Has anyone else watched this docu-series on Netflix?

(12-26-2015, 04:29 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Has anyone else watched this docu-series on Netflix?

I started to the other night, then I dozed off.  My brother in law said it's pretty cool the following day.  Do you like it?

(12-26-2015, 07:18 PM)jason Wrote: I started to the other night, then I dozed off.  My brother in law said it's pretty cool the following day.  Do you like it?

Yeah, me and the wife watched all 10 episodes of the series. We both found it fascinating and disturbing at the same time. 

I had heard about the Avery stuff over the years, seeing news reports here and there, but didn't really know a whole lot about it.

I thought the series was well done, and the courtroom scenes were very interesting to watch.

One of the lawyers had a line that I think sums up the whole series (paraphrasing), "A part of me hopes he is guilty...because the alternative scares the hell out of me".

I have not. But will start watching tomorrow . Love this kinda stuff.

(12-26-2015, 04:29 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Has anyone else watched this docu-series on Netflix?





Me and my wife just finished this series tonight and oh my God, what a terrible act of "justice" that was. What does everyone else think of the verdict?

I heard about this guy in a Cracked article a couple of years ago, so when I saw the documentary about it, I thought I'd give it a whirl. At the time, I didn't realize that it was 10 full length episodes long, but I got hooked. I'm currently on the 6th episode, and since I already know the verdict, I can tell that I'm gonna be pissed in the end.

It's a documentary though...they're built to only tell half of the story. I mean, there are a shit ton of mo-mos in this country that believe that the United States carried out the WTC attacks all because of a flimsy evidenced and easily disproven documentary. I'd like to hear the rest of the story before I decide whether or not this was a "terrible act of justice".

I've been thinking about watching. Perhaps I'll give it a try.

really well done series.  if any of those allegations about planting evidence are true, i want to string those lousy bastards up and roast them in the public.  i want BLOOD.

could get interesting...

Anonymous will publish evidence to help the convict from Netflix’s Making a Murderer

(12-29-2015, 11:57 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I heard about this guy in a Cracked article a couple of years ago, so when I saw the documentary about it, I thought I'd give it a whirl.  At the time, I didn't realize that it was 10 full length episodes long, but I got hooked.  I'm currently on the 6th episode, and since I already know the verdict, I can tell that I'm gonna be pissed in the end.

It's a documentary though...they're built to only tell half of the story.  I mean, there are a shit ton of mo-mos in this country that believe that the United States carried out the WTC attacks all because of a flimsy evidenced and easily disproven documentary.  I'd like to hear the rest of the story before I decide whether or not this was a "terrible act of justice".

Hey Johnny, long time no see.

I think you're misunderstanding what I said when I called it a "terrible act of justice". I'll let everyone know right now that I am NOT saying that Avery is innocent. In all honesty I don't even know whether or not Avery killed Teresa. Whether he did or not isn't the problem to me, he very well might have killed her. The problem to me is that somehow a guilty verdict was reached even in the face of all of the unusual and contradicting evidence. I don't know what's worse..... the fact that the jurors somehow decided that Avery was guilty, or the fact that the judge even let this trial continue the way that it did.

Speaking of the jurors.... how in the world did 7 of them decide that Avery was not guilty but then all of a sudden change their mind?  There were 7 who originally said he was NOT guilty, 3 who were absolutely sure he was guilty and 2 who were undecided. Yet somehow they all had a big epiphany and suddenly everyone says he's guilty. I mean something just doesn't seem right about any of this and I really do believe there's a conspiracy behind all of this that includes the police department. I'm with Avery's lawyers and actually don't believe that the police killed Teresa. I do however believe that they wanted to frame Avery for the murder without ever considering anyone else just like they did with the rape case.

(12-26-2015, 04:29 PM)Bengalholic Wrote: Has anyone else watched this docu-series on Netflix?

Love documentaries like this. All i can say after watching the first 2 episodes is.....WOW. Can't wait to get up in the morning to continue watching. It will not surprise me at all to find out that someone (police) fabricated all this to end the lawsuit. I'm not going to google or read any more of this thread because i don't want to spoil the rest of the series. 

Crazy stuff.

