'Making a Murderer"

CharmedPam · January 2016

*edit* This link will have spoilers

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial

1. It's people. Consider the source.
2. I'm actually only on ep 5. I didn't binge watch this but I also can't stay away from this thread. lol

RomanceManaged · January 2016

SO many great thoughts on here! I love that the conversation keeps going, very awesome.

Theres so much evidence and points to this case, I think its hard to exactly say 100% innocent, or guilty. I read an article today that my local news station shared with a press release from the PD. They stated the docuseries was to create sympathy for Steven, and left out a lot of facts. I'll be intersted for sure to read that. I still hold fir however that the PD did plant or tamper with some of the key evidence.

kimmiinthemitten · January 2016

marriedhamstermom said:

DH and I finished the series this weekend. Honestly I still have a lot of the same opinions as I stated above and I realize they aren't the popular opinion. I feel like and have read articles stating that the documentary was quite 1 sided and that they didn't display all of the evidence the state had just what the defense had arguments against. I feel like that has to be the case because I can't see 12 reasonable people believing there was no reasonable doubt. I'd be really interested to see what was left out of the documentary because while I liked it and found it really interesting i didn't like that it seemed like it had an agenda to free Steven and Brendan and bash law enforcement rather then provide both sides like I felt the podcast Serial did.

I also disagree with everyone bashing Brendan's first lawyer. His first lawyer's tactic was to plead guilty, blame it all on Steven's influence, and get a deal. To do that Brendan had to confess and show that he was sorry for what he did and that he was forced to by Steven. Was this the best route? I'm not sure, I don't think anyone is without all of the evidence. I think since there were already taped confessions by the police it was probably the easiest route and the most likely to not involve serious jail time. What hurt Brendan was when he/his mom decided he didn't want to make a plea deal in which case yea the lawyer's actions hurt his overall trial where he claimed he was innocent. I don't agree with how the police got his first confession though and do feel like he was either not involved or not to the extent he said he was.

Brendan's first lawyer had the results of his psychological exam...he has an IQ of 73, he's the kid in school who has his tests read out loud to him because his reading comprehension is so low. Len just lost a primary election to be DA. He wanted more camera time and to be the first guy to score a deal out of the Avery case for his next election and nothing else. I want to meet him so I can punch him in the face with a chainsaw.

I just finished episode 8 and read most of the articles about the excluded evidence and here are my thoughts:
1. Of course the prosecution is going to argue with this, it makes the entire judicial and enforcement arm of a small rural area look horrible. They even tried using the same court to suppress the videos used in the series, and the same judge that presided over the Avery case wouldn't allow it.
2. The tablet and phone in the burn pit doesn't surprise me. If you're getting rid of the body why keep those?
3. I am curious to learn more about "The German" whose wife found bloody underwear and bones in her home that the police refused to investigate "because they already found the killer."
4. Brendan's brother and stepdad are shady as fuck.
5. I'm pretty convinced he's innocent. Did he threaten violence to his ex wife, yes? Is the cat thing scary and creepy? Yes. But he doesnt have the IQ to commit a murder and cover it up to the extent they claimed he did. He burns the body and sells the gun but hides the car under a couple branches?
6. A juror just admitted to vote trading and feeling intimidated because 2 of the jurors have relatives on the PD. Pair this with the dismissed juror who said he had 7 not guilt votes and you have yet another reason to call a mistrial.

lembaslover · January 2016

kimmiinthemitten said:

marriedhamstermom said:

DH and I finished the series this weekend. Honestly I still have a lot of the same opinions as I stated above and I realize they aren't the popular opinion. I feel like and have read articles stating that the documentary was quite 1 sided and that they didn't display all of the evidence the state had just what the defense had arguments against. I feel like that has to be the case because I can't see 12 reasonable people believing there was no reasonable doubt. I'd be really interested to see what was left out of the documentary because while I liked it and found it really interesting i didn't like that it seemed like it had an agenda to free Steven and Brendan and bash law enforcement rather then provide both sides like I felt the podcast Serial did.

