I guess it's a question of perception, but I didn't really feel they went with that angle. I thought on the contrary the approach was more to show the evidence presented was sufficient to say there was reasonable doubt - not that he was guilty or not guilty, just that there was reasonable doubt. And I think his lawyers get this point across very well.
Television Making a Murderer (Netflix Documentary) - Spoilers from Page 2
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Ive noticed that quite a lot especially on shows/ movies that get a lot of early praise, and then after wards, there a host of posts like that.
I found the documentary totally leading. His wife gets out of prison and returns to their home that has been turned upside down by the police and she accuses them of stealing her wallet, yet that is never clarified. You would have thought that the family would have tidied the place for her before she came home anyway. It just seemed too convenient to me. The sheer volume of footage is crazy too, how did that happen?
It was filmed over 10 years.
Why, for example, do they spend so much time during the show with his family and his supporters? They spent a lot of time talking with his mother; his initial girlfriend; and then the new long distance girlfriend - all of whom defend him and clearly believe he is innocent. All of which is understandable on their parts but why do we need to see so much of it? These scenes portray him as a kind, loving guy without offering any countering viewpoint. This could lead you to believe the filmmakers were on their side in terms of believing he was innocent. There was rarely any time spent with people who believed he was guilty, although a lot of these people, such as the victims family, refused to be in the show - and understandably so.
I agree with you that the lawyers got across the issue of reasonable doubt well and I don't think they were trying to say he was innocent. Rather the filmakers leaned more towards that side in the way everything was eventually presented. I dont think we saw enough of the bad side of Avery. But this is the problem with a true crime show like this - it is still a TV show, and people wouldn't care as much if we saw that he wasn't such a nice character. I felt huge sympathy for both Steven and especially Brendan while watching but often felt we weren't getting the whole picture with Steven.
All you need to do is look at that petition to pardon him with over 400, 000 signatures to know that a lot of people believed he was innocent after watching the show.
To answer your first question: because they had access to them.
For what it's worth, I'm rewatching it as my wife hadn't seen it, and I don't think it actually paints him as innocent (though it does paint him as a nice person). On the contrary, I'm more and more convinced he did it. However, it seems quite obvious he was framed and the judicial system was blind to it - which is ultimately what the show aims to highlight. I honestly don't think they want to show he's innocent. And if they did, they don't do a great job of it.
Is this based on what you saw on the documentary? If so, I'd be very curious to know why you've reached that conclusion.
Yeah based on what's seen, due to him being the last person seeing her and being a really weird person and the fact some of the evidence probably isn't planted and would point to him. I also find certain of his reactions to certain events a bit weird, though it's hard to say as they could be taken out of context (like how he reacts to Brendan's confession, he was oddly calm imo). Though in fairness, I had the same feeling after the first viewing, but it's probably been reinforced upon second viewing because of what I know and reading this thread.
I just think most of those things are explained by Stephen Avery being really, really, exceptionally dumb.
I thought in the case it came up that the bus driver was actually the last to see her although I could be wrong. There was also another witness if I remember that wasn't in the documentary that saw a green SUV driving away from the area possible but couldn't identify the driver.
That's completely missing the point of the show. The clues in the title, the documentary was about Steve Avery and Brendan Dassey and how they didn't get a fair trial. It's not really about Teresa Holbach and whether he or someone else did it or not but whether it was a fair trial.
The program paints them as the victims (innocent or not) of the judicial system therefore it's obvious why it's his family that are interviewed. A lot of the early footage is peiced together as well remember.
I mean the show doesn't even go into alternative suspects for instance as it's not about catching the murderer. Only whether the legal system is fair and open to human error/bias/corruption.
I can see why someone who thinks him quilty might find some of the stuff as portraying him as innocent but I'd say if you've judged him guilty you're doing so without having the opportunity to find other suspects dodgy etc. Just the like jury.
Yep, possibly.
Just rewatched the couple of episodes really centered around Brendan and Len Kachinsky. It's astounding that Brendan's life is going to be ruined by the unfortunate fact he is stupid and was not properly counseled. And I'm not speaking about Brendan Rodgers.
I get all that and I think it's a great show. What I'm saying is that it could have been slightly more balanced though. Why leave out the evidence of Avery's DNA from his sweat being found on the car for instance? Maybe I'm just being overly cynical but it could be that they thought if the audience was going to be more inclined to think "actually this guy is probably guilty" then they might not be as outraged by the perceived planting of evidence etc. and then the show wouldn't be as powerful.
@Rooney in Paris
The show is called 'Making a Murderer' which implies he is innocent from the very outset. The show is totally loaded.
The show is called 'Making a Murderer' which implies he is innocent from the very outset. The show is totally loaded.
