Making a murder

[Lennys Tap]

Once you all finishe making a murderer , read this : http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php.

Intrigued by the show and even though I knew the filmmakers had an agenda I thought There was reasonable doubt regarding Steven and likely innocence for Brendon - until my daughter sent me this link. The doc left out a ton of stuff. New conclusion: cops may be bad, system may be flawed but Steven was guilty as charged and most likely so was his nephew.

[keefe]

Yeah, we are talking about a guy who had the fact that he did not own underwear entered into evidence in his rape trial.

I think pretty much any guy in Levis was hangin' loose throughout the '70's and'80's...

[Hards Alumni]

Once you all finishe making a murderer , read this : http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php.

Intrigued by the show and even though I knew the filmmakers had an agenda I thought There was reasonable doubt regarding Steven and likely innocence for Brendon - until my daughter sent me this link. The doc left out a ton of stuff. New conclusion: cops may be bad, system may be flawed but Steven was guilty as charged and most likely so was his nephew.

I'm pretty sure we went through most of the unmentioned evidence in the previous 3 pages.

[Lennys Tap]

I'm pretty sure we went through most of the unmentioned evidence in the previous 3 pages.

Fair enough, Hards, but this was the first time I saw all of the doc's omissions laid out together. Since then I've been alerted to even more. My conclusion? If you just watch "Making a Murderer" it looks like Dassey is innocent and Avery has at least reasonable doubt. But had I watched the actual trial and seen ALL of the evidence (that I've now seen), Avery is guilty and so probably is his nephew. Some police misconduct? Sure, probably was in OJ's case, too (which I watched pretty much gavel to gavel). When cops are sure they have their guy they sometimes do stupid, even criminal or immoral things. But I had no doubt that OJ slit two people's throats. And I think beyond a reasonable doubt Steven Avery killed Teresa.

[StillAWarrior]

Fair enough, Hards, but this was the first time I saw all of the doc's omissions laid out together. Since then I've been alerted to even more. My conclusion? If you just watch "Making a Murderer" it looks like Dassey is innocent and Avery has at least reasonable doubt. But had I watched the actual trial and seen ALL of the evidence (that I've now seen), Avery is guilty and so probably is his nephew. Some police misconduct? Sure, probably was in OJ's case, too (which I watched pretty much gavel to gavel). When cops are sure they have their guy they sometimes do stupid, even criminal or immoral things. But I had no doubt that OJ slit two people's throats. And I think beyond a reasonable doubt Steven Avery killed Teresa.

I think he probably did too.  Not sure if I think that beyond a reasonable doubt.  But I still have a problem with Dassey (full disclosure - I've only watched eight episodes...the Dassey trial is just beginning).  The main problem I have with Dassey's conviction (spoiler alert!) is that there is absolutely no way in hell the murder happened they way he described it.  None.  So I'm really struggling to understand how the kid gets convicted when it is clear that his confession was not supported by the evidence.  The only thing that I've heard from his confession that I think has an interesting tie in to the actual evidence was that he told them Avery popped the hood on the Rav4 and their was DNA found that supported that statement.  But the story that she was bound, raped and stabbed in the bedroom...I don't believe that happened.

[Henry Sugar]

We finished this just the other day. I also accidentally was aware of the Pajiba post with the additional information while watching the last six episodes, but still have reasonable doubt.

• At the least, Dassey was coerced into multiple confessions. Kachinsky and O'Kelly are terrible. Dassey got f*cked.
• Lenk and Colburn had to have planted the key, and it's inconceivable the key had none of Halbach's DNA
• It's awfully convenient that the only bullet with Halbach's DNA was /also/ found by Manitowoc County PD later in the case, had poor testing practices, and the entire sample was used up and cannot be re-tested. Where's the professionalism?
• If Avery did it, why is Halbach's blood in the RAV4?
• Avery is not some criminal mastermind that can fully clean up almost ALL the physical evidence tying him to the murder, and also simultaneously an idiot that leaves a key out, doesn't use a car crusher, and doesn't use a smelter.

I found the following links to be insightful:

http://decider.com/2015/12/31/the-5-best-making-a-murderer-fan-theories/

Thanks for this article. Very helpful. The popsugar article is even more thorough. "The German" theory is interesting.

http://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Making-Murderer-Theories-39585210?stream_view=1#photo-39585231

[mu03eng]

• Avery is not some criminal mastermind that can fully clean up almost ALL the physical evidence tying him to the murder, and also simultaneously an idiot that leaves a key out, doesn't use a car crusher, and doesn't use a smelter.

This, the cell phone records, and Colburns calling the plate in are the things I'm having trouble getting past to say Avery is guilty. (I'm only on episode 7). I don't know how you can advocate a theory that requires a person be simultaneously a diabolical genius and a raging idiot.

So he can clean up the bedroom where he and his nephew raped, slit the throat, and shot the victim leaving no trace but he leaves both his and her blood in the vehicle(while leaving no finger prints), but leaves the car easily discoverable and burns the body and possessions in multiple locations increasing the likelihood that someone will discover something?