I also disagree with everyone bashing Brendan's first lawyer. His first lawyer's tactic was to plead guilty, blame it all on Steven's influence, and get a deal. To do that Brendan had to confess and show that he was sorry for what he did and that he was forced to by Steven. Was this the best route? I'm not sure, I don't think anyone is without all of the evidence. I think since there were already taped confessions by the police it was probably the easiest route and the most likely to not involve serious jail time. What hurt Brendan was when he/his mom decided he didn't want to make a plea deal in which case yea the lawyer's actions hurt his overall trial where he claimed he was innocent. I don't agree with how the police got his first confession though and do feel like he was either not involved or not to the extent he said he was.

Brendan's first lawyer had the results of his psychological exam...he has an IQ of 73, he's the kid in school who has his tests read out loud to him because his reading comprehension is so low. Len just lost a primary election to be DA. He wanted more camera time and to be the first guy to score a deal out of the Avery case for his next election and nothing else. I want to meet him so I can punch him in the face with a chainsaw. So even if he was a terrible douche bag and had no plans on saying Brendan was innocent if he had made a plea deal like this lawyer suggested he'd have less jail time then he currently has and would have been better off...

I just finished episode 8 and read most of the articles about the excluded evidence and here are my thoughts:
1. Of course the prosecution is going to argue with this, it makes the entire judicial and enforcement arm of a small rural area look horrible. They even tried using the same court to suppress the videos used in the series, and the same judge that presided over the Avery case wouldn't allow it. You can't fit a multi-week trial in a 10 episode series... really less than a 10 episode series because the first one was the first time Avery was convicted the last 2 were after the trial. So a multi-week case was covered in 7 hours and they didn't leave anything out?
2. The tablet and phone in the burn pit doesn't surprise me. If you're getting rid of the body why keep those?
3. I am curious to learn more about "The German" whose wife found bloody underwear and bones in her home that the police refused to investigate "because they already found the killer."
4. Brendan's brother and stepdad are shady as fuck.
5. I'm pretty convinced he's innocent. Did he threaten violence to his ex wife, yes? Is the cat thing scary and creepy? Yes. It's not just scary and creepy it's murder and wrong. A lot of serial killers started out by harming animals. But he doesnt have the IQ to commit a murder and cover it up to the extent they claimed he did. Have they tested his IQ? I saw Brendan's but not his... He burns the body and sells the gun but hides the car under a couple branches?
6. A juror just admitted to vote trading and feeling intimidated because 2 of the jurors have relatives on the PD. Pair this with the dismissed juror who said he had 7 not guilt votes and you have yet another reason to call a mistrial. If this is true then these jurors failed their civic duty and the reason there wasn't the mistrial is on them... Jurors are vetted before being selected so if there was a conflict of interest the defense should not have allowed them to be jurors.

All I'm saying is it's ridiculous that people think they can watch a 10 hour show and then call for and sign petitions to pardon a man who was convicted of murder. I think he should not be pardoned without a new trial and that the only way he should get a new trial is if new evidence is found that points towards his innocence and/or another killer.

PamBeesly524 · January 2016

marriedhamstermom said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

marriedhamstermom said:

DH and I finished the series this weekend. Honestly I still have a lot of the same opinions as I stated above and I realize they aren't the popular opinion. I feel like and have read articles stating that the documentary was quite 1 sided and that they didn't display all of the evidence the state had just what the defense had arguments against. I feel like that has to be the case because I can't see 12 reasonable people believing there was no reasonable doubt. I'd be really interested to see what was left out of the documentary because while I liked it and found it really interesting i didn't like that it seemed like it had an agenda to free Steven and Brendan and bash law enforcement rather then provide both sides like I felt the podcast Serial did.