I've heard a little about this Via my wife. It sucks about the false rape conviction, but
I only feel bad for his nephew. I read up on some stuff, and the directors seem to down play some really shitty things about him. Easter card to his kids saying he hates their mom and will "git her" when he's out, acting like the cat thing was an accident, ignoring that he requested the girl using his sisters name and called her twice before the murder using *67 and once after without using it. On the last part, the prosecution would suggest he wanted her to answer the first two times and knew he didn't need to hide his number the 3rd time because she was dead.

I don't think him being guilty and the cops manipulating evidence to ensure he was convicted are mutually exclusive

(01-03-2016, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think him being guilty and the cops manipulating evidence to ensure he was convicted are mutually exclusive

This.

Here's an article 'Evidence 'Making a Murderer' Didn't Present in Steven Avery's Murder Case (Updated)'.  After watching all 10 episodes and reading some stuff online, I've come to the conclusion that Avery probably did it. But I don't know if the evidence presented was enough to convict him.  And the cops probably did plant evidence because they thought he was guilty and wanted to make sure he was found as such.

Wow. What a load of bullshit. I'm watching episode 3 and they're interrogating a minor with no parent or lawyer present and they're leading him to conclusions that they want to hear. After telling them about stabbing and cutting the throat and cutting hair and punching, the one detective finally says, "i'm just going to come out and ask you...who shot her in the head". And immediately he says "he did".

I can't believe the level of corruption in the police department up there. How in thee hell can they get away with this shit when it's obvious they're full of it. In the previous depositions of law enforcement, about wrongdoing in the previous incarceration, every one of those asshats were deceitful and uncooperative.

Ok...back to the episode. I just wanted to take a break and throw my thoughts on here.

So now we find out that in the evidence files of Lenk, the tape from the styrofoam container has been cut and...lo and behold, there's a vial of liquid blood from Avery, from 1985. And, that vial had a pin hole in the rubber stopper.

to be continued...

So one of those crooked cops calls dispatch and asks them to run a specific plate number. The dispatcher says it comes back to a missing person, the dead woman, the cops says "a 99 toyota?" and the dispatcher says yes and the cop is like. 'ok, thanks'. End of call. That call was made 2 days before the vehicle was found.

WTF?

P.S. Annoying as hell that i'm left hanging here at the end of the episode and it's 4:18 am and i need to go to bed.

(01-03-2016, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I've heard a little about this Via my wife. It sucks about the false rape conviction, but
I only feel bad for his nephew. I read up on some stuff, and the directors seem to down play some really shitty things about him. Easter card to his kids saying he hates their mom and will "git her" when he's out, acting like the cat thing was an accident, ignoring that he requested the girl using his sisters name and called her twice before the murder using *67 and once after without using it. On the last part, the prosecution would suggest he wanted her to answer the first two times and knew he didn't need to hide his number the 3rd time because she was dead.

I don't think him being guilty and the cops manipulating evidence to ensure he was convicted are mutually exclusive

(01-03-2016, 01:53 PM)Donnyho Wrote: This.

Here's an article 'Evidence 'Making a Murderer' Didn't Present in Steven Avery's Murder Case (Updated)'.  After watching all 10 episodes and reading some stuff online, I've come to the conclusion that Avery probably did it. But I don't know if the evidence presented was enough to convict him.  And the cops probably did plant evidence because they thought he was guilty and wanted to make sure he was found as such.

I'm sorry but I have to say I disagree with both of you that the cops planted the evidence solely because they thought he was guilty. I have also read the things that you guys are talking about and it doesn't really do much to convict him of the murder. Let's analyze.

Quote:— The documentary said that part of Avery’s criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn’t specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).

The fact that Avery did this is sad, but it is absolutely not relevant to the case. What this looks like to me is an attempt by the prosecution to dig into Avery's past and find any possible negative thing they can to convict him for the murder of Teresa. It almost seems desperate in all honesty. If the prosecution was so sure and so convinced that all of the "evidence" they had was surely going to convict Avery for the murder then why would the fact that he killed the cat matter to the case? Clearly they had doubts and were looking for anyway to make the jury lose sympathy for Avery to ensure a conviction because of how shaky the "evidence" was.

Quote:— Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.

Again, while this may be of some concern, it is not relevant to the case and doesn't in any way prove that Steve killed Teresa. It is an appeal to emotions rather than any actual "evidence" to the murder.

Quote:— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

I also doubt to see the relevance in this either. Steve called her multiple times because he wanted to make sure he could kill her? For what exactly? The only thing this shows is that Steve possibly had some type of feelings for her, but that is just pure speculation.

