Official "Making a Murderer" Thread

[BigHurt3515]

Got through Making a Murderer in 2 days. Incredibly fascinating, I'm interested to hear everyone's theories who have seen it.

 

I don't know for a fact that Avery is guilty but I do know there is not enough evidence for him to be guilty. I think someone else murdered the girl (maybe a relative), the county police found out she was missing and then found out she was at Avery's property that day they did everything they could do to get him convicted. Just my theory

[Rowand44]

I don't know for a fact that Avery is guilty but I do know there is not enough evidence for him to be guilty. I think someone else murdered the girl (maybe a relative), the county police found out she was missing and then found out she was at Avery's property that day they did everything they could do to get him convicted. Just my theory

Ya, I'm obviously not sure who did it but the police definitely planted some things, that seems pretty obvious to me.

 

It might be one of the most out there theories but the brother and ex boyfriend seemed shady as f*** to me through out the whole thing.

[BigHurt3515]

Ya, I'm obviously not sure who did it but the police definitely planted some things, that seems pretty obvious to me.

 

It might be one of the most out there theories but the brother and ex boyfriend seemed shady as f*** to me through out the whole thing.

 

I have seen people on the reddit thread that mentioned that

[Jose Abreu]

Ya, I'm obviously not sure who did it but the police definitely planted some things, that seems pretty obvious to me.

The fact that you say you not doing it is "obvious" leads me to believe that it was you who did it! /sarcasm

Edited December 30, 2015 by Jose Abreu

[maggsmaggs]

I found the postconviction portion of the documentary so fascinating. I work as an attorney in the Illinois Appellate Court, and I frequently read and rule on appeals for postconviction relief. It is incredibly hard to ever get relief in postconviction petitions, as demonstrated by having Northwestern's Center for Wrongful Convictions working your case.

[Rowand44]

Ok, so just finished Making a Murderer. My thoughts:

 

It was incredibly interesting, but the basic fact remains: What theory makes sense of who actually killed her? And if the police were in on this, how far did they go to set up Steve? All of the evidence of a police set up at the Avery residence seemed to be plausible. I bought almost all of it. But I still don't grasp the actual killing. Who killed her, and when? They just happened to have a fire that night, and it just so happened that her body was burned? I just was never able to put that into my head, that is was an entire set up.

 

But even with all that said, I really don't even know what my gut is telling me. In Serial, I was pretty sure Adnan did it, but there probably wasn't enough evidence to convict. With this one, I'm just not sure.

I think there's a decent chance that Steven did kill her especially after I continue to read up on everything. That said, there's so much sketchy evidence and shady people attached that I really don't know.

[The Gooch]

I think there's a decent chance that Steven did kill her especially after I continue to read up on everything. That said, there's so much sketchy evidence and shady people attached that I really don't know.

 

Anything particular that you read? I'm interested in seeing a view outside of the documentary's.

 

Evidence-wise I don't think there should have been enough there to convict him, but there aren't any other suspects or even leads it seems (that could be because of shady cops too). I think a jury needs to see either scientific evidence that suggests you are not involved or at least have another suspect outside of your inner circle to have a chance. Some things that stuck out:

 

-How did they clean up so well? There are no traces of her dna or blood anywhere, just bone fragments spattered around the property. This is especially important in Brendan's case, as they convicted him on his version of the story, which I don't believe they could have cleaned up well enough.

 

-It was pretty clear that blood sample was tampered with. That shady test could have saved the day, but really hurt the defense in the end even though it was probably not conclusive.

 

-The cops definitely planted that key, it's sad how afraid the defense is to accuse the police (and rightfully so).

 

- At this point, I believe he is innocent based on a few subjective items. He maintains his innocence just like the first time, but is going through extraordinary lengths to prove it and get out. Even now that it seems hopeless. I don't think the evidence in the trial proved him innocent, but was definitely not enough to prove his guilt.

 

-Finally, how do they not see Brendan is learning-disabled teen? There is no evidence to suggest his involvement and those interrogations with him just lead him into confessing.

 

And as an extra, I'm really glad I don't live in small Wisconsin town. The whole court process reminded me of the scenes in "My Cousin Vinny"

Edited December 31, 2015 by The Gooch

[Rowand44]

Was getting annoyed having to deal with the spoiler tags so let's discuss in here...