I also disagree with everyone bashing Brendan's first lawyer. His first lawyer's tactic was to plead guilty, blame it all on Steven's influence, and get a deal. To do that Brendan had to confess and show that he was sorry for what he did and that he was forced to by Steven. Was this the best route? I'm not sure, I don't think anyone is without all of the evidence. I think since there were already taped confessions by the police it was probably the easiest route and the most likely to not involve serious jail time. What hurt Brendan was when he/his mom decided he didn't want to make a plea deal in which case yea the lawyer's actions hurt his overall trial where he claimed he was innocent. I don't agree with how the police got his first confession though and do feel like he was either not involved or not to the extent he said he was.

Brendan's first lawyer had the results of his psychological exam...he has an IQ of 73, he's the kid in school who has his tests read out loud to him because his reading comprehension is so low. Len just lost a primary election to be DA. He wanted more camera time and to be the first guy to score a deal out of the Avery case for his next election and nothing else. I want to meet him so I can punch him in the face with a chainsaw. So even if he was a terrible douche bag and had no plans on saying Brendan was innocent if he had made a plea deal like this lawyer suggested he'd have less jail time then he currently has and would have been better off...

I just finished episode 8 and read most of the articles about the excluded evidence and here are my thoughts:
1. Of course the prosecution is going to argue with this, it makes the entire judicial and enforcement arm of a small rural area look horrible. They even tried using the same court to suppress the videos used in the series, and the same judge that presided over the Avery case wouldn't allow it. You can't fit a multi-week trial in a 10 episode series... really less than a 10 episode series because the first one was the first time Avery was convicted the last 2 were after the trial. So a multi-week case was covered in 7 hours and they didn't leave anything out?
2. The tablet and phone in the burn pit doesn't surprise me. If you're getting rid of the body why keep those?
3. I am curious to learn more about "The German" whose wife found bloody underwear and bones in her home that the police refused to investigate "because they already found the killer."
4. Brendan's brother and stepdad are shady as fuck.
5. I'm pretty convinced he's innocent. Did he threaten violence to his ex wife, yes? Is the cat thing scary and creepy? Yes. It's not just scary and creepy it's murder and wrong. A lot of serial killers started out by harming animals. But he doesnt have the IQ to commit a murder and cover it up to the extent they claimed he did. Have they tested his IQ? I saw Brendan's but not his... He burns the body and sells the gun but hides the car under a couple branches?
6. A juror just admitted to vote trading and feeling intimidated because 2 of the jurors have relatives on the PD. Pair this with the dismissed juror who said he had 7 not guilt votes and you have yet another reason to call a mistrial. If this is true then these jurors failed their civic duty and the reason there wasn't the mistrial is on them... Jurors are vetted before being selected so if there was a conflict of interest the defense should not have allowed them to be jurors.

All I'm saying is it's ridiculous that people think they can watch a 10 hour show and then call for and sign petitions to pardon a man who was convicted of murder. I think he should not be pardoned without a new trial and that the only way he should get a new trial is if new evidence is found that points towards his innocence and/or another killer.

Agreed. People are getting caught up in the sensationalism in it and forgetting that we only saw what the documentary wanted us to see. I'm not saying that he's guilty/innocent or that there wasn't some gross police misconduct involved, but we weren't in the courtroom and we didn't see ALL of the evidence presented.

and @marriedhamstermom I believe they did reveal Steve's IQ and it was also very, very low.

ETA spelling.

kvruns · January 2016

PamBeesly524 said:

and @marriedhamstermom I believe they did reveal Steve's IQ and it was also very, very low.

ETA spelling.

I think that Stevens was 70 or 71, I think it was at the very beginning of the series.

kimmiinthemitten · January 2016

@PamBeesly524 It was also in the 70's, they did mention it in the first episode.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I'm not willing to put my name on any petition, but after watching the first 8 episodes and reading a bunch of the transcripts, I just don't believe you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery was the murderer.

I also think this show did a great job of showing how fucked up our judicial system can be when a. you live in a small town where everyone is linked and b. you don't have the mental or monetary fortitude to protect yourself. A smarter man with means would have gotten the eff out of Manitowac so fast after being released from prison.

