Making A Murderer

[ManU918]

Anyone and everyone here that has access to a Netflix account should watch this documentary series. Its one of if not the most amazing program I have ever watched.

Here is the summary posted on IMDB:


Filmed over a 10-year period, Making a Murderer is an unprecedented real-life thriller about Steven Avery, a DNA exoneree who, while in the midst of exposing corruption in local law enforcement, finds himself the prime suspect in a grisly new crime. Set in America's heartland, the series takes viewers inside a high-stakes criminal case where reputation is everything and things are never as they appear.


- Written by Netflix (http://www.imdb.com/search/title?plot_author=Netflix&view=simple&sort=alpha&ref_=ttpl_pl_1)

[garyscpa]

Anyone and everyone here that has access to a Netflix account should watch this documentary series. Its one of if not the most amazing program I have ever watched.

Here is the summary posted on IMDB:


Filmed over a 10-year period, Making a Murderer is an unprecedented real-life thriller about Steven Avery, a DNA exoneree who, while in the midst of exposing corruption in local law enforcement, finds himself the prime suspect in a grisly new crime. Set in America's heartland, the series takes viewers inside a high-stakes criminal case where reputation is everything and things are never as they appear.


- Written by Netflix (http://www.imdb.com/search/title?plot_author=Netflix&view=simple&sort=alpha&ref_=ttpl_pl_1)



The entire first episode is available on youtube. Interesting so far.

[ManU918]

The entire first episode is available on youtube. Interesting so far.

Keep watching if you can... It takes so many twists and turns...

[garyscpa]

Watched all 10 episodes now. The prosecutors and sheriff's departmental look pretty terrible as well as the nephew's lawyer Kachinsky.

It's a very interesting show.

[ArlJim78]

It was well done. I watched the whole thing and I think Avery got railroaded. So many things wrong or that smell fishy to even go into. The best part was seeing that DA Kratz get brought down in a sexting scandal, after he was acting so high and mighty and above reproach.

[ManU918]

Watched all 10 episodes now. The prosecutors and sheriff's departmental look pretty terrible as well as the nephew's lawyer Kachinsky.

It's a very interesting show.

Kachinsky was the absolute pits. What made it even worse was when Dassey requested a new lawyer the judge didn't allow it.

[ManU918]

It was well done. I watched the whole thing and I think Avery got railroaded. So many things wrong or that smell fishy to even go into. The best part was seeing that DA Kratz get brought down in a sexting scandal, after he was acting so high and mighty and above reproach.

Kratz is a piece of shit. I loved how when Dassey was forced into the statement... Kratz holds a press conference telling everyone how the crime went down but then had zero evidence to back his story up. No blood in the bedroom, on the sheets, floor or in the garage where the victim was supposedly brought to after being stabbed and shot but again no blood.

[garyscpa]

Just started to read "The Innocent Killer" about the same case to try to determine any bias in the show.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Innocent-Killer-Conviction-Astonishing/dp/1627223630

[ArlJim78]

Kratz is a piece of shit. I loved how when Dassey was forced into the statement... Kratz holds a press conference telling everyone how the crime went down but then had zero evidence to back his story up. No blood in the bedroom, on the sheets, floor or in the garage where the victim was supposedly brought to after being stabbed and shot but again no blood.
yeah I couldn't stand Kratz and his whiny voice.
no blood or other evidence on Avery or in the garage where they say the crime was committed, yet her blood is all over her van? how does that happen? you kill someone in your garage then carry the body out to the victims car being careful to only leave evidence in the car, and then only to drive around to the fire pit which is right behind the garage? and five months later the key to her van just shows up on the floor?
I'm not sure what happened but the scenario that they convicted this guy on makes no sense.

[ManU918]

yeah I couldn't stand Kratz and his whiny voice.
no blood or other evidence on Avery or in the garage where they say the crime was committed, yet her blood is all over her van? how does that happen? you kill someone in your garage then carry the body out to the victims car being careful to only leave evidence in the car, and then only to drive around to the fire pit which is right behind the garage? and five months later the key to her van just shows up on the floor?
I'm not sure what happened but the scenario that they convicted this guy on makes no sense.

The key shit makes zero sense. They checked the room 7 times but on the 8th trip the key is there... There's no way numerous officers missed that key on the floor... It was obviously planted there.... Also... How about the cop calling in the plate number days before the car is found on the Avery's lot.

[ArlJim78]

The key shit makes zero sense. They checked the room 7 times but on the 8th trip the key is there... There's no way numerous officers missed that key on the floor... It was obviously planted there.... Also... How about the cop calling in the plate number days before the car is found on the Avery's lot.
I thought that was damning evidence against the police. It was obvious that the person who made that inquiry was looking at the vehicle.
I'm not sure why it wasn't pressed further or made any difference to the jurors, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt.

[ManU918]

I thought that was damning evidence against the police. It was obvious that the person who made that inquiry was looking at the vehicle.
I'm not sure why it wasn't pressed further or made any difference to the jurors, at least to the extent of reasonable doubt.