[Rowand44]

Gooch, to answer your question, I can't even tell you all the things I've read, I'm pretty obsessed with the whole thing at this point. Tony's link is definitely a good one to look at.

 

It'd be nice if they could ever get those phone records and deleted voicemails that the brother and/or ex messed with, that could really be the key to everything.

[flavum]

At the very least, I hope they get new trials. Personally, I think if Steven did it, he would have eventually admitted it to his family and not let Brendan also take the fall.

 

It's a sickening story, with sickening people in positions of power.

 

What bothers me the most is the lack of investigating basically anyone else, either on the Avery compound or people in Teresa's life.

 

And then there is the possibility that Lenk and Colborn planned the whole thing for months, and executed it. Seeing Colborn walk both of them chained up after convictions seemed like spiking the football. Sick.

[maggsmaggs]

Anything particular that you read? I'm interested in seeing a view outside of the documentary's.

 

Evidence-wise I don't think there should have been enough there to convict him, but there aren't any other suspects or even leads it seems (that could be because of shady cops too). I think a jury needs to see either scientific evidence that suggests you are not involved or at least have another suspect outside of your inner circle to have a chance. Some things that stuck out

 

I am going to disagree with that. There was clearly sufficient evidence to convict, which is why the conviction was held up on appeal. Although the case was pretty much entirely circumstantial, that is often enough to convict. Because the jury did not buy the police-planting-evidence defense theory, what you had evidence wise was very damning.

 

You had her key in Avery's home, you had her car on Avery's land, you had her bones burnt on Avery's land where her Palm Pilot and camera were also found, and you had his DNA in the car. There was also a lot of evidence the documentary, conveniently, left out that was in the article posted above. Now, many things in that article were excluded at trial as being unfairly prejudicial to Avery, but there was still significant evidence omitted by the documentary.

 

[Rowand44]

I am going to disagree with that. There was clearly sufficient evidence to convict, which is why the conviction was held up on appeal. Although the case was pretty much entirely circumstantial, that is often enough to convict. Because the jury did not buy the police-planting-evidence defense theory, what you had evidence wise was very damning.

 

You had her key in Avery's home, you had her car on Avery's land, you had her bones burnt on Avery's land where her Palm Pilot and camera were also found, and you had his DNA in the car. There was also a lot of evidence the documentary, conveniently, left out that was in the article posted above. Now, many things in that article were excluded at trial as being unfairly prejudicial to Avery, but there was still significant evidence omitted by the documentary.

I think people would argue that most of the evidence you're talking about is beyond shady and not convincing at all, that's what makes this case so intriguing.

 

The two things that make me lean Avery being the murderer more than anything is the non blood dna under the hood of the car and the fact that he was basically stalking her for a while.

 

Still, none of this really adds up to me and I'm interested to see what comes out here in the next few months/years.

Edited January 1, 2016 by Rowand44

[BigHurt3515]

At the very least, I hope they get new trials. Personally, I think if Steven did it, he would have eventually admitted it to his family and not let Brendan also take the fall.

 

It's a sickening story, with sickening people in positions of power.

 

What bothers me the most is the lack of investigating basically anyone else, either on the Avery compound or people in Teresa's life.

 

And then there is the possibility that Lenk and Colborn planned the whole thing for months, and executed it. Seeing Colborn walk both of them chained up after convictions seemed like spiking the football. Sick.

 

After they found out Avery was involved there was no way they would investigate anyone else

[maggsmaggs]

I think people would argue that most of the evidence you're talking about is beyond shady and not convincing at all, that's what makes this case so intriguing.

 

The two things that make me lean Avery being the murderer more than anything is the non blood dna under the hood of the car and the fact that he was basically stalking her for a while.

 

Still, none of this really adds up to me and I'm interested to see what comes out here in the next few months/years.

I am talking legally. Legally, there was undoubtedly sufficient evidence. And 12 jurors, who heard all the evidence in its entirety, found that he was guilty. Not one juror who actually voted found reasonable doubt. That is pretty convincing to me.

[Brian]

I'm drained.

[Harry Chappas]

I think the thing that really got me was when the replaced juror stated that jurors just kind of gave in and voted guilty.

 

The original straw vote of 7 not guilty, 3 guilty and 2 undecided was very telling as well.

