Official "Making a Murderer" Thread

[Steve9347]

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?

he ran his cousin (the wife of a police office) off the road for telling people he was banging his wife on his front lawn.

 

ie - he f***ed with a cop

[Kyyle23]

he ran his cousin (the wife of a police office) off the road for telling people he was banging his wife on his front lawn.

 

ie - he f***ed with a cop

 

I understand that, but doesnt this seem to go a lot farther than that? Dude lost 18 years of his life, and then immediately (it appears) he is framed for murder?

[Harry Chappas]

he ran his cousin (the wife of a police office) off the road for telling people he was banging his wife on his front lawn.

 

ie - he f***ed with a cop

 

The guy that committed the first crime appeared more heinous than Avery.

 

[The Gooch]

Juror says the verdict was a compromise:

 

http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertainment/en...lFlowFB_CHBrand

[The Gooch]

Oh and an email response from everyone's favorite lawyer...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/making-murderer-pr...-233447676.html

[Steve9347]

I understand that, but doesnt this seem to go a lot farther than that? Dude lost 18 years of his life, and then immediately (it appears) he is framed for murder?

well, he lost 18 years of his life because f*** him he f***ed with a cop and he's a nobody. then he maybe got framed for murder (he probably did it just got more evidence planted) after he sued the cops for 36 million bucks and didn't let the story go away.

[Steve9347]

Oh and an email response from everyone's favorite lawyer...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/making-murderer-pr...-233447676.html

People are really gullible. That guy's job is to get a guilty verdict. The documentary was spun to be highly in favor of the defense. It was completely one-sided.

 

All of his points are completely accurate and had they been shared in the documentary, no one would be upset that Avery is in jail. The *67 s*** alone implicates Avery pretty well in my book.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I'm also torn on this. I think he definitely may have done it, but I think the investigation was terribly flawed and the prosecution did not at all prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I think it's clear as day the key was planted. (It was her key, except her DNA was not on it? And it wasn't found for days until Detective Lenk magically stumbled across it? Come on.) The juror statement about being fearful of consequences is something I also thought about while watching this. If you truly believed the police had a hand in this, or at the very least made it worse by manipulating evidence, why would you think that they wouldn't make life difficult for you afterwards if the verdict was not to their liking?

[Y2Jimmy0]

People are really gullible. That guy's job is to get a guilty verdict. The documentary was spun to be highly in favor of the defense. It was completely one-sided.

 

All of his points are completely accurate and had they been shared in the documentary, no one would be upset that Avery is in jail. The *67 s*** alone implicates Avery pretty well in my book.

 

 

This is not true. Regardless of whether he did it or not, they didn't present enough evidence to convict him. That's the problem.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Oh and an email response from everyone's favorite lawyer...

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/making-murderer-pr...-233447676.html

 

 

And this is the filmmakers' rebuttal to Kratz.

 

http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murderer-f...-his-own-facts/

Edited January 5, 2016 by Y2JImmy0

[The Gooch]

People are really gullible. That guy's job is to get a guilty verdict. The documentary was spun to be highly in favor of the defense. It was completely one-sided.

 

All of his points are completely accurate and had they been shared in the documentary, no one would be upset that Avery is in jail. The *67 s*** alone implicates Avery pretty well in my book.

 

While I agree that the documentary was one-side, I also can't say that I can chalk up all this backlash to people being gullible. It's not open and shut in my book. If it was then:

 

1. why did cops feel the need to plant evidence...which they definitely did

 

2. directly after the trial, the jury who watched the entire thing with all of the evidence, were majority-wise in the opinion that he was innocent at the start of deliberations? Or at least that they could not presume him guilty. I've heard from 2 jury members(1 from the doc, the other in the link I provided a few posts ago) that the majority was swayed by a few individuals to rule him guilty

 

3. The way evidence was found and the search was done was very sketchy throughout the documentary.

 

*67 does not implicated him as the murderer in my opinion. If you think it does, I feel sorry for any defendant that has you as one of their jury members. I'm not saying he is innocent, but I can't declare him guilty either based on this trial and evidence.