Quote:— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

According to other sources I've read, this story actually isn't true, nor reliable. Teresa told a receptionist (not her boss) that Avery came out with a towel on and basically said that it grossed her out. This is what the receptionist told the judge. She even told the judge that Teresa "Laughed about it". Yet, the prosecution is lying and trying to make it seem like Teresa was "scared" of him.

Quote:— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

I'm not sure why these calls are made but it doesn't show that Avery killed Teresa. The prosecution said that Steve made these calls because he was setting up an alibi for himself so that he could say that Teresa never showed up.

Quote:
Here's the full quote........

"Phone records show three calls from Avery to Teresa's cell phone on Oct. 31," says Kratz. "One at 2:24 [p.m.], and one at 2:35 – both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn't know it him...both placed before she arrives.


"Then one last call at 4:35 p.m., without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up…so tries to establish the alibi call after she's already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn't need the *67 feature for that last call."

There's two problems with this. First of all, the prosecution says that Steve used the *67 feature so that Teresa wouldn't know it was him but then they never follow up with a reason why Steve would hide his number from her. It doesn't make sense considering that Teresa knew what property she was going to that day. Secondly, if Steve was trying to set up an alibi by making the final call at 4:35 pm., why is that alibi never used by him? There is not one time that Steve has ever tried to use the supposed "phone call alibi". In fact, Steve said repeatedly that Teresa DID come there that day and that he saw her leave. He never once denies that he saw her.

Quote:— The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.

This one I can't answer, but I can't trust the "evidence" either. It is never explained how the bullet came to match Avery's gun. It is also never explained why there is no blood evidence on the bullet or why there is only one bullet found at the scene of the crime.

Quote:— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

These handcuffs and leg irons were purchased by Avery and apparently used in the murder of Teresa, yet somehow there is no DNA evidence of hers on them, nor is there any signs of the cuffs and leg irons used in the location in which Brendan said they were supposedly used. In addition to that, Dassey never said anything about "leg irons" and actually said there was cuffs and ropes involved.

Quote:— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence.

The strange thing about this is that Dassey isn't even the one who brought up the story about the hood latch. The cop that was interrogating him brought it up saying,

Quote:Cop: OK, what else did he do, he did somethin' else, you need to tell us what he did, after that car is parked there. It's extremely important. (pause) Before you guys leave that car.


Dassey: He left the gun in the car.

Cop: That's not what I'm thinkin' about. He did something to that car. He took the plates and he, I believe he did something else in that car. (pause).

Dassey: I don't know.

Cop: OK. Did he, did he, did he go and look at the engine, did he raise the hood at all or anything like that? To do something to the car?

Dassey: Yeah.

Cop: What was that? (pause)

Cop: What did he do, Brendan?

Cop: It's OK, what did he do?

Cop: What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did? (pause)

Dassey: I don't know what he did, but I know he went under.

Cop: He did raise the hood? (Brendan nods "yes") You remember that?

Dassey: Yeah.

What's strange to me is not only the fact that the cops are the ones who brought up the "hood latch story", but also the fact that by the time they got to this point in the interrogation, the cops already had two important pieces of evidence which was a murder confession and Avery's blood in the car. Why then would they need to continue to pry the information out of Dassey about the hood latch when they already have the murder confession and the blood evidence? Seems kind of like a set up to me to make sure they cover all of their basis of planted evidence. But who knows, it's all a bunch of speculation.

My wife watched the entire series. (She had a two week vacation of the holiday.)

I only caught parts of it but read everything else on line.

Just a well done and fascinating start to this Netflix series!


Oh, and I believe a "not guilty" verdict, based on the lack of evidence, would have been acceptable.

I started watching this show up to episode 4 and honestly had to stop watching it. I was completely disturbed.

It was very disturbing. The one thing that made me laugh, in a sarcastic way, was in the final episode, it was shown how the lead DA Kratz was outed for sexting, confirming what a lowlife scum i always believed he was (along with several others).
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-da-ken-kratzs-law-license-suspended-in-sexting-scandal/

The latest news; http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/steven-avery-of-making-a-murderer-files-an-appeal.html?_r=0

(01-04-2016, 06:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Oh, and I believe a "not guilty" verdict, based on the lack of evidence, would have been acceptable.

Lack of evidence they presented for their story or lack of evidence that was actually involved in the real case?