Colburn calls in plates for a car he shouldn't know about and that's not weird? And her voicemail is full as of Halloween, the brother and/or ex-BF access the records/VM and suddenly the mailbox isn't full....but nothing was deleted?

It's all far more bizarre then I remembered. Not saying he didn't do it, I just don't see anyway you can convict beyond a reasonable doubt. And I definitely believe the police were up to some shady shiz

[NavinRJohnson]

Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.

Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.

[Strokin 3s]

We finished this just the other day. I also accidentally was aware of the Pajiba post with the additional information while watching the last six episodes, but still have reasonable doubt.

• At the least, Dassey was coerced into multiple confessions. Kachinsky and O'Kelly are terrible. Dassey got f*cked.

• Lenk and Colburn had to have planted the key, and it's inconceivable the key had none of Halbach's DNA

[/b]

• It's awfully convenient that the only bullet with Halbach's DNA was /also/ found by Manitowoc County PD later in the case, had poor testing practices, and the entire sample was used up and cannot be re-tested. Where's the professionalism?
• If Avery did it, why is Halbach's blood in the RAV4?
• Avery is not some criminal mastermind that can fully clean up almost ALL the physical evidence tying him to the murder, and also simultaneously an idiot that leaves a key out, doesn't use a car crusher, and doesn't use a smelter.

Thanks for this article. Very helpful. The popsugar article is even more thorough. "The German" theory is interesting.

http://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Making-Murderer-Theories-39585210?stream_view=1#photo-39585231

This is what gets me, she has had that key for what did they say 4 years, and it's got a cloth/nylon type attachment on it and there is none of her DNA anywhere on there?  That is just impossible.

[StillAWarrior]

Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.

Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.

Generally speaking, I agree with you.  And I certainly wouldn't necessarily say I'm coming down on the side of the film-makers, but I do have some doubts.  I recognize their bias.  But I think one fundamental difference between this case on the OJ case is that several of the same players were involved in a pretty egregious situation with Avery just a couple years earlier. My usual bias would be to totally doubt the police/prosecutorial misconduct allegation.  But in this case, I can't help but recall the prior conviction which I never would have believed.  So many problems in this case -- the ones that give me some level of doubt of Avery's guilt -- would have been avoided if the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department would have done what they said they were going to do:  stay out of the investigation.  Honestly, in light of the fact that Avery was predicting they would try to frame him even before they arrested him, I'm astounded that they kept involving themselves in the investigation.

I think the OJ case provides a very interesting comparison.  In my opinion and from what I've seen and read, there were far more questions about questionable police actions in this case.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.

Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.

Completely disagree. 

[Hards Alumni]

Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.

Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.

No.  Being 'around it while it was going on' makes you extremely biased.  Something like 93% of people thought Avery was guilty from the poll that the defense did when they took the case.

[NavinRJohnson]

No.  Being 'around it while it was going on' makes you extremely biased.  Something like 93% of people thought Avery was guilty from the poll that the defense did when they took the case.

Well, that's probably because he is guilty. Like I said, some of you folks are crazy about your conspiracy theories.

But hey, I'm just biased because I saw (all of) the coverage as it took place, but the folks who made and are buying into the documentary, of course are not. Good grief. Thanks for validating my point.

[MUsoxfan]

Well, that's probably because he is guilty. Like I said, some of you folks are crazy about your conspiracy theories.

But hey, I'm just biased because I saw (all of) the coverage as it took place, but the folks who made and are buying into the documentary, of course are not. Good grief. Thanks for validating my point.

I don't recall ever following the coverage of any murder trial where the media wasn't looking to sensationalize and make a defendant look as guilty as possible.

[Benny B]

Just started watching it tonight... the first episode was enough for my wife - a prosecutor herself (though not in Wis) - to be sickened and embarrassed to the point where I'm being left to watch the rest of the series alone.

And I can't wait to watch the rest of it... because then I get to ask her about how many innocent people she's gone after in her career.  Though the answer is going to be zero (she's a civil prosecutor, so innocence vs. guilt isn't really the question), it is going to be fun giving her sh/t for a while.

Needless to say, I'll be getting reacquainted with an old friend named PornHub over the next few weeks, but it's so going to be worth it.

[Hards Alumni]

Well, that's probably because he is guilty. Like I said, some of you folks are crazy about your conspiracy theories.

But hey, I'm just biased because I saw (all of) the coverage as it took place, but the folks who made and are buying into the documentary, of course are not. Good grief. Thanks for validating my point.

No, I'm calling you biased for making a judgement about something that you fully admit you don't have all of the information about.

You know, the very definition.

[Skatastrophy]

No, I'm calling you biased for making a judgement about something that you fully admit you don't have all of the information about.

You know, the very definition.

+1

[🏀]

My opinion, he definitely did it, but I couldn't convict him of it.

I also couldn't blame the jury for finding him guilty at the time. It appears the defense did a pretty lackluster job putting together their case as this documentary did a much better job, except for the whole leaving important information out.

There's also no doubt that the Manny Sheriff's department screwed up again, they should have stayed out of it. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, called in Calumet County, but still couldn't stay away. Idiots. This whole documentary is garbage if they stay away from the murder investigation.