The entire case was fabricated and consisted of nothing but doubt.

[racko]

two more episodes to go

[ManU918]

two more episodes to go

What do you think?

[racko]

Right now I'm scared to gt a parking ticket. Where was all the blood? If she was was shot where was all the blood splatter. It took 8 seaches to find the keys and then they were found by Det. Lenz. There is no accurate test the determine if the blood came from the the eveidence room. The boyfriend just happens to hand a camera to the lady that is going to find the car.
I would have voted not Guilty.
AS for the kid that is totally out of line.

[thaskalos]

I'd watch it...but it's on at the same time as The Blacklist.

[racko]

it is on netflix streaming. I think you are getting it confused with "how to get away with with murder"

[thaskalos]

it is on netflix streaming. I think you are getting it confused with "how to get away with with murder"
No...I am a Netflix customer. The Blacklist is streaming there too...at the same time.

[ArlJim78]

No...I am a Netflix customer. The Blacklist is streaming there too...at the same time.
are you sure? On Netflix you stream the shows whenever you want. There is no schedule. at least that's the way it has always worked for me.

[ManU918]

are you sure? On Netflix you stream the shows whenever you want. There is no schedule. at least that's the way it has always worked for me.

Everything on Netflix is streaming. Nothing is live. You can watch whatever you want whenever you want.

[ArlJim78]

Everything on Netflix is streaming. Nothing is live. You can watch whatever you want whenever you want.
yes I know that which is why I questioned thaskalos about a time conflict.

[thaskalos]

yes I know that which is why I questioned thaskalos about a time conflict.
I was trying to make a joke...but I failed miserably. I am too embarrassed to even try to explain it, at this point.

[MutuelClerk]

One miss outta 15,000. Not bad Thask.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Been hearing about this show and then saw this thread appear. I wanted to read the thread so I watched all 10 episodes in the last day or so. Pretty amazing work as a documentary that works episodically almost as though written as a suspense/mystery novel with chapters designed at the end to force you into the following chapter. I can't remember seeing a documentary where there was enough of a plot and as many twists and offshoots to even be edited in such an effective suspense building way from episode to episode.

As far as the case and what not... I have a hard time convincing myself that the defense's alternative theory is more likely than the prosecution's. But based on what the documentary shows (and editing is clearly part of its brilliance), almost every verdict or rendering by a court is tarnished to a degree that it is hard to find justice in any of them. I don't want to broaden the scope here, but I am and a law and order guy - no arrests, no convictions, no nothing - yet I've always been hard (in this forum and elsewhere) on police, politicians, anyone in a position of authority going above and beyond to accomplish a desired goal while playing outside the lines. Even if the outcome is arguably for the greater good. Because the process is not. The greater good in one context is a tiny good in another larger good. Bad people that are brought down by bad means encourage good people be brought down by the same means in another set of circumstances where altruism and greater goods have no place. The system will never work perfectly, but it can not be allowed to perform in accordance with desirable outcomes rather than desirable standards. Performing the greater good is often just opening the door to chaos and anarchy.

[racko]

so you vote Not Guilty?

[johnhannibalsmith]

so you vote Not Guilty?

I didn't sit at the trial, I just watched a TV show that showed excerpts, presumably manicured for maximum dramatic effect. But, based upon what I saw in the film, there was enough reasonable doubt and plausible alternatives as well as far too many glaring shortcomings or outright contradictions in the physical evidence presented to where I find it pretty hard to imagine myself feeling comfortable taking away a man's liberty forever or being coerced by my peers to do so.

With that said, I think he's probably guilty. I do not like the man and did not find him much of a sympathetic character. I thought that the production really walked around his criminal past, almost suggesting that those crimes for which he was imprisoned correctly were small potatoes, kids stuff. He was a burglar. He roasted the pet cat in the bonfire. He ran someone off the road and threatened them with a weapon because they spread rumors about him. I get the sense that he's the sort of guy that if he grew up in your neighborhood, you'd probably be one of those folks in town that ain't gonna done like no Averys.

I think the one PI (that was working for Brandon_ probably summed up the community attitude towards him and the family with his scathing characterizations. And I can sort of believe it was a pervasive characterization among those that knew them. But again, none of that is in itself criminal and none of it justifies exploiting the CJ system to fulfill a prophecy. The case was bad, even if they did get the right creep.

