Anyone else watching it?
Here is the trailer -
Very binge worthy. Especially suited for folks who liked Serial and Jinx.
Here is the trailer -
Very binge worthy. Especially suited for folks who liked Serial and Jinx.
Definitely better than Jinx for me. More closer to a documentary and has access to almost all key players via footage or interviews or documents.yeah it's fantastic, I'm three episodes in.
It's better than The Jinx I think. An even crazier story and with far more footage and coverage to go along with it.
Finished it. Incredible and disturbing story. Best documentary I've seen.
Going purely on the documentary it really boggles the mind not only that he was found guilty, but especially that Brendan was found guilty. I can only assume these jurors were massively brainwashed by all the media attention at the time. However, I've read stuff on the net and apparently the documentary has left out pretty incriminating evidence, like supposedly Stephen did ring Teresa multiple times that day. Even still, what's the motive? And where the hell is the blood? She was stabbed and mutilated and all they could find was a slab on a bullet? Madness!
I agree with his defense attorney though, I really hope at this stage that he actually is guilty, otherwise it's too messed up to comprehend.
There was blood on the car though, wasn't there? That's the stuff they did the EDTA testing on, which seemed dodgy considering how quick they did it.
I'm still not sure on Avery, just can't decide if he's guilty or not. Dassey though, I think he's innocent. He's a dumb kid that was fecked over massively by his prick of a lawyer.
Amazing documentary. Also, I knew that prosecution lawyer, Kratz, was a dirtbag.
Finished it. Incredible and disturbing story. Best documentary I've seen.
Going purely on the documentary it really boggles the mind not only that he was found guilty, but especially that Brendan was found guilty. I can only assume these jurors were massively brainwashed by all the media attention at the time. However, I've read stuff on the net and apparently the documentary has left out pretty incriminating evidence, like supposedly Stephen did ring Teresa multiple times that day. Even still, what's the motive? And where the hell is the blood? She was stabbed and mutilated and all they could find was a slab on a bullet? Madness!
I agree with his defense attorney though, I really hope at this stage that he actually is guilty, otherwise it's too messed up to comprehend.
Unfortunately there's still a lot of naivety around. "Law enforcement doing shady stuff in a Western country? No way!"The thing I find fascinating about the reactions to this show, is that people seem to be genuinely shocked at how prosecutions work. When it's seen in a documentary like this,everyone is outraged, yet when we see it going on in real time, as we did with Amanda Knox, most people can't recognize what is happening. It shows that we have a natural inclination to assume the prosecution are the good guys trying to find out what happened, rather than in reality, which is they are trying to get convictions.
Yes this is pretty much how I feel about it.A comment on interweb sums up some of my own thoughts
While recognizing that Making a Murderer is going to have at least a slight bias—by virtue of access if nothing else—I just can't understand how a complete lack of a reasonably coherent narrative of events from the prosecution can result in a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I'm still not sure what the prosecution thought happened.
1. Even if we take the accusations that Avery repeatedly called and requested Halbach and used his sister's initial for the appointment, it more or less makes sense that a customer (particularly one with an auto salvage yard, and therefore professional reasons to have extended, frequent contact with Auto Trader) might request a specific employee (even if for some degree of pervy reasons, which isn't at all clear) and make the appointment under the name of his sister, who was after all the one selling the van.
Then...according to the prosecution...
2. Avery talked Halbach into his trailer and/or garage, even though the only DNA evidence of her being anywhere inside the buildings was a bullet with trace DNA and no visible blood. He shot her multiple times...SOMEWHERE...even though no reasonable person could expect for anyone to be able to clean up the mess from multiple head shots without there being obvious evidence of a massive clean up. Instead, no Halbach blood or DNA, but an abundance of dirt, grime and Avery DNA. Likewise, no match is made to a weapon used for the attack.
