Netflix's Docuseries Making a Murderer

a reply to: lovebeck

This is a really amazing documentary, but just watching the first episode I have to ask. This is awful. I almost don't want to ask.

If you look at his mother and imagined her with pointy ears and a green skin tone... doesn't she look exactly like Yoda? There are plenty of scenes where I can't focus on the story cause she looks just like Yoda. It's uncanny.

My husband watched this series and thinks he is innocent. I happened to be in the room and saw bits and pieces. One of the things that stuck out to me was that this woman was supposed to be handcuffed to the bed, but looking at the evidence pictures of the bed showed absolutely no scuffing on the wood at all.

I didn't watch it enough to see if they discussed the mattress at all? Did he get a new mattress? Cause if you stabbed someone or shot them while in bed, it's going to seep into the mattress. I'm assuming they didn't find her blood on the mattress since they were saying that they found absolutely no blood in the house at all.

a reply to: SkipperJohn

Got similar thouhts. Make you think why they deleted those messages before she was found and a reason to doing it at all unless there were a death threath. I wonder were the system so consentrated on Avery so much they didn´t even look into evidence which points to another direction even when there is a reason to believe so, like those guys hacking on her voicemail and deleting messages.

Im still watching, on episode 5... One question that burns with my so far is this... At what point does the judge, state or someone higher take over and make the case completely independent of the local LE.... The only thing i see that has very little doubt is the lack of integrity in that department. Given the publicity of the case, it seems easy for the world to see that there is more than enough evidence to see this man is not getting anything romotley close to a fair trial.

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
I just finished this last week my thoughts

Found the car in the front of a 40+ Acer lot.
Found keys after multi searches with do DNA from the victim.

Brother deleting victim voicemails.

Ex boyfriend hacking her password for cell records.

My thoughts. Her brother and her ex b/f are involved.

Amazing that the woman who found the car was lent a camera by the boyfriend....AND that she was the only one who las lent this photo.

I think it is very possible that he planned it and killed her, knowing the PD would zero in on SA. Makes more sense than SA killing her for no reason, right?

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
My husband watched this series and thinks he is innocent. I happened to be in the room and saw bits and pieces. One of the things that stuck out to me was that this woman was supposed to be handcuffed to the bed, but looking at the evidence pictures of the bed showed absolutely no scuffing on the wood at all.

I didn't watch it enough to see if they discussed the mattress at all? Did he get a new mattress? Cause if you stabbed someone or shot them while in bed, it's going to seep into the mattress. I'm assuming they didn't find her blood on the mattress since they were saying that they found absolutely no blood in the house at all.

You didn't miss that, the prosecution just glossed over all of that info.

I'm interested in knowing if a regular old Bon fire could destroy a body to that degree. But, of course they figured out she was shot, from bone fragments.

Truly, it's a WTF? Situation all around!

originally posted by: swimmer15
Im still watching, on episode 5... One question that burns with my so far is this... At what point does the judge, state or someone higher take over and make the case completely independent of the local LE.... The only thing i see that has very little doubt is the lack of integrity in that department. Given the publicity of the case, it seems easy for the world to see that there is more than enough evidence to see this man is not getting anything romotley close to a fair trial.

They don't...Pay close station to who the judge is during his first appeal.

It's unreal.

a reply to: lovebeck

The lady who found the car was the victims 2nd cuz and a private pi. But the truth is the defense created enough reasonable doubt both people should be free. Look at the juror who left and what he said. Very tanted case

One episode left to watch. Here are few thoughts about the case.
DA had a very weak case, everything DA had ( which is pretty much nothing ) was outplayed by defence. Defence lawyers on Avery´s case did excellent job even they faced some hostility from FBI ( not testing all the blood samples from EDTA and actually denying possibility to testing them at the first place when defence asked ) and when DA asked them to test EDTA test was suddently available within couple of week.

We need to ask what is played behind "Avery"-actual case. Avery settling to 400k from earlier conviction after he served 18 years in jail being innocent to the crime. 400K is ridiculously low sum of money when someone has lost 18 years of their lives and Avery´s original appeal was over 30 million. That is a lot of money and state didn´t want to pay. Reputation of police was already ridiculed and in bad light.. Suddenly there is a victim ( i don´t think police killed her but saw opportunity to put in jail someone they already hated and family history is not so clean ) and bits and pieces evidence is placed in Avery´s property. Who murdered Teresa Halback was never really investigated so who ever did it is still propably walking free. Just like in first case Avery had which he was innocent, case which never went through proper investigation.

Jurors were from same county ( i believe this is the most awful mistake in this whole case ) of course you might think that there are both sides of people, those who actually like Avery´s because they don´t give a rat´s behind to social status and class awereness Manitowoc town has and those who are blue collar people( upper class) had their thoughts already made up against Avery´s. So basicly Avery family was the lowest class in the area and they did decent living with their crap yard which itself was a worth of 500k for such a small area.

Family history of Avery family is not so shiny, they were in multiple troubles done by Steven´s brothers sexual abuse etc criminal actions. So can one apple be any different than a rest of them? This is possibly what juror had wondered in their minds. Without having jurors in the same county where all of this happened we might have had different verdict.

I hope this case will be opened again..

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
a reply to: lovebeck

The lady who found the car was the victims 2nd cuz and a private pi. But the truth is the defense created enough reasonable doubt both people should be free. Look at the juror who left and what he said. Very tanted case

It's still fishy. The fact that a PI was one of the ones who found the car makes it more so.

I found it strange, the camera lending. It's like he KNEW they'd find it in there...

