can't say whether it's more likely to happen twice or not, it's not statistically measurable.

Maybe I'm weird, but I'm guessing he probably did it but the police did plant evidence which taints the whole thing. I just can't get past the logic gap that requires Avery to be a forensic mastermind in one moment and an oblivious buffoon to evidence in another.

[Lennys Tap]

First lightening is arbitrary and without awareness so it is by it's nature random. Being wrongly convicted of two different crimes could go either way. People could be more on their toes to not let it happen again or there is incentive to "make this one stick". So I can't say whether it's more likely to happen twice or not, it's not statistically measurable.

Maybe I'm weird, but I'm guessing he probably did it but the police did plant evidence which taints the whole thing. I just can't get past the logic gap that requires Avery to be a forensic mastermind in one moment and an oblivious buffoon to evidence in another.

I would agree with the "make this one stick" angle if the cops/prosecution thought a guilty guy walked the first time. When an innocent man spent 18 years in the joint the first time I'd say it's advantage defendant.

I don't think it's weird at all to think he did it but the police acted improperly. Probably happens more often than we'd like to know.

[Benny B]

Is a guy who's already been hit by lightning once more likely to be hit by it again than anybody else?

Actually, I think it is, statistically... but that's probably because the majority of people who get struck by lighting twice (or more) have careers, lifestyles, hobbies, etc. that make them more likely to be struck by lightning anyway.

I know I'm speaking wayyyy too soon here, but 2.5 episodes in and I can say that all of you who are half-way or more through the series sound like you're focused on what you think is the A-Plot but is actually the B-Plot.  Honestly, who the f--- cares about 2005?  I'm not saying murdering Halbach is anything near justified, but what happened in 1985 (and again in 1995 or 1996) is the exponentially greater issue here... in fact, I would go so far as to say that if Avery wasn't convicted in 1985 - heck, even if he were released in 1995/6 - it's a pretty safe bet that Halbach is still out taking pictures today.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the last 8 episodes are merely fodder for the issue of the first two.  I hate to seem like I'm discounting the brutal murder of an innocent woman, but her death - by virtue of it being an indirect consequence of - is merely a distraction to a much greater injustice.

EDIT: After all, the title of the documentary is Making a Murderer, and nobody was made in 2005... it was all set in motion two decades prior.

Not only is my wife a civil prosecutor for the State of Illinois, my cousin is also a DA (far, far away from Manitowoc, thankfully).  What is so mind-boggling here (to me) is that two people who are extremely close to me don't even have the capability to ever even think about how they would pull something like this off if the situation arose... it's not that they don't have the resources or intellect to railroad someone if they wanted, but I suppose it's simply that they have a human conscience that precludes the "want" from ever manifesting itself.

The DA is our omega defense against police corruption (which is much more widespread than we think) in a given jurisdiction... and frankly, that's apparently too much power to give to one person.  As disgusting as the activites of Dvorak, Kocourek, Lenk and Colborn were... Vogel was - and remains - the ultimate evil.

[Sir Lawrence]

Keep in mind that of those 18 years, six were for a crime that had nothing to do with the wrongful conviction:

http://badgerdiggings.com/js-archive/unjust-jail-term-didnt-make-a-monster/

[Spotcheck Billy]

Keep in mind that of those 18 years, six were for a crime that had nothing to do with the wrongful conviction:

http://badgerdiggings.com/js-archive/unjust-jail-term-didnt-make-a-monster/

Nothing new there/ Yes Avery was no model citizen and coming from a small WI town myself I know how police can focus on certain individuals. Heck, they were following the actual rapist day to day in Avery's case. I had a friend with a suspended license back in around 1977 and the police would pull over the car even when friends were driving him around in it.

[rocket surgeon]

       ya know, avery and dassey may have done it, but i think the "establishment" was trying to bring it on home and count the basket, nail it, throw it down if you will

[Jay Bee]

I'm just pleased the White House has commented on the case.

Avery is a sick murderer. There are many dirty cops. The legal system has many flaws.

[Hards Alumni]

I'm just pleased the White House has commented on the case.

Avery is a sick murderer. There are many dirty cops. The legal system has many flaws.

White House was forced to respond.

[mu03eng]

I'm just pleased the White House has commented on the case.

Avery is a sick murderer. There are many dirty cops. The legal system has many flaws.

I will say this, and I don't want to turn this political...there's a whole wretched hive of scum and villainy for that....but Avery's guilt or innocence is a very distant concern with me.

I'm actually concerned with how the police and prosecution acted in this case and its not all that different than the types of things going on in Chicago and NYC, etc. Stuff that the BLM movement are protesting. I wish someone would make the connection between the two instead of carrying on about Avery. For me, it's another example of those in power abusing their power or not respecting the presumption of innocence that should be concerning.

[StillAWarrior]

I will say this, and I don't want to turn this political...there's a whole wretched hive of scum and villainy for that....but Avery's guilt or innocence is a very distant concern with me.