[ldiatone]

lame please did not like this at all....wife-kid watched it....kinda had to.

so who did kill the girl? will we never find out? do the police just let the killer go cause they don't have to pay the money???? :confused:

[summersquall]

JHS, thanks for posting your thoughts. For those whose interests include crime drama journalism the following link is to a site of taped podcasts, the most recent of which discusses the documentary. http://www.crimewriterson.com/listen/

[johnhannibalsmith]

JHS, thanks for posting your thoughts. For those whose interests include crime drama journalism the following link is to a site of taped podcasts, the most recent of which discusses the documentary. http://www.crimewriterson.com/listen/

:ThmbUp:

I'm pretty proud of myself for getting all the way through it. I've never been able to get into the podcast thing and when I heard the, I don't know, sort of stereotypical twenty-something way of speaking from a few of the broadcasters I figured I'd never survive it. But having read a few stories online after watching it and then being astonished at the comments sections and the overwhelming passion by such a percentage that see it simply as the "real killer is running free!", I found myself somewhat compelled to continue listening as the quartet or whoever many were talking seemed to hit on a lot of the points that resonated with me in a way that resonated with me. Definitely a lot more substantive, in my opinion, than most anything else I've seen/heard in terms of discussion.

[ManU918]

I didn't sit at the trial, I just watched a TV show that showed excerpts, presumably manicured for maximum dramatic effect. But, based upon what I saw in the film, there was enough reasonable doubt and plausible alternatives as well as far too many glaring shortcomings or outright contradictions in the physical evidence presented to where I find it pretty hard to imagine myself feeling comfortable taking away a man's liberty forever or being coerced by my peers to do so.

With that said, I think he's probably guilty. I do not like the man and did not find him much of a sympathetic character. I thought that the production really walked around his criminal past, almost suggesting that those crimes for which he was imprisoned correctly were small potatoes, kids stuff. He was a burglar. He roasted the pet cat in the bonfire. He ran someone off the road and threatened them with a weapon because they spread rumors about him. I get the sense that he's the sort of guy that if he grew up in your neighborhood, you'd probably be one of those folks in town that ain't gonna done like no Averys.

I think the one PI (that was working for Brandon_ probably summed up the community attitude towards him and the family with his scathing characterizations. And I can sort of believe it was a pervasive characterization among those that knew them. But again, none of that is in itself criminal and none of it justifies exploiting the CJ system to fulfill a prophecy. The case was bad, even if they did get the right creep.

The entire case was bullshit. There was zero evidence to backup any of the DA's theory/theories. Just because you don't like Avery doesn't mean he's guilty. There are a lot of people out there who have a background of crime/done stupid things. It doesn't automatically make them guilty of anything you charge them with. If this case was brought against someone other then Avery they would have walked out. I love animals... So I personally dislike Avery too. But if I were on that jury (and I've served as a juror in a murder trial in the past) I would have absolutely said not guilty. No blood of the victim, No weapon/weapons, No witnesses, Voice mails being listened to and deleted after the the victims death, cops calling in victims plate numbers days after she goes missing but days before the car is found on the lot, passwords being guessed, etc. I mean come on I've lived with Miss Man U for over 8 years... Do you think I could ever guess her passwords? Hell no... But this guy who was her roommate and living with her for a few months just magically knew what to type in to access her phone account? Just way too many things pointing in other directions with zero evidence.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Just because you don't like Avery doesn't mean he's guilty....

That isn't at all why I think it is more likely than not that he's the murderer. I thought that my posts were a bit more nuanced than to lead someone to that conclusion. I mention it almost as a disclaimer to the reality that I could not have deprived him of his liberty (aka could not have found him guilty based upon what was presented) whether I felt him guilty or unlikable or a total piece of shit, or all of the above. That being convicted of first-degree murder demands a higher standard than those things which you have erroneously pinned on me as the reason for my opinion and it even requires more than simply 'being guilty' of the crime. The case needs to be proven and it needs to be legit.

The prosecution theory were often a joke, very little added up, particularly the crime scene theories. But it was not as though they had no evidence at all. In order to discredit all of the evidence that did point to Avery, you had to buy full blown into the idea that the police either killed her, had her killed, or stumbled upon her corpse and then went into overdrive to make the case against Avery. Bone fragments that were a conclusive DNA match right outside his door. The victim's car on his property. Her total break of contact after her last known stop, the Avery residence. I mean, that's just the big ticket stuff that's really hard to dismiss. Is it plausible that so many things went perfectly for the conspirators to make this the perfect frame job? Of course it is plausible and that's what made the documentary so captivating. But, likely? No, I don't think so. I think he's more likely the murderer (avoiding the word 'guilty') than he is not because there is a shitload of evidence that leads right to him. To elect for the alternative as being more likely than not - for me - is to elevate this to such a conspiracy that there needs to be something more tangible than what was presented. What was presented raises reasonable doubt for me on a legal level, but in a common sense/gut check level, the simplest explanation is usually the likeliest, particularly when the more elaborate is largely if not entirely unsubstantiated.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... In order to discredit all of the evidence that did point to Avery, you had to buy full blown into the idea that the police either killed her, had her killed, or stumbled upon her corpse...

I made this post hastily during commercials and didn't look it over closely enough. Obviously there are alternative possibilities outside the scope of what the defense presented that would lead to my above post. It's a bit hard to shift back and forth between the various implications of the word 'guilty' in this context, whether legally or simply as a matter of conventional culpability for an act. Since I assume you meant that my belief that he is more likely than not the murderer did not imply that I meant that he was legally guilty since that was asked and answered and my response was a solid "not guilty", I just wanted to concede that in the broader sense there are innumerable alternative theories to head off that argument before it happens. But, again, with the evidence that is available and indisputable, none of those theories, even stacked atop one another, seem more likely to me than the most obvious one.