[Y2Jimmy0]

I am talking legally. Legally, there was undoubtedly sufficient evidence. And 12 jurors, who heard all the evidence in its entirety, found that he was guilty. Not one juror who actually voted found reasonable doubt. That is pretty convincing to me.

 

 

How nobody thought that there was "reasonable doubt" is absurd though. Do I think that the police orchestrated the whole thing? No. I don't know "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they didn't though.

[The Gooch]

How nobody thought that there was "reasonable doubt" is absurd though. Do I think that the police orchestrated the whole thing? No. I don't know "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they didn't though.

 

I don't think they orchestrated it, but it would not surprise me at all if one or two of them had her killed and framed him. It was all too convenient. He is smart enough to clear almost all of the blood and dna evidence (which would be almost impossible according to the expert on the documentary), but he is dumb enough to leave her car on the property with his blood in it and bone fragments in several places? And he does this right before he is about to get a big pay day from the Sheriff's department?

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I don't think they orchestrated it, but it would not surprise me at all if one or two of them had her killed and framed him. It was all too convenient. He is smart enough to clear almost all of the blood and dna evidence (which would be almost impossible according to the expert on the documentary), but he is dumb enough to leave her car on the property with his blood in it and bone fragments in several places? And he does this right before he is about to get a big pay day from the Sheriff's department?

 

A pay day (he asked for $36M) that was more than what the county took in revenue-wise as well.

[Steve9347]

Just plowed through this. The whole thing is really terrifying.

 

Not sure where I stand - I think he did it when you add in the extraneous evidence not reported in the documentary. This type of s*** is annoying, why on Earth didn't the doc cover everything? Just as the cops had an agenda and very clearly planted evidence, the documentary film makers also had an agenda.

[Y2Jimmy0]

On the Today Show this morning, the filmmakers said that one of the jurors admitted that they believed that Avery was indeed framed but handed down the Guilty verdict because of fear for their well being in that county.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/making-murde...WQDBHNlYwNzYw--

[bmags]

Just plowed through this. The whole thing is really terrifying.

 

Not sure where I stand - I think he did it when you add in the extraneous evidence not reported in the documentary. This type of s*** is annoying, why on Earth didn't the doc cover everything? Just as the cops had an agenda and very clearly planted evidence, the documentary film makers also had an agenda.

 

I watched first episode. Production wise it is so 90s crime doc, and it's "having a bunch of authoritative voices telling you what's real" took me out of it. Obviously, crime stories like this are a thing now, but Serial was so much better at telling an unfolding story. SHame they couldn't get an ending.

[Steve9347]

I watched first episode. Production wise it is so 90s crime doc, and it's "having a bunch of authoritative voices telling you what's real" took me out of it. Obviously, crime stories like this are a thing now, but Serial was so much better at telling an unfolding story. SHame they couldn't get an ending.

The first episode isn't the real story. That's all back story - so you're missing out on what you crave which is included.

[Harry Chappas]

Brendan Dassey is somehow the forgotten part of this whole story.

 

He is the one that basically had no legal representation and was screwed over royally by those that originally represented him. He was also convicted of a greater number of charges.

 

Avery also had top notch attorneys compared to Dassey.

 

The lack of DNA evidence in the trailer is the compelling thing in this case. Then the testimony of the niece and Dassey swing me back the other way that something did happen.

 

I think the forensic investigation was a joke as well.

 

Here is the Avery story from my point of view on the blood and key. All he has to say is that her car would not start after she took the photos. He cut his hand working the garage. He took her car into the garage to jump start it and put the key in his pocket. The key had no other keys so it could have been a spare. I found the fact there were no other keys on the chain odd. Also the fact her DNA was not on the key was even more odd. She had that key with her but never used it.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

the thing that hangs me up on the whole case is why? What did Avery do that made them want to bury him so deep in the first place? I get it, he is a hillbilly and an easy target. He robbed a place, he set a cat on fire, he got into a scuffle with a sheriffs girl. He isnt a smart guy, he does dumb things, i get that. This seems to go above and beyond putting him in his place, this is a vendetta that has gone way higher than the local police department. It just doesnt make sense to me

 

Ha, Nancy Grace is slamming the documentary as a miscarraige of justice. Must not have liked how she was portrayed