[Strokin 3s]

My opinion, he definitely did it, but I couldn't convict him of it.

I also couldn't blame the jury for finding him guilty at the time. It appears the defense did a pretty lackluster job putting together their case as this documentary did a much better job, except for the whole leaving important information out.

There's also no doubt that the Manny Sheriff's department screwed up again, they should have stayed out of it. They did exactly what they were supposed to do, called in Calumet County, but still couldn't stay away. Idiots. This whole documentary is garbage if they stay away from the murder investigation.

To the contrary I think his defense was quite solid and did what they could.  You have to remember that everything included in the documentary is everything they could find.  The defense was limited to certain things that they could present in court.  There were some things that were deemed inadmissible.

[mu03eng]

Will never understand why people (including many here) are always so eager to believe conspiracy theories. More fun? More interesting? What? If you want to believe something, you are far more likely to believe it.

Based on the complete details of the case, and having been around while it was going on, if you come down on the side of the documentary makers, you are basically putting yourself in the same company as the small group of folks that think (thought) OJ didn't do it.

In your mind, could Avery be guilty but there still be a "conspiracy" to "enhance the evidence against him". Or a lack of judgement that prevented the police from looking at other suspects?

And even if Dassey and Avery are guilty....do you want your legal system to behave the way it did in this case(especially with a teenager who clearly has cognitive issues)?

[NavinRJohnson]

In your mind, could Avery be guilty but there still be a "conspiracy" to "enhance the evidence against him". Or a lack of judgement that prevented the police from looking at other suspects?

And even if Dassey and Avery are guilty....do you want your legal system to behave the way it did in this case(especially with a teenager who clearly has cognitive issues)?

Do I want a legal system that convicts men guilty of rape and murder? Yes I sure do. Never been a perfect system, and never will be. Which outcome are you happier with, OJ Simpson who nearly cut his wife's head off but was set free, or Avery who you seem to agree was guilty, and is currently sitting in prison for the crimes he committed? Same legal system, similar cases, but two extremely different outcomes. I haven't looked for data to back it up, but I have to believe guilty criminals not convicted outnumber innocent people wrongly committed by what, 1000:1? 10,000:1? How many rapists are walking around today that will never see the inside of a jail cell? Again, the same legal system. It is reprehensible to me how many people care more and get so up in arms about the extremely rare and (and usually wrong) suspected cases of improperly convicted criminals than they do about the actual victims of crime.

(and no, I do not concede any sort of conspiracy occurred - documentary presents crafted theories and suspicions, but nothing that should be considered proof)

[mu03eng]

Do I want a legal system that convicts men guilty of rape and murder? Yes I sure do. Never been a perfect system, and never will be. Which outcome are you happier with, OJ Simpson who nearly cut his wife's head off but was set free, or Avery who you seem to agree was guilty, and is currently sitting in prison for the crimes he committed? Same legal system, similar cases, but two extremely different outcomes. I haven't looked for data to back it up, but I have to believe guilty criminals not convicted outnumber innocent people wrongly committed by what, 1000:1? 10,000:1? How many rapists are walking around today that will never see the inside of a jail cell? Again, the same legal system. It is reprehensible to me how many people care more and get so up in arms about the extremely rare and (and usually wrong) suspected cases of improperly convicted criminals than they do about the actual victims of crime.

(and no, I do not concede any sort of conspiracy occurred - documentary presents crafted theories and suspicions, but nothing that should be considered proof)

I honestly don't know if he did it or not. And you are taking an ends justify the means approach, something I would never agree with. Additionally, you are basing your absolute conviction on news stories not actually being at the trial, how is that different or less biased then a documentary? Basically your argument is "I think he is guilty therefore anything that says he isn't can't be correct." Pretty myopic view.

[NavinRJohnson]

Basically your argument is "I think he is guilty therefore anything that says he isn't can't be correct." Pretty myopic view.

No. I'm saying I think he's guilty, so do police, prosecutors, and most importantly 12 jurors, not to mention the judge who handed down a sentence. You on the other hand are basing your opinion on the information hand picked and presented by 2 filmmakers.

I can't take an ends justify the means approach if I don't think anything untoward took place, now can I?

BTW, How'd his appeal go? appellate court in on the conspiracy too, eh?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

No. I'm saying I think he's guilty, so do police, prosecutors, and most importantly 12 jurors, not to mention the judge who handed down a sentence. You on the other hand are basing your opinion on the information hand picked and presented by 2 filmmakers.

This was also true when he was convicted of rape in 85.  I'm not saying he didn't do it - he certainly may have.  But even with knowledge of some of the information prosecutors used against him that was not presented in the documentary, I have a hard time seeing how someone can say he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon how the crime was presented in court.   

[mu03eng]

No. I'm saying I think he's guilty, so do police, prosecutors, and most importantly 12 jurors, not to mention the judge who handed down a sentence. You on the other hand are basing your opinion on the information hand picked and presented by 2 filmmakers.

I can't take an ends justify the means approach if I don't think anything untoward took place, now can I?

BTW, How'd his appeal go? appellate court in on the conspiracy too, eh?

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