[ManU918]

That isn't at all why I think it is more likely than not that he's the murderer. I thought that my posts were a bit more nuanced than to lead someone to that conclusion. I mention it almost as a disclaimer to the reality that I could not have deprived him of his liberty (aka could not have found him guilty based upon what was presented) whether I felt him guilty or unlikable or a total piece of shit, or all of the above. That being convicted of first-degree murder demands a higher standard than those things which you have erroneously pinned on me as the reason for my opinion and it even requires more than simply 'being guilty' of the crime. The case needs to be proven and it needs to be legit.


Not sure where the disconnect is. I agreed with what you said. Avery is a piece of shit but the DA had nothing therefore he should have walked out. Unfortunately the jury was not full of open minded people.

[ManU918]

I made this post hastily during commercials and didn't look it over closely enough. Obviously there are alternative possibilities outside the scope of what the defense presented that would lead to my above post. It's a bit hard to shift back and forth between the various implications of the word 'guilty' in this context, whether legally or simply as a matter of conventional culpability for an act. Since I assume you meant that my belief that he is more likely than not the murderer did not imply that I meant that he was legally guilty since that was asked and answered and my response was a solid "not guilty", I just wanted to concede that in the broader sense there are innumerable alternative theories to head off that argument before it happens. But, again, with the evidence that is available and indisputable, none of those theories, even stacked atop one another, seem more likely to me than the most obvious one.

What evidence did the DA have to hold him legally guilty? If they had any then IMO they didn't use it in court. Car on the lot gets dismissed when the cop calls in the plates after she goes missing and identifies the car to the operator. Blood in the car gets dismissed when the seal on the evidence kit from the original trial was broken.

They had nothing.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Not sure where the disconnect is. I agreed with what you said. ...


:D

Ha, well I guess that's what happens when you try to kill time during commercials by reading quickly and posting even faster. I guess I was just excited to find something interesting to argue playfully about.

[ManU918]

:D

Ha, well I guess that's what happens when you try to kill time during commercials by reading quickly and posting even faster. I guess I was just excited to find something interesting to argue playfully about.

Haha... He might be guilty he might be not... But the system in place is not meant to put MIGHT BE's in jail for the rest of their lives.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Car on the lot gets dismissed when the cop calls in the plates after she goes missing and identifies the car to the operator. ...

I still don't understand what this was really all about. Why was it a big turd dropped in the middle of the testimony that seemed like the moment the case was going to turn hard, and then nothing came of it at all? It was never mentioned at all again. There was no effort to explain it in any way. Even off the record in the little interviews, they didn't expand upon it and explain their feelings and how to use that significant tidbit, something that they spent half of every episode during trial doing.

I have to admit, I thought that maybe there was a lot more to it, or a pretty plausible explanation at some point that would have diminished the effect of letting it hang like an unanswered question for the viewer. It seemed far too crucial to the establishment of the alternative theory implicating the little weasel looking cop to just never return to it beyond showing him looking goofy for a moment on the stand when the implication become clear to the viewer.

[ManU918]

I still don't understand what this was really all about. Why was it a big turd dropped in the middle of the testimony that seemed like the moment the case was going to turn hard, and then nothing came of it at all? It was never mentioned at all again. There was no effort to explain it in any way. Even off the record in the little interviews, they didn't expand upon it and explain their feelings and how to use that significant tidbit, something that they spent half of every episode during trial doing.

I have to admit, I thought that maybe there was a lot more to it, or a pretty plausible explanation at some point that would have diminished the effect of letting it hang like an unanswered question for the viewer. It seemed far too crucial to the establishment of the alternative theory implicating the little weasel looking cop to just never return to it beyond showing him looking goofy for a moment on the stand when the implication become clear to the viewer.

100%. I think this along with the sign in form on the day the car was found should have been pressed a lot more.

Just so much going on here... I really don't know how you can put 12 people in a room and have them all say guilty on this case. It's really absurd.

[Kash$]

The 'Making a Murderer' filmmakers just revealed major news that could help Steven Avery


"Making a Murderer" creators Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos appeared on "The Today Show" Tuesday to reveal a new twist to the story of Steven Avery: at least one juror believes he was framed by police.


Ricciardi and Demos' Netflix documentary series follows Avery's trial after he is accused of murdering photographer Teresa Halbach. Throughout the trial, Avery's lawyers argued that he was set up by local police, who they claim planted his blood on the victim's car and left her keys in his bedroom.

According to Ricciardi, the filmmakers were contacted by the juror after the series was released last month.

"They believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty, they believe Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial," Riccairdi told the "Today" hosts (https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/684373410038718464). "And if he receives a new trial, in their opinion, it should take place far away from Wisconsin."