My brother has a lengthy rap sheet very similar to any addicts out there. His last arrest the DA told him "I know you didn't do it so we'll offer you a plea of disturbing the peace but if you decide to plead not guilty today we'll proceed as if you did." So forgive me if I don't favor lawyers who choose to plea down or proceed with charges they know don't apply. This documentary was just a very exaggerated version of what many people know LEO's do every day and can't prove.

themosthappy91 · January 2016

marriedhamstermom said:

So far my opinion is that he is totally guilty but the police are guilty of planting more evidence and trying to push the case to make sure they get him. Honestly Steven is a bad dude, he murdered a cat by lighting it on fire, was convicted of burglary, pulled a gun on his aunt, threatened to kill his wife while he was in jail... etc... He has violence issues so it's no wonder the local police department isn't a fan of him. However the second his name came up in that murder investigation a different department should have handled it because I do think his local police are corrupt.

I so agree with this- I'm totally convinced the evidence was planted but I also think he is guilty. He tortured a cat (apparently it was much worse than the documentary makes it out to be- covered it in gasoline and threw it into a fire), pulled a gun on his cousin and repeatedly threatened to violently kill his ex-wife on paper while in prison. It annoys me how the show makes it seem like he's this happy, simple guy when if you watch at all critically he undeniably has a really dark side.

I've also read a lot about the excluded evidence and some of it is damning- the victim had previously reported to her employer that she was creeped out by him (he answered the door in just a towel one time when she came over) and wouldn't work with him anymore, and on the day of her murder he called the agency multiple times to request her specifically and gave his sister's name as the client. He also *67'd two of his calls to her to make them untraceable.

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned this, but he has also been accused of sexual assault (never charged, but accused) at least twice before any of this happened.

Factoring in the evidence I've read about that was excluded from the show, I can definitely understand how the jury thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is tons of stuff that we are seeing that in no way would have been admissible in court, and there is tons of stuff they saw that this documentary completely fails to even mention. Just like anything in this world, you have to remember that the people who made this series were trying to sell the world on one specific narrative of events, and it's far from the whole story.

kvruns · January 2016

scribe95 said:

Saw this from a reporter who covered the trial who now lives in my city. I thought it was interesting and brings a bit of balance.

http://fox59.com/2016/01/06/fox59-reporter-jesse-wells-shares-his-experience-on-making-a-murderer-having-covered-the-case-firsthand/

I saw this on the news last night too. I didn't realize you were in Indy

kimmiinthemitten · January 2016

I forgot to respond to this:

marriedhamstermom said:

6. A juror just admitted to vote trading and feeling intimidated because 2 of the jurors have relatives on the PD. Pair this with the dismissed juror who said he had 7 not guilt votes and you have yet another reason to call a mistrial. If this is true then these jurors failed their civic duty and the reason there wasn't the mistrial is on them... Jurors are vetted before being selected so if there was a conflict of interest the defense should not have allowed them to be jurors.

All I'm saying is it's ridiculous that people think they can watch a 10 hour show and then call for and sign petitions to pardon a man who was convicted of murder. I think he should not be pardoned without a new trial and that the only way he should get a new trial is if new evidence is found that points towards his innocence and/or another killer.

Both the defense and prosecution were out of strikes by the time the last two jurors (sheriff's relatives) were added. You'd think there'd be something beyond the lawyers control that automatically disqualifies people with a conflict of interest. And I'm not ready to damn a person for "failing their civic duty" when the defense presented that level of police tampering and 2 of their family members are sitting across the table from you.

scribe95 said:

Saw this from a reporter who covered the trial who now lives in my city. I thought it was interesting and brings a bit of balance.

http://fox59.com/2016/01/06/fox59-reporter-jesse-wells-shares-his-experience-on-making-a-murderer-having-covered-the-case-firsthand/

Am I the only one disappointed that this wasn't the silver haired fox haha?