I'm actually concerned with how the police and prosecution acted in this case and its not all that different than the types of things going on in Chicago and NYC, etc. Stuff that the BLM movement are protesting. I wish someone would make the connection between the two instead of carrying on about Avery. For me, it's another example of those in power abusing their power or not respecting the presumption of innocence that should be concerning.

One of the things that stuck with me was one point in the pre-trial wrangling (dealing with whether the state would use the nephew's confession), the prosecutor made a comment about how the judge's decision might result in the state starting the trial "swimming upstream."  The defense attorney responded (paraphrasing), "With all due respect, the prosecution is supposed to be swimming upstream.  The current is what we call the presumption of innocence."  I thought it was a very good response to the prosecutor's comment.

[mu03eng]

One of the things that stuck with me was one point in the pre-trial wrangling (dealing with whether the state would use the nephew's confession), the prosecutor made a comment about how the judge's decision might result in the state starting the trial "swimming upstream."  The defense attorney responded (paraphrasing), "With all due respect, the prosecution is supposed to be swimming upstream.  The current is what we call the presumption of innocence."  I thought it was a very good response to the prosecutor's comment.

That quote really stuck with me as well.

[Benny B]

I will say this, and I don't want to turn this political...there's a whole wretched hive of scum and villainy for that....but Avery's guilt or innocence is a very distant concern with me.

I'm actually concerned with how the police and prosecution acted in this case and its not all that different than the types of things going on in Chicago and NYC, etc. Stuff that the BLM movement are protesting. I wish someone would make the connection between the two instead of carrying on about Avery. For me, it's another example of those in power abusing their power or not respecting the presumption of innocence that should be concerning.

Exactly.  The 2005 decision is irrelevant.  The problem is the actions of the county officials in 1985, and the question is to what extent did said actions influence the actions by such officials in 2005.

BLM is a very apropos comparison... their movement is based on the foundation that the deck has been stacked against minorities for a very long time, which is true.  The deck was stacked against Avery in 1985, and evidently, nobody's shuffled the cards since.

Though I think it's more likely than not that Avery killed Hallbach (or at the very least played a material role), there is a great deal of doubt in my mind.  I realize that's a sticky point for some people because it requires one to admit the reality that law enforcement could stage a murder, something most people reject.  But it certainly wouldn't be the first time law enforcement has staged a murder, it wouldn't even be the first time in the past year.  Heck, it wouldn't be the first time in the past 130 days that law enforcement staged a murder within 90 miles of Milwaukee.

[StillAWarrior]

Exactly.  The 2005 decision is irrelevant.  The problem is the actions of the county officials in 1985, and the question is to what extent did said actions influence the actions by such officials in 2005.

BLM is a very apropos comparison... their movement is based on the foundation that the deck has been stacked against minorities for a very long time, which is true.  The deck was stacked against Avery in 1985, and evidently, nobody's shuffled the cards since.

Though I think it's more likely than not that Avery killed Hallbach (or at the very least played a material role), there is a great deal of doubt in my mind.  I realize that's a sticky point for some people because it requires one to admit the reality that law enforcement could stage a murder, something most people reject.  But it certainly wouldn't be the first time law enforcement has staged a murder, it wouldn't even be the first time in the past year.  Heck, it wouldn't be the first time in the past 130 days that law enforcement staged a murder within 90 miles of Milwaukee.

I'm not convinced that the law enforcement would need to be involved in the murder if Avery didn't do it.  If, for example, Avery's other nephew and the brother in law (or was he just the mother's boyfriend?) did it, it would not be unthinkable that the sheriff's department might believe with every fiber of their being that Avery did it.  The body was found burned in a nearby quarry -- pretty damning evidence against the last person known to have seen her alive.  The vehicle was found at some undisclosed, nearby location.  If they were totally convinced that Avery did it, perhaps they would move bones to his fire pit, move the vehicle to his property, plant the key, the bullet and the DNA.  I'm not saying this happened, but it's a possibility that is far short of actually killing an innocent woman to frame Avery.  I also understand that this is wild speculation.  I think the defense worked hard to suggest that one or two people could have done this without the involvement of everyone else in the department or prosecution.

[NavinRJohnson]

Some of you could really benefit from this series...only four in, but writer is presenting an episode by episode debunking of the act of fiction these filmmakers put together.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.

[Skatastrophy]

Some of you could really benefit from this series...only four in, but writer is presenting an episode by episode debunking of the act of fiction these filmmakers put together.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.

Huh, the guy's a Marquette grad with a Law degree from UW-Madison. I assumed he was going to be some BS conservative blowhard because of the station he works for. I'll read up on his articles, thanks for the link!

[StillAWarrior]

Some of you could really benefit from this series...only four in, but writer is presenting an episode by episode debunking of the act of fiction these filmmakers put together.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.