The murder took place in Wisconsin's Manitowoc County, where Avery as well as the jurors were from, and the trial was in nearby Calumet County. Avery has long been a well-known and semi-notorious figure in the area.

There was speculation included in "Making a Murderer" that the jury pool may have been tainted by the media coverage leading up to Avery's trial. A televised press conference by district attorney Ken Kratz, for example, included a graphic description of Halbach's murder based on potentially flawed testimony from Avery's nephew, Brendan Dassey.

The unnamed juror who spoke with the filmmakers revealed that they only voted to find Avery guilty to protect themselves.

"Obviously we asked this person, 'So, explain what happened, why did you cast your vote for guilty?' And what they told us was they feared for their personal safety," Demos said on "Today."

While this may not have an immediate legal impact on Avery's conviction, it is further fuel for theories that he unfairly sits in prison.

Watch the full Today clip below:



A big announcement from the filmmakers behind #MakingAMurderer (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MakingAMurderer?src=hash):

[Mystic]

Newest developments:

1) Steven says he feels his brothers did it.

2) His girlfriend is saying he also now has one of the best Defense Attorneys in the States, but hasn't said who he is just yet.

3)Two Juror's have stepped forward in the past two days stating they felt they would be physically harmed if they didn't vote "Guilty"

4) Photo's released of Theresa's ex boyfriend's hand having scratches when he was on the stand.

[Mystic]

Newest developments:

1) Steven says he feels his brothers did it. http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/01/steven-avery-making-a-murderer-claims-brothers-killed-teresa-halbach?utm_campaign=complexmag&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

2) His girlfriend is saying he also now has one of the best Defense Attorneys in the States, but hasn't said who he is just yet.

3) Juror's have stepped forward in the past two days stating they felt they would be physically harmed if they didn't vote "Guilty". http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-says-two-jurors-related-county-employees

4)Two Juror's were related to Manitowoc County employees.

4) Photo's released of Theresa's ex boyfriend's hand having scratches when he was on the stand.

Added links.

[ManU918]

Newest developments:

2) His girlfriend is saying he also now has one of the best Defense Attorneys in the States, but hasn't said who he is just yet.



I wonder if its Mark Geragos.

[Fager Fan]

I probably shouldn't chime in without seeing and reading more, but a person who would torch a cat would kill a person.

[ManU918]

I probably shouldn't chime in without seeing and reading more, but a person who would torch a cat would kill a person.

Lets be honest, we're all capable of killing a person. In this case Avery might not have been a banner citizen but that doesn't make him guilty of any and every crime he is charged with. He killed a cat... Disgusting? Yes... But people kill animals every single day. It doesn't mean if they are charged with murder they are automatically guilty.

[Fager Fan]

Lets be honest, we're all capable of killing a person. In this case Avery might not have been a banner citizen but that doesn't make him guilty of any and every crime he is charged with. He killed a cat... Disgusting? Yes... But people kill animals every single day. It doesn't mean if they are charged with murder they are automatically guilty.

Come on. We're not talking about killing in self defense or hunting a deer. I can't even begin to properly describe the depravity it takes to douse an innocent animal in gas and throw it in a bonfire. The person who could do that is capable of anything.

[Fager Fan]

From my reading it sounds like people shouldn't reach conclusions by watching the show alone.

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

[ebcorde]

I'll download it, after Homeland TV's been boring

[thaskalos]

Lets be honest, we're all capable of killing a person. In this case Avery might not have been a banner citizen but that doesn't make him guilty of any and every crime he is charged with. He killed a cat... Disgusting? Yes... But people kill animals every single day. It doesn't mean if they are charged with murder they are automatically guilty.
But if a person is heartless enough to torch a cat...should I give a shit if he is wrongfully accused of murder?

[Tom]

Killing animals is a sign found in the past of many serial killers.
Better to be safe than sorry - fry this POS's ass.
He is obviously mentally deranged at best - let's not waster time on marginal people like this - get rid of them. No loss.

[Mystic]

It wasn't done intentionally according to Steve Avery. They were hanging out around a bonfire when he was younger with a group of other shitheads and the cat was thrown over the fire. According to Steven, it wasn't done with the intent on killing the cat.

Weather that is true or not, only him and those there know for certain.

[Tom]

Be on the safe side - fry the POS.
NO loss.

[Mystic]

From my reading it sounds like people shouldn't reach conclusions by watching the show alone.

http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidence-against-steven-avery-making--230224

The Prosecution side and deputies, etc., were asked by the two woman that made it, if they wanted to participate in the documentary. They declined.

Watch the documentary. It's definitely worth the 10 hours. There are more unanswered questions in this than you realize.

[Mystic]

Be on the safe side - fry the POS.
NO loss.

Did you watch the documentary? I take it by your tunnel vision, knee jerk responses that you have not.

[Tom]

Carefully thought out responses.