I agree, he should've never been convicted, let alone be charged. I like the fact that the juror who was excused for the family emergency kind of started advocating for SA. That says a lot.

a reply to: dollukka

I agree, his attorneys did an excellent job defending him. It really was money well spent.

There was so much reasonable doubt it's unreasonable.

I couldn't help but notice a lot of similarities to the West Memphis Three railroad job, among many differences of course. But many parts are uncanny.

• Blatant coercion by the cops to get a false confession from a mentally challenged kid.

• Small, poor town that gets thrown into the spotlight and all the middle and high schools become rumorville. Kids saying all kinds of ridiculous and untrue stuff to try to get a piece of the spotlight.

• Small town DAs and Judges trying to use the spotlight to further their political careers.

• Incompetent, inexperienced investigators that absolutely botch evidence.

• A county trying to save their a$$ from a multi million dollar law suit.

• In Brendan's case, incompetent public defenders that couldn't get their client off even though there was absolutely zero physical evidence against them.

• The media is essentially a tool of the prosecution that convicts before the trial even starts. Leaving virtually no chance at a fair trial.

• Proof of investigators tampering with evidence.

• The state focusing so hard on who they want or think it to be, so they fail to look seriously into other leads or possibilities.

These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure I could find many more similarities if I watch it again.

And another sililarity to the West Memphis case: It doesn't take a genius to see what happened here.. unless you are somehow emotionally invested in it so much that your judgement is clouded.

a reply to: lovebeck

Avery's lawyers did a good job, but Brendan's public defenders were just brutal.

Hey, here's a brilliant idea:

Let's put this poor mentally challenged child that couldn't handle the pressure of being coerced by cops in front of a jury to decide the fate of his life. Im sure he will handle the pressure so much better than before.

What a joke. Anytime you have absolutely no physical evidence or motive against you and you get convicted, it probably means you got some horse crap public defenders.

I feel horrible for this poor kid!

Oh my f ing god, I don't even know where to start, I found myself thinking several times throughout my binge watching that this can't be real, that there's no way that the corruption could run so deep.

How the hell did the the jury start as a 3 vote guilty, 7 votes not guilty and 2 undecided, to him being convicted?

Why in the world didn't Steven Avery testify? He was adamant throughout that he was not guilty, what could the prosecution have caught him up in if he was innocent? The documentary never touches on the reason why Steven didn't testify, why? It plants the seed of doubt when you don't want to shout from the rooftops how innocent you are. Even Brendan got on the stand, and that kid is a hot mess!

a reply to: jaws1975

Just my thoughts but think Steven didnt take the stand because he knew he didnt have a rock solid alibi... I was wondering why as well but then thinking about it, what would he be able to say to add to his defense? Maybe his defense asking clarification questions like where was the blood, explain the bullet etc, but his responses would have needed to be smart and a bit witty to poke holes in the way they were mishandled... Prosecuter would have showed Steven has no alibi and he wouldnt have had a very good argument... I cant believe they didnt look hard at the brother in law Scott Tadych and Bobb Dassey. My initial theory is they did it, seen cops were looking very hard at Steven and took advantage... The lE on every level showing a lack of ethics is the most disturbing part of this story..not a single one showed any effort to ensure he had a fair trial.
Im still trying process this whole thing and make sense of it, right now i am kindof compairing it to examples where reasonable doubt played a factor like Casey Anthony which had alot less doubt than this one did. Justice system definetly failed Steven, even if one were to think he did it, i dont think anyone can honestly say he got a fair trial. To make it worse Denny was just railroaded from start to finish.
I think this documentory may have given me PTSD.

ftpcontent.worldnow.com...

you have to read this, Yikes! A lot of priors on these people.

a reply to: ditchweed

As is always the case in these botched (intentional or unintentional) cases. They are so set on pinning it on the person they think or want to have done it that they absolutely blow any opportunity to look seriously into other leads.

I don't wanna sound too redundant here, but once again it's another page from the West Memphis case. In that case, once competent investigators looked at the evidence, it's started pointing to one of the step father's and ended any doubt of the accused innocence. Unfortunately, because it's 20 years later (in the avery case, 10) it's gonna be much harder to get substantial evidence against the actual killer. And of course that's the last thing the state wants because it means they're on the hook for a multi million dollar lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment.

Tragedy on all sides!

originally posted by: swimmer15
a reply to: jaws1975

Maybe his defense asking clarification questions like where was the blood, explain the bullet etc, but his responses would have needed to be smart and a bit witty to poke holes in the way they were mishandled... .

That definitely needed to be brought into light, but not with avery on the stand. If his defense is true then he would simply not know where the bullet came from and obviously there was no blood because it didn't happen. I don't think he would have anything to gain by being on the stand to talk about that.

Smart lawyers don't put their client on the stand unless it's absolutely necessary. And why those joke public defenders that put Brendan on the stand should be delivering pizzas.

a reply to: Reflection

I get the rationale for not testifying, but that doesn't mean that a jury won't see it as a sign of guilt.

a reply to: Reflection

Yeah i agree that Steven shouldnt been on stand, think had little to nothing to add and just risk looking worse. The bullet i find fishy as hell, im no coroner, pathologist nor am i a forensic scientist.... I am a 11 year military vet and have a lifetime of shooting experience... Another thing that sticks with me is the bullet... From hunting experience my knowledge of ammunition and a quick search to check myself, i thought it unlikely and now know 22 rounds rarely make an exit wound. i dont think its possible they would have found a bullet from the murder unless it was at the murder scene or in the body, and it most likely would have been fragmented. So in order for it to be in the garage it would have had to be placed there, or there would be blood evidence in the garage.. What do you all think?