Making a murder

[StillAWarrior]

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?

My victim?  Are you serious?  Not sure why you're being such an ass about this.  I've said repeatedly that Avery probably did it and the right guy is sitting in jail.  That's not inconsistent with saying that the Manitowoc department screwed up.  I'm not sure why that's hard for you to admit or understand.  Our criminal justice system allows defendants to escape conviction by trying to create reasonable doubt.  They don't necessarily have to prove anyone else did it.  Avery's lawyers tried, but failed in this tactic.  As a result, he's in prison for the rest of his life.  I'm not suggesting that he should be pardoned or released.

I never said that it made the evidence tainted or invalid.  It simply raises questions.  They were stupid and their stupidity has caused some people to question their actions.  There is nothing wrong with questioning their actions.

[NavinRJohnson]

  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.

Here's the problem, the "appearance of bias" you refer to is the invention of two filmmakers. Prior to December 18, 2015 (I think that was the release date), there was no appearance of bias in anyone's mind (including the convicted rapist murders who know what they did).

Had they told the complete story, the way many are debunking their nonsense now, there would be no appearance of bias or any story in that story...of course, it also never would have seen the light of day on Netflix, because nobody would care enough to watch it.

[314warrior]

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.

This is exactly right.  How screwed up does a department have to be to make the exact same mistake against the exact same person at an incredibly critical time.  By mistake, I mean woefully botch an investigation by focusing on one suspect and ramming forward against that person without blinders on.  They were getting sued for $36 million, they had just been deposed in the case and came out looking pretty terrible, and don't forget, the person they should have convicted in 1985 raped again.  It was a disgusting miscarriage of justice, and they never learned anything from it.  Such hubris.

The Manitowoc Sheriff's office should have been the most invested in making sure the process ran smoothly, but they screwed things up.  They should have never been on the Avery property.  They should have allowed the scene to be processed properly by outsiders as was agreed to, yet they kept finding the critical pieces of evidence. The stakes were high and they doubled down on their bumbling ways.  The Sheriff and Kratz did not do right by Theresa Halbach's family.  They left the door open for this to come back up.

[StillAWarrior]

Here's the problem, the "appearance of bias" you refer to is the invention of two filmmakers. Prior to December 18, 2015 (I think that was the release date), there was no appearance of bias in anyone's mind (including the convicted rapist murders who know what they did).

Had they told the complete story, the way many are debunking their nonsense now, there would be no appearance of bias or any story in that story...of course, it also never would have seen the light of day on Netflix, because nobody would care enough to watch it.

I disagree.  There was concern about the appearance of bias from the very beginning.  Why do you think the Manitowoc Sheriffs department decided that they would not be involved in the investigation?  They knew that there would be allegations that they had a conflict of itnerest and that if they were involved there would be potential for an appearance of bias.  It was a very wise decision.  Then they totally disregarded that decision.  The result:  the appearance of bias that they hoped to avoid when they made their initial decision.  They made a good decision; they should have stuck with it.

That doesn't mean Avery is innocent.

[314warrior]

Here's the problem, the "appearance of bias" you refer to is the invention of two filmmakers. Prior to December 18, 2015 (I think that was the release date), there was no appearance of bias in anyone's mind (including the convicted rapist murders who know what they did).

Had they told the complete story, the way many are debunking their nonsense now, there would be no appearance of bias or any story in that story...of course, it also never would have seen the light of day on Netflix, because nobody would care enough to watch it.

The prosecution narrative was the dominant one in the media at the time.  It started with that Kratz press conference that biased everyone in the state!  I sure remember it.  The filmmakers are balancing the scales and asking people for a second look.  I seriously can't believe you don't find any of their evidence suggestive of reviewing what you read/ heard at the time. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

The prosecution narrative was the dominant one in the media at the time.  It started with that Kratz press conference that biased everyone in the state!  I sure remember it.  The filmmakers are balancing the scales and asking people for a second look.  I seriously can't believe you don't find any of their evidence suggestive of reviewing what you read/ heard at the time.

It's because his mind is made up.  I watched the documentary without any recollection of this case so I was able to view it without any preconceived notions.  As I've said a number of times before, Avery certainly may have done it.  However, questioning how the case was handled and the existence of reasonable doubt does not automatically paint someone as an Avery supporter or him as a victim.   

