Making a murderer (spoilers)

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

I'm on the fence about Steven.

But that poor kid Brendan got raked over the coals. I'm certain he didn't do shit and was just manipulated by the cops.
 
I'm on the fence about Steven.

But that poor kid Brendan got raked over the coals. I'm certain he didn't do shit and was just manipulated by the cops.
no kidding. the kid was full on Sling Blade and didn't deserve to be there.
 
I find it humorous that people mention this show and state *Spoiler Warning*. It's like the Titanic we all know how it's going to end. Along with all of the news and press articles that are available publicly. There is a significant amount of stuff Netflix left out that I feel paints a biased view into this case.
 
I find it humorous that people mention this show and state *Spoiler Warning*. It's like the Titanic we all know how it's going to end. Along with all of the news and press articles that are available publicly. There is a significant amount of stuff Netflix left out that I feel paints a biased view into this case.

Well, i say spoilers so people don't ruin with shit like, "oh man, when his own defense investigator fucked over the retarded kid, it was really shitty".

That's a spoiler imho. It takes away some of the shock of the process.
 
was it as infuriating then as it is now?

Not from what I remember as we were getting the drawn out version over days/months/years instead of 10 hours. I haven't watched it yet but from what I am gathering it told from more of the defense side than the prosecution side. My wife is having a routine medical procedure done tomorrow where I have to drive her home afterward. I will have some free time and was planning on starting this series. The wifey binge watched it this past weekend while I was out snowboarding and recommended it.
 
Heavy spoilers in the following link:

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

This is why I'm on the fence about Steven. There's a bit of damning evidence that was presented at trial, not presented in the doc.

That's not evidence. I've taken a whopping one law class and I could successfully object to all of those. Most under speculation, leading, or relevance. None of those point to the guy killing the woman. Yeah, it's weird shit, but dialing *67 or opening the door naked is pretty common in the context of a creepy dude trying to bone some chick.

Where is Cam? he finished law school.
 
Some of it IS evidence. In that it was catalogued and presented as "evidence" in the trial, just wasn't presented in the Documentary. Transcripts, phone records, witness accounts, etc.

I'm not saying he's 100% guilty. Just that I'm on the fence with the evidence. Kind of like what the author of that article said, the process was tainted, but maybe the jury got it right anyway?

I agree that a lot of what happened was more than enough for "reasonable doubt" and mistrial or aquittal. There's a LOT that doesn't add up. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't actually do it.
 
Some of it IS evidence. In that it was catalogued and presented as "evidence" in the trial, just wasn't presented in the Documentary. Transcripts, phone records, witness accounts, etc.

I'm not saying he's 100% guilty. Just that I'm on the fence with the evidence. Kind of like what the author of that article said, the process was tainted, but maybe the jury got it right anyway?

I agree that a lot of what happened was more than enough for "reasonable doubt" and mistrial or aquittal. There's a LOT that doesn't add up. But that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't actually do it.

-- 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).

Objection: Immaterial-Is not relevant to the case.

-- Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.

Objection: Immaterial-Is not relevant to the case

-- 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.

Objection: Immaterial-Is not relevant to the case

-- 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.

How would this even be presented? This isn't even close to evidence. What is the objective here?

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

They were trying to schedule an appointment. Nothing to see here. This could easily be explained two ways. 1) wasn't his phone and didn't want people to have the number. 2) he's a "celebrity" and didn't want her to have their number.

-- The bullet with Halbach's DNA on it came from Avery's gun, which always hung above his bed.

This is the only true evidence in that article. Easily faked, but this is the only real "evidence" that I won't try to dispute.

-- 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).

Objection- Misstates evidence. Defendant was led into answering with "describe the chains". And he drew a picture of chains.

Reminds me of Dave Chappelle describing michael jackson's dick: "Sir, I have never seen Michael's alleged penis, but I bet you that I can describe it all right? Let me guess... there's a head, a shaft, some balls, hair - maybe pressed, permed hair, with glitter sprinkled on it.".

-- 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.

Objection: fruit of the poisonous tree. also, relevance. this isn't evidence that a murder was committed.

I'm not defending him, all i'm saying is that the article you posted wasn't "evidence". It was details to sway an opinion of him.
 
They found non-blood DNA on the hood latch of her car. Not just Dassey's word about it. That's real evidence. How is it not relevant? Steven said he didn't touch her car, how else would his DNA get on it?
 
They found non-blood DNA on the hood latch of her car. Not just Dassey's word about it. That's real evidence. How is it not relevant? Steven said he didn't touch her car, how else would his DNA get on it?

because it doesn't relate to the murder. he could have jumped her car to help her out or thought it was one of the car lots. that dna is defined as "circumstantial". Still, it's not evidence on a murder weapon, her body, or anything.

again, i'm not here to defend him, the evidence is just very poor at best.
 
I've started watching it but it seems odd to me that we are effectively watching a reality TV show about real people killing real people. I wonder if in 50 years they are going to think we are all sick for making hash tags on social media clearing the "team" we are one.
 
The toughest part about watching this series is that Holbach really did get killed, and justice will never be truly served because of how tainted the prosecution went. Now this documentary is out, its going to be much worse for her family. There was nothing clean about how they went about this. It took too long to find all the evidence to make the findings any where near perfunctory. The real eye opener is that 3 hard headed individuals were able to persuade the other 9 to go their way. Even then they weren't consistent on the decisions.

I'm going to get tangential on this....

I have a family member who did commit crimes, and is spending a large part of their life behind bars. I've been to 6 different state prisons now. 2 county jails, and spent over a year going to court procedures leading up to sentencing. Steven Avery is the same person I've seen in all of the convicts at each. A poor guy coming from a poor family without much sense in his head. The phone calls of Steven calling his family really rings close to home for me. My family is lucky though, 3 more years and he gets to start his life again, and we have a very strong support system for him to succeed in the future.

This documentary I thought was done very well. It conveys the feelings of a lot of families that have loved ones in prison, regardless of guilt. It's tough for most people to rationalize that, as they say I wouldn't support them, I wouldn't let them call me, etc, but they're your family or friends. Their success inside is too often determined by the frequency of contact and support of those outside, and that is nothing a prison can provide.
 
Back
Top