[Rowand44]

People are really gullible. That guy's job is to get a guilty verdict. The documentary was spun to be highly in favor of the defense. It was completely one-sided.

 

All of his points are completely accurate and had they been shared in the documentary, no one would be upset that Avery is in jail. The *67 s*** alone implicates Avery pretty well in my book.

This is silly. As I've said before, I lean towards Steven being guilty but to call people gullible for not thinking the prosecution presented a strong enough case is dumb.

[maggsmaggs]

This is not true. Regardless of whether he did it or not, they didn't present enough evidence to convict him. That's the problem.

But the prosecution did present sufficient evidence to convict. That's why his appeals were denied. I guarantee you he argued, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. I decide criminal cases on appeal for a living and about 50% of them are sufficiency of the events cases. Without a doubt, there was sufficient evidence. You can't reverse a case like this under a sufficiency of the evidence review.

Edited January 5, 2016 by maggsmaggs

[Buehrle>Wood]

I understand that, but doesnt this seem to go a lot farther than that? Dude lost 18 years of his life, and then immediately (it appears) he is framed for murder?

I think there was lot of motivation. You had the road rage incident and general dislike for the "low-life" Averys. Sheriff owning a rival scrap yard to theirs. But definitely the biggest would be the litigation that was ongoing from Steven Avery's wrongful conviction suit, which as the doc noted, could find individuals themselves liable. Once he got charged with murder, he quickly settled one case for much needed money and government compensation was no longer an option. A very was poison at that point.

[Buehrle>Wood]

People are really gullible. That guy's job is to get a guilty verdict. The documentary was spun to be highly in favor of the defense. It was completely one-sided.

 

All of his points are completely accurate and had they been shared in the documentary, no one would be upset that Avery is in jail. The *67 s*** alone implicates Avery pretty well in my book.

Funny because the defense isn't happy some of that didn't make the documentary. The bone stuff for example was some of the defense's strongest arguments that this was a frame job.

 

It was one sided, but it does sound like the most prosecutor's most focused on points were all in the documentary.

[The Gooch]

http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/06/steven-avery...teresa-halbach/

[The Gooch]

And the attorneys make their points post-documentary on Megyn Kelly. http://uproxx.com/tv/megyn-kelly-making-a-murderer-lawyers/

 

[Kyyle23]

They are filing an appeal, based on new testing. Should be interesting to see how that goes, considering that everyone is really watching now

[StrangeSox]

how the hell is Brendan in jail, and why isn't just about everyone involved on the prosecution side including the judge in jail?

[Harry Chappas]

I just saw that Steve Avery's first wife is married to Brendan Dassey's father. You know, the guy that was married to Steve Avery's sister.

 

Also the first six years of the first sentence was for the assault on his sister (or cousin whatever it was) that was kind of brushed over in episode one.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Harry Chappas

[SnB]

how the hell is Brendan in jail, and why isn't just about everyone involved on the prosecution side including the judge in jail?

The brendan verdict is the one that really shocked me. How in the world do you convict that kid?

[Jenksismyhero]

Alright, i'm way late to the party, but I finally finished this. Here's my opinion: no way i'd convict either person, especially Brendan. For Steve's case, I totally buy that the cops wanted to ensure a guilty verdict so they planted some of the evidence. How else to explain the key, the lack of blood anywhere in the garage but finding a magic bullet, the suspect blood in the car (the puncture wound and broken seals on Avery's blood vial), etc. I could maybe buy that Avery was stupid enough to kill her and put the car in his lot...I guess, though that doesn't seem reasonable to me (he had the crusher and could have at least hid the car better). But that still doesn't account for the fact that the evidence doesn't really support the state's contention that he killed her in the garage. The big wtf questions to me are:

 

1) why did Colborn call in Teresa's plates before she was reported as missing? And how did he know it was a Toyota Rav 4?

 

2) why isn't there SOME blood SOMEWHERE in the garage? They find the bullet there but no blood anywhere? What?