At the end of day, regardless of who is guilty, here is what I'm still left with. The police, judge and DA owe it to the victim and their family in every.single.case to get it right. They did a disservice to those people when they coerced and manipulated their way into confessions, planted evidence, and failed to follow up on any other leads. Had they done their job properly, instead of holding onto what is an obvious grudge, this documentary would never have been made, suspicion would not be on them, and the backgrounds of all of those players would not be researched and read by thousands of people online every day.

kvruns · January 2016

scribe95 said:

Yep. Originally a buckeye but lived in Indy for years and work downtown (though we built a house in one of the donut counties). Love it here.

cool! My H grew up in Indiana right across from Cincy so he's a Cincy sports fan. I grew up in Greenwood and now am on the NE side in the "far away suburbs" as I call them. I'd prefer to be inside the loop but H thinks anything actually in Indianapolis is bad (insert eye roll)

kvruns · January 2016

kimmiinthemitten said:

I forgot to respond to this:

marriedhamstermom said:

Both the defense and prosecution were out of strikes by the time the last two jurors (sheriff's relatives) were added. You'd think there'd be something beyond the lawyers control that automatically disqualifies people with a conflict of interest. And I'm not ready to damn a person for "failing their civic duty" when the defense presented that level of police tampering and 2 of their family members are sitting across the table from you.

Yea that makes no sense to me that someone with an immediate family member on the police force that was not supposed to investigate the crime would be even questioned as a potential juror. It would be tough to believe any police conspiracy/planting evidence theories if my child was on the same police force

lembaslover · January 2016

kvruns said:

PamBeesly524 said:

and @marriedhamstermom I believe they did reveal Steve's IQ and it was also very, very low.

ETA spelling.

I think that Stevens was 70 or 71, I think it was at the very beginning of the series.

Ok thank you, I probably missed that. Still I don't think it takes very high intelligence to cover up a murder like they are saying he did. I feel like it doesn't take much to know you can't just have a body on your yard you need to dispose it somehow. Also not destroying the car or hiding it the way he did could be evidence that he wasn't smart enough to know they'd use that as evidence...

kimmiinthemitten said:

I forgot to respond to this:

Am I the only one disappointed that this wasn't the silver haired fox haha?

At the end of day, regardless of who is guilty, here is what I'm still left with. The police, judge and DA owe it to the victim and their family in every.single.case to get it right. They did a disservice to those people when they coerced and manipulated their way into confessions, planted evidence, and failed to follow up on any other leads. Had they done their job properly, instead of holding onto what is an obvious grudge, this documentary would never have been made, suspicion would not be on them, and the backgrounds of all of those players would not be researched and read by thousands of people online every day.

And I think I stated in an earlier post, I agree the show points out some serious lacking in that police department, they shouldn't have been involved the second Avery's name came up as a suspect. But just because they did something wrong doesn't mean that he isn't guilty... Again my point is that no one is qualified to pardon anyone convicted of a crime after watching a 10 hour documentary. More evidence should be required to do so.

kvruns said:

kimmiinthemitten said:

I forgot to respond to this:

marriedhamstermom said:

Both the defense and prosecution were out of strikes by the time the last two jurors (sheriff's relatives) were added. You'd think there'd be something beyond the lawyers control that automatically disqualifies people with a conflict of interest. And I'm not ready to damn a person for "failing their civic duty" when the defense presented that level of police tampering and 2 of their family members are sitting across the table from you.

Yea that makes no sense to me that someone with an immediate family member on the police force that was not supposed to investigate the crime would be even questioned as a potential juror. It would be tough to believe any police conspiracy/planting evidence theories if my child was on the same police force

I think most people regardless of if they are blood relatives have problems believing that the police force would be involved in planting evidence. These are people who are supposed to protect us and if they aren't it makes things scary. I also don't think that just because evidence of the police force tampering was presented that it was first proven and second that it would change my mind as a juror of lack of reasonable doubt if there was enough other evidence presented.

spockforprez · January 2016

kvruns said:

@spockforprez this link had some info on supposed evidence not included in the show: http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

I'm just now getting around to reading this, I'm sorry. Holy fuck. Thanks for sharing. I'm now even less sure that Steven is innocent (and convincing us he is innocent is the clear aim of the documentary). Those details about his obsession with Theresa are creepy. So maybe he came onto her and she rejected him and that was the motivation for the murder. (Although from what I understand, in court motive is not emphasized in the way that the public emphasizes it.)