[ArlJim78]

Come on. We're not talking about killing in self defense or hunting a deer. I can't even begin to properly describe the depravity it takes to douse an innocent animal in gas and throw it in a bonfire. The person who could do that is capable of anything.
I have a white hot hatred for anyone who abuses animals but he wasn't on trial for that. Not all murderers abused animals and not all animal abusers go on to murder people.
Your first instinct was correct, to reserve judgement because you haven't seen the documentary.

The entire case against Avery was based on the coerced confession of a boy with about a third grade intellect.

[Fager Fan]

I have a white hot hatred for anyone who abuses animals but he wasn't on trial for that. Not all murderers abused animals and not all animal abusers go on to murder people.
Your first instinct was correct, to reserve judgement because you haven't seen the documentary.

The entire case against Avery was based on the coerced confession of a boy with about a third grade intellect.

I don't have Netflix, so it won't happen anytime soon (if ever).

I understand the facts are these: This woman had an appointment at this guy's auto salvage the day of her death; that Avery requested her; that this woman didn't want to go as she'd experienced creepy behavior from him and his brothers before; that Avery called her number several times that day trying to block his number from coming up as the one calling; that Avery was the last person to see her alive; her car was found on his property; her burned bones were found on his property; DNA evidence and blood were found in several places linking the two; and his gun was the murder weapon.

That about right?

Then we know he was convicted of burglary at 18, convicted of animal cruelty at 20, and convicted of assault (on a female) sometime after.

He also has tried to point the finger at his brothers, who are likewise below scum on the food chain.

Just dowsing the cat in gas and throwing it in the fire is enough for me to really not care what becomes of this man. The rest is icing on the "don't care" cake.

[ManU918]

But if a person is heartless enough to torch a cat...should I give a shit if he is wrongfully accused of murder?

Did anyone ask you directly if you gave a shit? Im probably one of if not the biggest animal activists here... That card isn't going to work with me. Show me where it says citizens do life in prison for killing a cat.

[ManU918]

Just dowsing the cat in gas and throwing it in the fire is enough for me to really not care what becomes of this man. The rest is icing on the "don't care" cake.

If a law exists that says he should do life in prison for killing a cat in such a way and cost tax payers thousands of dollars to keep him there, I would thoroughly agree with you. Unfortunately there is not...Therefore he should not be in prison based on idiotic things he has done in the past.

[thaskalos]

Did anyone ask you directly if you gave a shit? Im probably one of if not the biggest animal activists here... That card isn't going to work with me. Show me where it says citizens do life in prison for killing a cat.
Do I have to be asked something "directly" before I respond to it?

[ManU918]

Do I have to be asked something "directly" before I respond to it?

If you're asking me then yes you should give a shit if people are in prison serving time for a crime they didn't commit. Its ****ing disgusting. Im a member of PETA and Im defending this guy because it could happen to anyone of us. Killing cats is ****ed up. More ****ed up than killing a human IMO. Like I said in a previous post if there was a law in place that kept cat killers behind bars for life then let the mother****er rot. Unfortunately there isn't.

[sammy the sage]

I'm going to channel..."my inner Tom"...nuke the WHOLE county... :eek: :faint: :rolleyes: ;) :D

prosecutors, law enforcement, corrupt judge, guilty as sin in-laws of something disgusting,...ect....

none of us here will miss anything...and the counties surrounding them will be better off....

there...I feel better already...

[thaskalos]

If you're asking me then yes you should give a shit if people are in prison serving time for a crime they didn't commit. Its ****ing disgusting. Im a member of PETA and Im defending this guy because it could happen to anyone of us. Killing cats is ****ed up. More ****ed up than killing a human IMO. Like I said in a previous post if there was a law in place that kept cat killers behind bars for life then let the mother****er rot. Unfortunately there isn't.

I am not a court of law...and I am not obligated to abide by what the laws dictate when I offer my opinions on cases like these. I don't know what the "lawful" penalty is for dousing a cat with gasoline and tossing it into a fire, but to me, WHATEVER it is...it ain't enough.

I have a cat, and I also have a gun. And the person who does this to MY cat, is going to pay for this act with his life. And I am no-where NEAR what could be called a "tough guy".

I agree with Tom and Fager Fan on this one. Whatever harm comes to this guy will not disturb me in the least.

[Tom]

Everyone dies sometime.
Just make it a more convenient time for trash like this worthless slug.
Like I said Sammy, why take chances?
Take out the trash before it starts to smell.

[Mystic]

I am not a court of law...and I am not obligated to abide by what the laws dictate when I offer my opinions on cases like these. I don't know what the "lawful" penalty is for dousing a cat with gasoline and tossing it into a fire, but to me, WHATEVER it is...it ain't enough.

I have a cat, and I also have a gun. And the person who does this to MY cat, is going to pay for this act with his life. And I am no-where NEAR what could be called a "tough guy".

I agree with Tom and Fager Fan on this one. Whatever harm comes to this guy will not disturb me in the least.

If you are reading anything that ass.hole Kratz says, look at the source and know it's most likely a bunch of lies.