 

3) why is Avery's blood in the car but no fingerprints? And why is his blood in the car to begin with? I could see maybe near the ignition if his hands were bloody and he was moving the car, but why in the trunk? And why wasn't Teresa's blood anywhere? I don't lend much credibility to the FBI's testing that that blood could not have come from the vile because of the missing chemical. Defense had a rebuttal to that with their chemist expert who said thats because they either didn't find it or it wasn't there. That left a door open.

 

4) What's the motive? I know you don't have to prove this but there needs to be SOME explanation for why Avery would decide to forgo his tens of millions of dollars he's going to get from the county and instead kill this person and then be maybe the dumbest murderer in history in the way that he tried to cover it up. None of that makes sense at all.

 

5) The *67 stuff is questionable but not really persuasive. So he's a creep, doesn't make him a murderer. Katz saying she was afraid of him doesn't really jive with one of the first things we heard in the documentary - her voicemail to Avery that morning indicating that she would be out there to take pictures of the van.

 

There are more but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

 

With Brendan's case, Jesus. What a tragedy. Allowing evidence obtained by his negligent legal representation, the jury believing the completely unfounded story that Teresa was tied up and raped and then stabbed... I mean that to me is the winner. You have this forced confession from this kid about an event that has zero basis in reality. The state has no proof that it happened that way, yet the jury still buys it? What? I think his biggest problem was that he performed TOO well during his time on the stand. He should have been dumber or not testified at all. And when they asked him why he lied to the cops, he shouldn't have answered "i dont know" he should have said because i didn't know what the heck i was saying and i just wanted to go back to school.

[Jenksismyhero]

But the prosecution did present sufficient evidence to convict. That's why his appeals were denied. I guarantee you he argued, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. I decide criminal cases on appeal for a living and about 50% of them are sufficiency of the events cases. Without a doubt, there was sufficient evidence. You can't reverse a case like this under a sufficiency of the evidence review.

 

I disagree, but reasonable minds can differ. Since you do criminal review work, what did you think of the arguments that he wasn't given a fair trial? Seemed really odd to me that they moved the venue, but still used a judge from manitowac county and jurors from manitowac county. If it was unfair to hold it in a manitowac courtroom, shouldn't they have used a different pool of jurors and judge?

[StrangeSox]

5) The *67 stuff is questionable but not really persuasive. So he's a creep, doesn't make him a murderer. Katz saying she was afraid of him doesn't really jive with one of the first things we heard in the documentary - her voicemail to Avery that morning indicating that she would be out there to take pictures of the van.

 

If you actually look at what happened there, you find that once again Kratz is full of s***. The judge didn't let in the evidence about her finding him "creepy" because the entirety of it was her making a joke to someone in her office about him answering the door in a towel and her saying "ew." She never said she was frightened or that she didn't want to go there. And as far as calling her that day, she was 30 minutes late to her appointment. Kratz was loaded up on prescription pain killers he was abusing the entire time and shouldn't have any credibility whatsoever.

 

On a somewhat related note, why is it legal for AD's to prosecute two different people for the same crime with completely different and even contradictory theories of how that crime happened?

[StrangeSox]

3) why is Avery's blood in the car but no fingerprints? And why is his blood in the car to begin with? I could see maybe near the ignition if his hands were bloody and he was moving the car, but why in the trunk? And why wasn't Teresa's blood anywhere? I don't lend much credibility to the FBI's testing that that blood could not have come from the vile because of the missing chemical. Defense had a rebuttal to that with their chemist expert who said thats because they either didn't find it or it wasn't there. That left a door open.

 

That FBI guy was pretty terrible. I couldn't believe that an allegedly trained chemist would say under oath that he could make definitive statements about samples he did not test. The FBI crime labs have been caught fabricating/"misinterpreting" evidence on a wide scale before, too. He was also the guy in charge of testing the OJ Simpson evidence (lol), and he was the one who tested and testified that Dr. Sybers had poisoned his wife (spoiler: he didn't, the FBI's test was bulls***).