CharmedPam · January 2016

themosthappy91 said:

marriedhamstermom said:

So far my opinion is that he is totally guilty but the police are guilty of planting more evidence and trying to push the case to make sure they get him. Honestly Steven is a bad dude, he murdered a cat by lighting it on fire, was convicted of burglary, pulled a gun on his aunt, threatened to kill his wife while he was in jail... etc... He has violence issues so it's no wonder the local police department isn't a fan of him. However the second his name came up in that murder investigation a different department should have handled it because I do think his local police are corrupt.

OK, yes, this is all new to me. Granted, I have 2 more eps to go though. I did see the clip of the trial when they had her colleague on the stand. He said he saw her look at the phone at one point when it wouldn't stop ringing and say "oh them again" or "oh him again" so that does make sense.
I did read that it was one sided, yes.

kimmiinthemitten · January 2016

@marriedhamstermomOk thank you, I probably missed that. Still I don't think it takes very high intelligence to cover up a murder like they are saying he did. I feel like it doesn't take much to know you can't just have a body on your yard you need to dispose it somehow. Also not destroying the car or hiding it the way he did could be evidence that he wasn't smart enough to know they'd use that as evidence...

So, to me that was suspicious. Somehow a man of his fortitude was able to dispose of almost all DNA and blood but left the car out? To me, it seems like a person in his position would have put the car through the crusher and left bleach evidence everywhere. He killed her in the garage and there's no blood or bleach anywhere? I can't help but wonder if someone else on the property was responsible (ETA or Avery did elsewhere on the property) and the lack of DNA is because they searched the wrong trailer.

The Third Party Liability Motion the defense filed is pretty thought provoking.

And just for fun:

spockforprez · January 2016

Another lawyer is taking Steven's case, with assistance from the Midwest Innocence Project.

Sherbie25 · January 2016

2 things:

1. Why does no one involved, apart from his family, take Brendan's special needs into account?! The officers, lawyers, judges, etc were all treating him and speaking to him as though he was at full capacity; I could see that his brain was practically overheating from their questioning! He was led like a lamb to the slaughter.

2. Len the lawyer's creepy,ridiculous grin he had on his face all the time?! My god I wanted to punch him in the dick. At least the judge saw sense and got rid.
I'm only on episode 5 x

CharmedPam · January 2016

spockforprez said:

Another lawyer is taking Steven's case, with assistance from the Midwest Innocence Project.

Yes, Kathleen Zellner is very well known in this area. She's EVERYWHERE! It speaks volumes that she's taking on this case. If she can't help him - no one can! Although, I had no problems with Avery's lawyers. It's his nephew that needs a good lawyer!

huskypuppy14 · January 2016

I'm curious what evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it? Because i saw none. There was so much reasonable doubt it wasn't even funny.

And don't forget, Steven Avery was railroaded by the police in the past and accused and convicted of raping a woman when he did not. So forgive me if I don't believe a word the police in that town say.

I'm not saying he was a great guy, but having porn, and answering the door in a towel doesn't make him a murderer. Even killing a cat doesn't mean he murdered anyone.

Where is her blood? Are you telling me those two guys with IQs of 70, cleaned up every inch of blood in that cluttered as fuck garage, but forgot the bullet casings? And her car was found in 15 minutes when there was hundreds of cars in that junkyard. He had a car compactor, but didn't crush it?

What about the fact that Teresa's voicemail had messages erased. Someone knew the password, and I'd bet my house it wasn't Steven Avery. Probably her brother or her ex.

Sure a jury convicted him, but there is an article saying that some of the jurors were afraid of the police, and if they framed Avery, they could frame them. But yup, everything in that case was done on the up and up.

'Making a Murderer"

Re: 'Making a Murderer"

Choose Another Board

Search Boards

'Making a Murderer"

Re: 'Making a Murderer&quot;

Choose Another Board

Search Boards

Re: 'Making a Murderer"