Unless you are willfully ignoring it, I have a hard time seeing how the documentary did not raise serious questions in terms of the handling of the case, of the Manitowoc involvement, and of some of the evidence presented.  As some others have posted, it requires you to believe that Avery was both an idiot (leaving the RAV4 key in his bedroom) and a criminal mastermind (removing all traces of DNA in his bedroom and garage based on how the murder was portrayed).  A whole lot doesn't add up. 

[Eldon]

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.

My thoughts exactly.

[Henry Sugar]

Good interview with the directors

My favorite quote

We would encourage anyone who is taking what Ken Kratz says at face value to take that information and claims of evidence and go back to the transcripts. Go to any part of the public record, and check what he's saying.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/11/10748138/netflix-making-a-murderer-review-interview

[🏀]

I disagree.  There was concern about the appearance of bias from the very beginning.  Why do you think the Manitowoc Sheriffs department decided that they would not be involved in the investigation?  They knew that there would be allegations that they had a conflict of itnerest and that if they were involved there would be potential for an appearance of bias.  It was a very wise decision.  Then they totally disregarded that decision.  The result:  the appearance of bias that they hoped to avoid when they made their initial decision.  They made a good decision; they should have stuck with it.

That doesn't mean Avery is innocent.

+1.

Doesn't mean he's innocent, but doesn't mean he's guilty either way.

[Henry Sugar]

And Evidence left out of "Making a Murderer" that looks good for Steven Avery.
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-pro-steven-avery-list-what-was-left-out-makin-230634

I know this has already been posted, but for the sake of full context, here's evidence left out of "Making a Murderer" that looks bad for Steven Avery.
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

[keefe]

More than sufficient reasonable doubt.

The real issue is what in the hell is going on in the Manitowac County Sheriff's Department? They make the Keystone Cops look like Scotland Yard.

[brewcity77]

Watching the documentary, reading additional evidence, and following the story at the time, I have no idea who killed Teresa Halbach. Could be Avery, could be his brother, could be her ex-boyfriend, could be the creepy German, could even be Manitowoc police.

That said, I have very little doubt that Manitowoc police framed Steven Avery for the crime. He may very well have killed her, but I am convinced they did their part to help ensure a conviction.

Completely within the realm of possibility that Steven Avery both committed and was framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach.

[keefe]

Watching the documentary, reading additional evidence, and following the story at the time, I have no idea who killed Teresa Halbach. Could be Avery, could be his brother, could be her ex-boyfriend, could be the creepy German, could even be Manitowoc police.

That said, I have very little doubt that Manitowoc police framed Steven Avery for the crime. He may very well have killed her, but I am convinced they did their part to help ensure a conviction.

Completely within the realm of possibility that Steven Avery both committed and was framed for the murder of Teresa Halbach.

I am in the same space as you.

If justice were to be served there would be a hard look at how the prosecution establishment behaved throughout the entire matter. I would include Kachinsky and his bone-headed investigator in that review since they were clearly working against their client.

There are several more criminals in Manitowac who need some down time from society.

[Benny B]

I am in the same space as you.

If justice were to be served there would be a hard look at how the prosecution establishment behaved throughout the entire matter. I would include Kachinsky and his bone-headed investigator in that review since they were clearly working against their client.

There are several more criminals in Manitowac who need some down time from society.

Add me to the guest list at your party.  Whether Avery is guilty or not, there should be others going to jail, regardless.

Colborn should be doing a nickel for felony misconduct and felony obstruction. Kocourek and Vogel should probably be doing a dime for the same with an added conspiracy multiplier.  As to Lenk, Kusche, Dvorak and Peterson, I'm not sure their acts rise beyond professional malfeasance to criminal misconduct, but they should at least be stripped of their rank & service time (i.e. pension credit) retroactively to the dates of their malfeasance.

[NavinRJohnson]

Add me to the guest list at your party.  Whether Avery is guilty or not, there should be others going to jail, regardless.

Colborn should be doing a nickel for felony misconduct and felony obstruction. Kocourek and Vogel should probably be doing a dime for the same with an added conspiracy multiplier. 

Ok, Mr. Prosecutor, consider me one of 12 jurors and please make your case for the above. make sure I understand the relevant laws, and provide the specific proof and evidence that they violated them, beyond a reasonable doubt. Quick note, theories and speculation are neither proof nor evidence.

[Benny B]

Ok, Mr. Prosecutor, consider me one of 12 jurors and please make your case for the above. make sure I understand the relevant laws, and provide the specific proof and evidence that they violated them, beyond a reasonable doubt. Quick note, theories and speculation are neither proof nor evidence.

If you know what exculpatory evidence is, then you'll know where this is going. If not... look it up if you want, but either way, I'm not going to prove anything to you because your mind is already made up.