3. Meanwhile, despite the need for an exhaustive clean-up of the crime scene which scrubbed any blood evidence from the buildings (but somehow missed a bullet on the floor), or any other visible evidence of significant blood loss elsewhere on the property, Avery left several visible smudges—his own and Halbach's—in the RAV4. Nevertheless, he left no fingerprints in or on the car. And, despite the on-site machinery and know-how to disassemble and crush the car, he simply parks it within eyesight of the crusher and covers it perfunctorily with scrap parts and tree branches.
4. Then, he wipes clean Halbach's car key and fob of any of her DNA but handles it enough to leave his own DNA on it, stashes it in a small cupboard in his own bedroom.
5. To dispose of the body, he builds a large bonfire in a fire pit outside his bedroom window, invites his nephew and others over. It may be possible to get a bonfire to the necessary temperatures to burn a body down to bone shards, but it would take hours. (Cremation usually takes 2-2.5 hours in a mortuary.) Then he distributes a few shards into a burn barrel near the fire pit and a few others at the quarry on the other end of the Avery's 40-acre property. What?!
No primary crime scene was ever established (or even offered with any degree of credibility). And no explanation of how a single bullet (without visible blood or brain matter) was found in a building with no other evidence of a crime committed.
There's just ZERO coherent narrative that accounts for all of the evidence that includes Avery killing Halbach that doesn't also include law enforcement planting or manipulating evidence. And once evidence has been planted, there's no way the other physical evidence can be believed. What a clusterfeck!
If I was a betting man, I'd wager that Avery did actually kill the girl. But I think the police totally framed him to get a conviction.
unless there's evidence the documentary didn't cover (which could be the case) then I can't see how it was him. He was obviously at his trailer that day and the post above explains the unlikelihood of her actually being killed there.
I agreeIf I was a betting man, I'd wager that Avery did actually kill the girl. But I think the police totally framed him to get a conviction.
Yeah that seems reasonable enough.I don't think she was killed there. The evidence presented in the documentary makes me think it's a total police set up. However, she was still killed and if I had to bet who did it, I'd go for Steven Avery.
You've barely scratched the surface of frustration yet.I don't know how people can watch it. I'm about 3-4 episodes in and watching it just makes me too angry.
I finished it a few days ago and to be honest I wouldn't recommend it, as though it's very well done, it's ultimately incredibly unsatisfying. It's like Deadwood, it's a really good TV show, but you can't really recommend it.I don't know how people can watch it. I'm about 3-4 episodes in and watching it just makes me too angry.
For anyone interested, there's a subreddit with lots of resources, information, alternate theories, and other evidence that was introduced but not really covered in the documentary.
Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey were a couple of shady feckers that didn't harbor enough investigation/questioning Imo
someone raised a good point too, that I thought about when I watched it. In the closing arguments, the defense said something along the lines of "the police believed they were framing a guilty man", and the way it was worded made it sound like they believed him to be guilty and just helped With some evidence. It gave them a bit of an "out" and the prosecution piggy backed off that in their own closing argument about. Seemed to be the only real misstep by the defense throughout the whole trial.
Don't think that was a misstep. The jury would have been made up of people who are naturally trusting of law enforcement so the idea that they would purposely frame someone they thought was innocent is an impossible sell. The prosecution wanted to make it Avery vs The Police as much as possible because if the jury thinks that a Not Guilty verdict is as good as convicting some members of law enforcement then it more or less puts the burden of reasonable doubt on the defense in the juror's minds.
Don't think that was a misstep. The jury would have been made up of people who are naturally trusting of law enforcement so the idea that they would purposely frame someone they thought was innocent is an impossible sell. The prosecution wanted to make it Avery vs The Police as much as possible because if the jury thinks that a Not Guilty verdict is as good as convicting some members of law enforcement then it more or less puts the burden of reasonable doubt on the defense in the juror's minds.
Binge watched it and thought it was excellent
Sadly the stuff I read after I was done ruined it. It would have made me view him and the case in a very different light