I think Avery probably did it, and the right person is sitting in jail.  But you cannot say that "nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution" because the Manitowoc Sheriff's department was not supposed to be involved in the investigation.  And they were.  Intimately.  Virtually every significant piece of evidence was found by the Manitowoc Sheriff's department.  Had they stayed out of it -- like they said they would -- this documentary probably would not have even been made.  It certainly would not have gotten the attention that it got.  They brought this upon themselves.

[Hards Alumni]

Huh, the guy's a Marquette grad with a Law degree from UW-Madison. I assumed he was going to be some BS conservative blowhard because of the station he works for. I'll read up on his articles, thanks for the link!

I'm not sure that disqualifies him

[Spotcheck Billy]

Some of you could really benefit from this series...only four in, but writer is presenting an episode by episode debunking of the act of fiction these filmmakers put together.

http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/common-sense-central-37717/rebutting-a-murderer-episode-1-14260554/

Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.

after reading the 1st three rebuttals there isn't much there already not discussed in this thread, nothing that exonerates the Sheriffs Dept. or prosecutors, mainly just representing the opposite POV

[StillAWarrior]

after reading the 1st three rebuttals there isn't much there already not discussed in this thread, nothing that exonerates the Sheriffs Dept. or prosecutors, mainly just representing the opposite POV

I'll be looking at them, but after reading the first one, it seems only focused on explaining why Avery was a legitimate suspect for the rape.  Well, of course he was (just like he was a very good and legitimate suspect for the murder).  But that wasn't the issue.  The issue was that the police were so convinced immediately that Avery was their man, they ignored all other leads, other suspects and exculpatory evidence.  History has shown us that they were wrong.  In my mind, the entire point of the documentary is that they did the same thing in the second case.  They were immediately certain that Avery was the killer.  I suspect that they were right.  But the way they handled the investigation -- most notably the Manitowoc Sheriff being actively involved even though they said they would not be -- created the appearance that perhaps they were doing the same thing again.  I don't think they did -- there was far more evidence pointing to him and far less exculpatory evidence (there were only theories of what else "could" have happened, but not really any meaningful evidence suggesting that those things "did" happen).  But there's something to be said for conducting things -- especially a murder investigation -- in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of bias.

[NavinRJohnson]

I think Avery probably did it, and the right person is sitting in jail.  But you cannot say that "nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution" because the Manitowoc Sheriff's department was not supposed to be involved in the investigation.  And they were.  Intimately.  Virtually every significant piece of evidence was found by the Manitowoc Sheriff's department. 

Yeah, and? You a may not like it. Your "victim" Steven Avery may not like it, but how does that make any of that evidence in any way tainted or invalid? The documentary tries to paint it that way based on theories, speculation and innuendo, but what facts or evidence actually support it?

[keefe]

I'll be looking at them, but after reading the first one, it seems only focused on explaining why Avery was a legitimate suspect for the rape.  Well, of course he was (just like he was a very good and legitimate suspect for the murder).  But that wasn't the issue.  The issue was that the police were so convinced immediately that Avery was their man, they ignored all other leads, other suspects and exculpatory evidence.  History has shown us that they were wrong.  In my mind, the entire point of the documentary is that they did the same thing in the second case.  They were immediately certain that Avery was the killer.  I suspect that they were right.  But the way they handled the investigation -- most notably the Manitowoc Sheriff being actively involved even though they said they would not be -- created the appearance that perhaps they were doing the same thing again.  I don't think they did -- there was far more evidence pointing to him and far less exculpatory evidence (there were only theories of what else "could" have happened, but not really any meaningful evidence suggesting that those things "did" happen).  But there's something to be said for conducting things -- especially a murder investigation -- in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of bias.

Well said. 

[314warrior]

Some of you are clearly off the deep end with you fascination and desire to buy into the conspiracy theory (for reasons I will never understand). Basically, you want it to believe it and consequently are willing to take this odd documentary at face value, despite considerable evidence and background they conveniently left out that pretty clearly demonstrates that not only are the accused guilty, but also that nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution.

The documentary is not odd.  I thought it was well done.  The contemporaneous footage made it incredibly compelling.  Have you watched it?  Very few true crime documentaries have that type of access throughout a trial. 

You have noted that the filmmakers don't provide an inside view of the prosecution, and that is true.  However, the prosecution's narrative was being blasted out by media outlets across the state. The sensational media coverage, and particularly the Kratz press conference (which I remember seeing a clip of while I was at MU at the time) shaped public opinion of Avery in an incredibly powerful way.

In my view, the film included the strongest evidence from both sides and necessarily excluded other evidence.  There was no way to include everything into 10 hours.

Lastly, I have no idea how you can say "nothing untoward went on with the investigation/prosecution."  Again, have you watched Making a Murderer?  There are numerous examples of questionable conduct and not following policy or best practices.