To be clear, I'm not talking about 2005... I'm strictly talking 1985 here.

[🏀]

Ok, Mr. Prosecutor, consider me one of 12 jurors and please make your case for the above. make sure I understand the relevant laws, and provide the specific proof and evidence that they violated them, beyond a reasonable doubt. Quick note, theories and speculation are neither proof nor evidence.

Since you bring up 12 jurors, how do 7 jurors leave the courtroom and their initial lean is not guilty and then four days later all 7 have flipped?

[NavinRJohnson]

Since you bring up 12 jurors, how do 7 jurors leave the courtroom and their initial lean is not guilty and then four days later all 7 have flipped?

So what, they were in on the grand conspiracy too? I don't know any more than you do. Better questions..who cares? What's the difference? What matters is their final decision. If it was six would that make it better? How about five? What do you think they were doing for four days, playing checkers? Jurors change their minds all the time, that's why it's called deliberation. What's your point?

[🏀]

So what, they were in on the grand conspiracy too? I don't know any more than you do. Better questions..who cares? What's the difference? What matters is their final decision. If it was six would that make it better? How about five? What do you think they were doing for four days, playing checkers? Jurors change their minds all the time, that's why it's called deliberation. What's your point?

That's an insanely high pre-deliberation number to flip. That's why.

It's cool dude, you got your mind made up we get it. Regardless, Zellner's going to get her day in court and I'll bet a Powerball winner that Avery walks free again.

[NavinRJohnson]

I'll ask yet again, where is the evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, any evidence that proves that Avery either A) is not guilty, B) was framed by the authorities, or C) both. I've seen the theories and speculation, but nobody has can seem to provide anything the constitutes proof or evidence.

And yes, I do have my mind made up. Why? because the evidence...eye witness accounts, physical evidence, DNA, etc. says he's guilty. So say I, and so said 12 of Steven Avery's peers. Yet, so many here and elsewhere,  who were nowhere near the actual trial, after watching a TV show 10 years later, consider themselves qualified to say that at best there should be reasonable doubt, and at worst he is not guilty and was framed by law enforcement.

But hey, I'm on open minded guy. Point me to some actual evidence that supports the theories and speculation an obviously biased TV show presented, that seemingly intelligent and rational people have inexplicably chosen to buy into, and maybe I can be convinced.

[NavinRJohnson]

That's an insanely high pre-deliberation number to flip. That's why.

Compared to what? How long have you been a trial lawyer and jury consultant? You have as much knowledge on the topic as I do. Besides even if you're right, it's completely irrelevant.

Regardless, Zellner's going to get her day in court and I'll bet a Powerball winner that Avery walks free again.

Please count me in on that action.

[classof2k]

Since you bring up 12 jurors, how do 7 jurors leave the courtroom and their initial lean is not guilty and then four days later all 7 have flipped?

No comment on the Avery case, but having served on a jury this doesn't surprise me.  Plus, if it was 7-5 either 7 need to change or 5 need to change.

[🏀]

No comment on the Avery case, but having served on a jury this doesn't surprise me.  Plus, if it was 7-5 either 7 need to change or 5 need to change.

In a murder case, it's very unlikely to have a number that high. Even more weird considering the oddities surrounding this case.

I believe it was 7 nots, 3 guilty and 2 undecided.

[NavinRJohnson]

In a murder case, it's very unlikely to have a number that high.

Source? (Seriously, what's your source on that statement?)

[MUsoxfan]

I'll ask yet again, where is the evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, any evidence that proves that Avery either A) is not guilty, B) was framed by the authorities, or C) both. I've seen the theories and speculation, but nobody has can seem to provide anything the constitutes proof or evidence.

And yes, I do have my mind made up. Why? because the evidence...eye witness accounts, physical evidence, DNA, etc. says he's guilty. So say I, and so said 12 of Steven Avery's peers. Yet, so many here and elsewhere,  who were nowhere near the actual trial, after watching a TV show 10 years later, consider themselves qualified to say that at best there should be reasonable doubt, and at worst he is not guilty and was framed by law enforcement.

But hey, I'm on open minded guy. Point me to some actual evidence that supports the theories and speculation an obviously biased TV show presented, that seemingly intelligent and rational people have inexplicably chosen to buy into, and maybe I can be convinced.

How does "being near the trial" make your opinion any more relevant than someone in China?

And aren't most, if not all news programs, papers, magazines "near the trial" especially biased towards the prosecutors version of events?