Not really. Could mean that he was made a murderer by being put in jail for 18 years for something he didn't do in the first place.
That's actually what I thought was going to happen when I first started watching it.
Don't really agree with that, as @CassiusClaymore pointed out it could mean something else.
And it could be a wider statement of how the judicial system and/or the court of public opinion can fabricate a murderer.
It doesn't necessarily imply he's innocent.
They left a lot out on either side of the argument but regarding the sweat the expert admitted in court that it could have been transfer sweat as it was very minimal and the team handling the car hadn't followed procedure regarding changing gloves or something.
It's easy to take him being portrayed as the victim as him being seen as innocent I do see that. Although I don't see why you'd go down the road of saying look how guilty he may be if you're highlighting errors in the legal and local police system, his guilt is inconsequential to the feck ups.
I mean a women a mile or so down the road reported her husband as a potential suspect but that's not mentioned either? I don't think they wanted to venture too much into the who did it but more so how was this person found guilty.
For what it's worth I don't believe he's definetely innocent by any measure. I'm 50/50.
Did the state actually put together a timeline of what they believe to have happened? I didn't see it at all, and they've just rode on the back of a few bits of 'evidence' and the Brendan 'confession'.
The defence were the ones trying to put some timeline on it, but again, they didn't really give any obvious alibis or timeframes between phone calls to Brendan inviting him to the fire, phone calls to his girlfriend and mother etc.
I remember hearing Brendan was his only alibi, but the state saw to that very quickly.
There is so much reasonable doubt in this case but from the excused juror it sounds like some jurors went in with one framed minds.
The defence were the ones trying to put some timeline on it, but again, they didn't really give any obvious alibis or timeframes between phone calls to Brendan inviting him to the fire, phone calls to his girlfriend and mother etc.
I remember hearing Brendan was his only alibi, but the state saw to that very quickly.
There is so much reasonable doubt in this case but from the excused juror it sounds like some jurors went in with one framed minds.
Yeah same.
What about after watching three episodes, is that still what you thought was going to happen? They are just too nice about him and sympathetic, even though he is a minor criminal anyway, for me to feel there would be a major twist where he could end up being actually guilty of the murder.
It seemed that the defence had to get rid of quite a few jurors because they would have been biased, and even with the lot they got, it still had one or two who wouldnt have been straight from the get go (thats based on watching and reading afterwards).
It does seem like the jurors either comprised to get it done with or some were just swayed and wanted it to end.
My sympathy for him was put on ice when I heard he burnt a cat alive in the first episode tbh.
I reckon by about half way through I had a pretty good idea he wasn't going to get off yeah (and it was a ball ache trying to avoid spoilers).
Anyway I've already stated I thought it was a massively partisan documentary but so what? Wasn't the media coverage leading up the trial massively skewed against him? At least this goes some way to redressing that. I tried to look at it more of critique of the justice system and god knows there's plenty in this case that needs critiquing.
I think I already knew how the jurors were selected but it's another thing which doesn't seem right to me. For instance the prosecution I read turned away employees of a nuclear facility presumably because they would more heavily scrutinise the evidence and have a higher burden of proof. They actively striked other higher education individuals as well.
Should that actually be allowed? If you're after a fair judgement then they're exactly the kind of people you'd want.
Then they said when they were reviewing the potential jurors that 129 out of 130 had already expressed an opinion that he was guilty. One of the jurors who did get selected was a volunteer at the police department.
Then there were other jurors chucked out during the case other than the one shown in the documentary. It's crazy
If that's correct, that's absolutely mental.
@ striking out jurors because they're too intelligent. I think the option to do that needs to come with some valid reasons as to why and that clearly isn't one.Though in fairness, I was watching episode 3 or 4 yesterday when Brendan wants to get rid of Len, which is initially refused by the judge, and this is after Brendan says "I think he thinks I'm guilty" among other issues and the judge doesn't see that as a problem as he feels communication hasn't broken down. My wife let out "what?!" and couldn't believe it.
Reasonably well done, though pretty biased and easily could have only been 5 or 6 episodes imo. Totally drags a bit in the middle.
For me the most galling thing was the whole US 'innocent until proven guilty' defense just went out the window. I kind of blame the defense for that. The burden of proof is on the state/prosecution, and they not only completely fabricated their first 'story' (the whole Brendan made up bullsh*t) but then never provided another one. My entire defense would have been: "We have no idea what happened, the prosecution have no idea what happened and therefore you simply cannot find a man guilty of actions you can't even define."
Then again, the real tragedy is definitely Brendan. How that poor kid is still in jail is beyond me, and how those f*cking detectives sleep at night is too. They deserve every ounce of hate that goes their way, and I hope they suffer for what they did.