It was never proven the cat had gasoline poured on him.

This is what happened according to Steven Avery.

"Another mistake I did, I had a bunch of friends over and we were fooling around with the cat and, I don't know, they were kind of negging (sic) it on,' viewers heard him say in the first episode. 'I tossed him over the fire and he lit up. You know, it was the family cat. I was young and stupid and hanging around with the wrong people."

I take it as he threw it over the fire and not into the fire, intentionally trying to kill the cat.

[Fager Fan]

You don't "light up" without an accelerant.

I also doubt he would've been reported had it been an accident. Apparently one or more witnesses were horrified to the point if reporting, and enough proof existed that this scum pled guilty.

[ManU918]

I am not a court of law...and I am not obligated to abide by what the laws dictate when I offer my opinions on cases like these. I don't know what the "lawful" penalty is for dousing a cat with gasoline and tossing it into a fire, but to me, WHATEVER it is...it ain't enough.

I have a cat, and I also have a gun. And the person who does this to MY cat, is going to pay for this act with his life. And I am no-where NEAR what could be called a "tough guy".

I agree with Tom and Fager Fan on this one. Whatever harm comes to this guy will not disturb me in the least.

If you dig enough you can find a reason to dislike anyone who is on trial for any crime. Thankfully those people are not on trial for being bad people or there would be more people in prison than there are walking the street.

[ldiatone]

http://www.wtae.com/entertainment/white-house-on-making-a-murderer-petition/37332252?utm_campaign=WTAE&utm_content=56906d2c04d3012548576510&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=trueAnthem:+New+Content

[Mystic]

http://www.wtae.com/entertainment/white-house-on-making-a-murderer-petition/37332252?utm_campaign=WTAE&utm_content=56906d2c04d3012548576510&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=trueAnthem:+New+Content

It's o.k.. He has this Attorney now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Zellner

[Mystic]

Some things left of of the documentary.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40dquo/prodefense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/

[Valuist]

Just started watching it this past weekend. The first episode had a bit of a Fargo "feel" to it, but it also is like Breaking Bad, in that its addicting. With the playoff game unwatchable at this point, think I'll fire up Netflix.

[ManU918]

Just started watching it this past weekend. The first episode had a bit of a Fargo "feel" to it, but it also is like Breaking Bad, in that its addicting. With the playoff game unwatchable at this point, think I'll fire up Netflix.

Smart man.

[RunForTheRoses]

I watched this mostly last weekend, about 5 episodes in 2 days, it is addicting. I still have one to go.

First off, on a personal Justice level I agree with thasakalos, I do not give a shit if he rots in jail for killing the cat, in fact I'd like to see him slowly tortured. However, on a societal justice level it does matter. To me it does seem messed up that he was going to cost the county mucho dolares and destroy the reputations of Lenk and others (possibly they would face criminal charges too).

The reddit site is a good place for more discussion (although I'm getting overloaded looking at these repulsive people on all sides). One post, that looks kinda possible, is that there was a weird confluence of events between the searchers and Lenk and Colburn and the other nephew and the sister's boyfriend. One thing that doesn't add up in the nephew's account is where is the blood in the house? Lame brain wouldn't be capable of getting rid of all of it. But, the reporette brought up that SAs DNA was on the bullet and the nephew's full testimony seems damning if you watch the whole thing and not cherry picked excerpts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/makingamurderer



I'd like to see an interview with the victim's brother and other "normal" locals and see why they are so certain he did it.

Through reddit I learned about this podcast Serial, season one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_%28podcast%29#Season_1_.282014.29

about a case in Baltimore. Any Baltimore folks remember it? I've listened to the first two episodes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Hae_Min_Lee

One thing that is similar and is really an axiom of these cases is the DA, once they pick whom to prosecute are not worried about Justice but in getting a conviction. Their self interest as government employees is to win the case.

[Fager Fan]

Police can't plant sweat, can they?

They planted the car, the blood, the bullet, and the body?

Then we have to ask where they got the body? And her car and all her personal effects. So they found her shot in her car, and they decided, "hey, let's frame this guy, " and over the next days and nights they hid her car on their property, and burned her body in his fire barrel? And the guy didn't see them do this? Smell the fire? Nothing, though he was there?

Who did kill her? Did the Sheriff Dept kill her to have a murder to frame him with?

How do we explain him being the last to see her alive? And his phone calls to her? And how he called her phone at 4:30 to establish an alibi leaving a voice mail asking where she was, she hadn't kept her appointment, but then admits she did keep her 2:30 appointment.

He did it. The phone calls are the giveaway even if you think there was a vast conspiracy to frame him by law enforcement. The phone company wasn't part of the conspiracy.

[RunForTheRoses]

Police can't plant sweat, can they?

They planted the car, the blood, the bullet, and the body?

Then we have to ask where they got the body? And her car and all her personal effects. So they found her shot in her car, and they decided, "hey, let's frame this guy, " and over the next days and nights they hid her car on their property, and burned her body in his fire barrel? And the guy didn't see them do this? Smell the fire? Nothing, though he was there?

Who did kill her? Did the Sheriff Dept kill her to have a murder to frame him with?

How do we explain him being the last to see her alive? And his phone calls to her? And how he called her phone at 4:30 to establish an alibi leaving a voice mail asking where she was, she hadn't kept her appointment, but then admits she did keep her 2:30 appointment.

He did it. The phone calls are the giveaway even if you think there was a vast conspiracy to frame him by law enforcement. The phone company wasn't part of the conspiracy.

How do we explain him being the last to see her alive? And his phone calls to her? And how he called her phone at 4:30 to establish an alibi leaving a voice mail asking where she was, she hadn't kept her appointment, but then admits she did keep her 2:30 appointment.

I didn't know that. The creators of the show (and Serial) are using the common disconnect between Truth and Justice and the prosecution trying to get a guilty verdict.

[Valuist]

Nancy Grace was on Dr. Phil arguing there was "no doubt" in her mind that Avery was guilty. She cited a litany of personality flaws of Avery; he told an inmate or two in prison he was gonna rape women (since when are inmates such bastions of credibility?). She brought up the bit about the cat; was that bad? Sure, but it had zero to do with this case. She also then admitted her ex-fiance was murdered, so she clearly has tunnel vision on this (much like Hallbach's brother), and is speaking from emotion. Its understandable that Hallbach's brother had tunnel vision; he just wanted a conviction. Probably anyone else in that spot would. But that doesn't make him an objective thinker. And as we found out, Nancy Grace isn't, either.

One thing is for sure, whether Avery actually did it or not; the Manitowac County police were incompetant, corrupt, lazy, had a clear conflict of interest, and had a clear motive to stick it to Avery. The documentary wasn't about Hallbach; it was about the trial, and the shockingly poor work by the county PD.

[Fager Fan]

I saw the Dr. Phil episode and she also listed facts about the case that convinced her. But I'll agree she gets too emotional.

As for the cat, Dr. Phil had the local reporter there who covered the case, and she said the Netflix series has the cat death all wrong. She said that several witnesses all said he doused it in gas, threw it in the fire, and then held it in the fire after the cat attempted to get out of the fire. They also said he enjoyed watching it burn.

The person who would do that is a monster and more than capable of Murdering someone.

[Mystic]

I saw the Dr. Phil episode and she also listed facts about the case that convinced her. But I'll agree she gets too emotional.

As for the cat, Dr. Phil had the local reporter there who covered the case, and she said the Netflix series has the cat death all wrong. She said that several witnesses all said he doused it in gas, threw it in the fire, and then held it in the fire after the cat attempted to get out of the fire. They also said he enjoyed watching it burn.

The person who would do that is a monster and more than capable of Murdering someone.

Maybe so, but that still doesn't PROVE he was the one that actually killed Theresa.

[Fager Fan]

Maybe so, but that still doesn't PROVE he was the one that actually killed Theresa.

Someone did. You have a better suspect? I'll go with the one who lured the woman out to his place and was the last person to see her alive, on whose property she, her car and her personal effects were found, and who was witnessed tending the fire barrel that night.

[ManU918]

Someone did. You have a better suspect? I'll go with the one who lured the woman out to his place and was the last person to see her alive, on whose property she, her car and her personal effects were found, and who was witnessed tending the fire barrel that night.

Sure how about the guy Teresa was living with who just randomly guessed all of her computer passwords to gain access to her cell phone to listen to her VM's and delete them before anyone could hear them. I think that would be a good start.

[ManU918]

I saw the Dr. Phil episode and she also listed facts about the case that convinced her. But I'll agree she gets too emotional.

As for the cat, Dr. Phil had the local reporter there who covered the case, and she said the Netflix series has the cat death all wrong. She said that several witnesses all said he doused it in gas, threw it in the fire, and then held it in the fire after the cat attempted to get out of the fire. They also said he enjoyed watching it burn.

The person who would do that is a monster and more than capable of Murdering someone.

I love how all of a sudden everyone on here is now an animal activist after seeing this documentary. Go watch Food Inc then we can talk animals.

If only the person who murdered Teresa would have murdered Nancy Grace. This world would be a much better place.

[Valuist]

Someone did. You have a better suspect? I'll go with the one who lured the woman out to his place and was the last person to see her alive, on whose property she, her car and her personal effects were found, and who was witnessed tending the fire barrel that night.

No, that's the police's job. Theresa's ex boyfriend....never even a person of interest? How about her male roommate....supposedly platonic. Again, not even questioned? The police were incredibly lazy, except when it came to covering up their previous shoddy work.

[RunForTheRoses]

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/brendan-dassey-making-a-murderer-conviction-overturned-1201836661/

[RunForTheRoses]

A new twist:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/making-a-murderer-confession-wisconsin-serial-killer-allegedly-confesses-to-killing-of-teresa-halbach/