For me the most galling thing was the whole US 'innocent until proven guilty' defense just went out the window. I kind of blame the defense for that. The burden of proof is on the state/prosecution, and they not only completely fabricated their first 'story' (the whole Brendan made up bullsh*t) but then never provided another one. My entire defense would have been: "We have no idea what happened, the prosecution have no idea what happened and therefore you simply cannot find a man guilty of actions you can't even define."
Then again, the real tragedy is definitely Brendan. How that poor kid is still in jail is beyond me, and how those f*cking detectives sleep at night is too. They deserve every ounce of hate that goes their way, and I hope they suffer for what they did.
When the jury were first asked for a show of hands, 7/12 said he was not guilty, 3 guilty, and 2 undecided. It then only took 20~hours for all 12 to say he was guilty?
It seems like a lot of the jury were easily persuaded
They each get a number of peremptory challenges where they don't need to present reason, to balance it out apparently. Exclusion beyond that then needs a valid reason.
In such a rural community though then it seems like it would cause issues.
Checked to see the UK ruling on this and it appears this ceased in England from 1988 as it impedes on the idea of a random jury and has a history of controversy around being geared towards securing a prosecution.
Damn Netflix has me hooked reading this shit
Last edited:
This is clearly what it is.
The show doesn't explicitly say whether he's innocent or guilty, it's about the failures of the American justice system.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/making-murderer-fans-found-piece-230313565.html
Teresa Halbach before she went missing.
When the podcast "Serial" went viral, fans on Reddit and elsewhere set about looking for clues.
The same is now happening for the Steven Avery case at the center of Netflix's "Making a Murderer" docuseries, and viewers have discovered a fascinating new piece of evidence.
Jerry Buting, one of the original lawyers defending Avery in the trial for the murder of Teresa Halbach, recently spoke with Rolling Stone and said that internet sleuths had found something he and his partner had missed.
"We were only two minds," Buting said. "What I'm discovering is that a million minds are better than two. Some of these people online have found things with a screen shot of a picture that we missed."
One of the crucial pieces of evidence dug up by those sleuths is a detail found in a common photo of Halbach before she went missing and died. It shows the victim with a key chain that has a number of keys on it.
View post on imgur.com
During the investigation of Halbach's murder, the police found a contested key to Halbach's car in Avery's home. But they only found the one key — not the rest of the keys seen on her key chain, which were never recovered.
Had this evidence been introduced in Avery's trial, it would've bolstered the argument that the sole car key, found weeks after an initial search of the Avery property, was planted. And if Avery does ever get another trial, it could help him still.
Teresa Halbach before she went missing.
When the podcast "Serial" went viral, fans on Reddit and elsewhere set about looking for clues.
The same is now happening for the Steven Avery case at the center of Netflix's "Making a Murderer" docuseries, and viewers have discovered a fascinating new piece of evidence.
Jerry Buting, one of the original lawyers defending Avery in the trial for the murder of Teresa Halbach, recently spoke with Rolling Stone and said that internet sleuths had found something he and his partner had missed.
"We were only two minds," Buting said. "What I'm discovering is that a million minds are better than two. Some of these people online have found things with a screen shot of a picture that we missed."
One of the crucial pieces of evidence dug up by those sleuths is a detail found in a common photo of Halbach before she went missing and died. It shows the victim with a key chain that has a number of keys on it.
View post on imgur.com
During the investigation of Halbach's murder, the police found a contested key to Halbach's car in Avery's home. But they only found the one key — not the rest of the keys seen on her key chain, which were never recovered.
Had this evidence been introduced in Avery's trial, it would've bolstered the argument that the sole car key, found weeks after an initial search of the Avery property, was planted. And if Avery does ever get another trial, it could help him still.
One of the problems with the system. The dominant loud ones take over and can influence the others especially if its a long trial and people just want it to end (thus a compromise is made).
WTF have I just watched? The whole time watching I was just filled with rage. I just hope that advances in DNA may later prove him innocent like when he was first freed after the rape case. The pigs blatantly used Avery's blood to help pin the murder on him. If they can track the blood from Avery's blood sample to the car then surely they must overturn his case.
Well thats what the doc wanted you to feel
I still think he was very much guilty, but the police fecked up too in the investigation
There was absolutely zero motive for him to kill an auto trader photographer, though. She was a friend of his too.
She did not like him at all apparently and was creeped out by him
The motive was sex for him and for his nephew
The motive was sex? According to the statement she was tied up to the bed with chains, and Avery asked his nephew to cut her throat. Not only that but they then apparently shot her too? I think they allegedly did something else after but I forgot what.
There's no motive for that. That's sick.
Edit: oh yeah he burnt her. Convenient for forensics, ey?
Last edited: