The Making of a Murderer (Netflix)

Misfit

Lawful neutral
Which is why I can't get too upset even if he *was* wrongly convicted. I think we can all agree that Steven Avery is a ####bag mental case, even without the cat torturing, and should be locked up.
I’m torn over this. I do think he probably wasn’t guilty for sexually assaulting THAT women but my spidey senses tell me he most likely did lots of other stuff he didn’t get caught for. He did have a history of violence towards women and although having a 70 IQ doesn’t excuse his caveman reactions it helps someone understand why he did some of the stupid things he did. I only made it ¾ of the way through the first episode last night and hopefully I’ll get the chance to watch more tonight.
 
Last edited:

DaisyDuke

Member
I walked away with a completely different perspective than has been mentioned here so far. To me, this documentary shows how somebody who has no money and is assigned a public defender is completely railroaded. The nephew should not have been found guilty as the only evidence they had against him was some highly questionable coerced confession. There was no DNA evidence found inside the house that made the nephew’s “CONFESSION” plausible, in fact, there was no evidence the nephew had even been in his house because even his DNA didn’t exist. He needs to be released and given a new trial outside that jurisdiction and prior to court, if I was his defense counsel, I would have that confession completely tossed. Betcha without it, they wouldn’t even attempt to try and prosecute him again. The narcissist prick of a prosecutor who was later disbarred for sexually harassing victims in cases he was working on ONLY had that confession to use at trial on the nephew.

As for Steve Avery, he had made a settlement out of desperation which yielded him $400K for a defense team. As smart as I think his team is, I could not believe the amount of press conferences that went on during the trial or the fact that none of the witnesses were sequestered during his trial. The importance of sequestering witnesses is that one does not change the scope of their testimony based on another person’s testimony they heard in court. Some of the evidence presented against Avery was questionable. The car key, missed SEVEN TIMES, during various searches was found by the shadiest of characters involved in the 1st law suit. This SINGLE (think about that, who carries only 1 car key on your everyday keys? I hate keys but I have 5 on my ring – because I have to have these 5 keys), car key did not have the deceased person’s DNA, only Avery’s. This was a cloth textured key ring. It would HAVE TO HAVE the DNA of the deceased on it if she carried it around on the daily and they didn’t find it the other 6 times they searched his house? I don’t buy that at all. The so called “bullet evidence” was contaminated and should have been tossed out. He could have very well killed her but some of the evidence they used against him was obviously, in my opinion, staged. He didn’t kill her by shackling her to the bed in his trailer and taking her out to the garage and shooting her. There is no way that happened. Avery was a sloppy pig and the garage and house was filthy.

I was well-aware of this case long before the Netflix documentary because they have covered it in detail on Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community :)dork:) so if anything seeing the injustice of the way the legal system handled both these convictions and the nature of the evidence, I can honestly say I have reasonable doubt.
I have to agree with a lot of what you said. Do I think Avery could have done it? Sure. He was obviously not a stand up guy. But there were a lot of unusual happenings with the case as a whole. It was poorly handled. And it's so hard to wrap my head around the fact that they were able to scrub his actual residence clean of any DNA and blood. That place was cluttered and there was crap everywhere. As terrible as it sounds, I don't think they'd have the mental capacity to clean and dispose of everything so as not to leave any trace at all. I imagine a lot was left out of the documentary but I can't find anywhere any more information.

The trial with the nephew floored me, as well as the outcome. If in fact his story is exactly what happened (which I doubt), how is he not in some institution versus prison? He was, to a degree, mentally challenged, and they even alluded to that in the trial. The taped confession was hard to watch - he clearly didn't understand what was happening - asking when they'd be done and that he had something going on at a class period he needed to be back for that afternoon. And the taped interview with the individual having him draw what happened....the guy was telling him what to draw - was that particular interview shown in court, or was that not shown? They showed the drawings themselves but not the way they were able to obtain them. That was ridiculous. It reminded me of watching a small child being questioned and having no idea what was going on, getting flustered, and just saying what they think they're supposed to say. Why wasn't there some sort of child psychologist/psychiatrist or something of that nature involved? I think the nephew's trial angered me more than Avery's.
 

Misfit

Lawful neutral
Everything was good in my Netflix world bindge watching Fraggle Rock and now I'm hooked on this.
 

Monello

Sexually compliant
PREMO Member
I walked away with a completely different perspective than has been mentioned here so far. To me, this documentary shows how somebody who has no money and is assigned a public defender is completely railroaded.
Years ago a bunch of sailors from the Norfolk area got caught up in a mess of a crime. A bunch pleaded guilty. When they were asked about the crime they swore they didn't do it, but the fear of being locked up for a long time if found guilty at trial made them take the plea even though they claim they were innocent.

I found some more info. It's an interesting read if anyone likes that kind of story.

The Norfolk Four are four men, Derek Tice, Danial Williams, Joseph J. Dick Jr., and Eric C. Wilson, who were convicted in 1999 for the 1997 rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko in Norfolk, Virginia. Their convictions were the source of controversy, as their convictions were largely based on confessions which the men maintain were coerced with threats of receiving the death penalty if they did not plead guilty. Organizations such as the Innocence Project protested the convictions as a "miscarriage of justice", while Moore-Bosko's parents continue to believe that all those convicted were participants in the crime.

Three of the four men, Tice, Williams, and Dick, were sentenced to one or more life sentences in prison without the possibility of parole due to their having either pleaded guilty to or having been convicted of the murder, while Wilson was convicted of rape and sentenced to 8½ years in prison. Three other men, Geoffrey A. Farris, John E. Danser, and Richard D. Pauley, Jr., were also initially charged with the crime, but their charges were later dropped.

A fifth man, Omar Ballard, was also convicted of the crime and was sentenced to 100 years in prison, 59 of which were suspended. He is the only man whose DNA matches that found at the scene, and his confession states that he committed the crime by himself, with none of the other men involved. Forensic evidence is consistent with his story that there were no other participants
The norfolk 4

wiki version
 

KevinSully

New Member
I agree that it is slanted, but you still can't discount the police and prosecution shenanigans. It is my belief that his nephew's brother and step father did it and pinned it on Steve Avery. The whole bunch is a hot mess, and I truly do feel bad for the nephew, what has been done to him is terrible.

I like reading the different theories on Reddit. It's pretty interesting.
In fairness of full disclosure, I think he did it. I don't think there are as many police shenanigans as it seems to be pointing out, (at least not in this case, but there were huge mistakes or intentional bad acts by the police and prosecutor in his first!) but that being said, how would his nephew and the nephew's father plant dna, sweat inside the car hood and blood inside the car? How do they get Avery's dna on the key and how do they get Brenden to tell the police about there being dna on the inside of the car hood and a bullet in the garage?
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
I don't usually watch crime-type tv but after hearing the hoopla about this documentary I watched it this weekend and was surprised by how quickly I got hooked. I waffled back and forth throughout the whole thing with a lot of "Are you f'n kidding me" thoughts but ultimately I think Avery guilty as charged and that Dassey should be released.

Evidence not presented in the court case:

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

Did anyone else notice that the violin piece at the beginning of the show sounded like someone pleading for their life?
 
Last edited:

Grung

New Member
I think many people are missing the point of this documentary and the outrage that has ensued. The police went out of there way to frame an innocent man the first time, which has been proven. There is very strong reason to believe they did it again 20 years later. I think this documentary opened a lot of peoples eyes to the fact that police do lie, and once they decide to pin a crime on you it is very hard to prove your innocence.

Forget Steve Avery, what about Brendan? Surely you can't make the same statements about his criminal past since he had none. If you bother to actually watch the documentary you will see that his "confession" was coerced at the very least. In fact it was so inconsistent and full of holes they chose not to even use it in Steven's trial. Of course that didn't stop them from spouting it all over the news, ensuring there is no way he could get a fair trial.
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
The police went out of there way to frame an innocent man the first time, which has been proven. There is very strong reason to believe they did it again 20 years later. .
:yeahthat: He was most certainly their primary target the first time, and even when an individual confessed to doing it (8 years before DNA cleared him) they completely ignored it. They didn't like the guy and they didn't care if he really did the crime or not. And as far as the opinion goes with "well he deserves to be in jail regardless", doesn't it concern you to have the actual killer(s) roaming free?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I think many people are missing the point of this documentary and the outrage that has ensued.
Netflix has presented a bunch of biased half-truths to steer you into a certain POV that is not based on fact. Six brazillion sites have cropped up with all the evidence and such that this show didn't bother to tell you about. Why? Because the creators of the show want you to think that an innocent man was convicted of killing that woman, which upon further review appears to be a lie.

Perhaps he didn't rape the first woman, but he clearly and obviously killed Teresa Halbach, based on the actual evidence presented at the trial and not on the bull#### TV show Netflix put together. If I were Teresa Halbach's family, I would sue their ass off.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I had reasonable doubt until the EDTA evidence was presented.
I think a lot of people are going to miss the importance of the defense's analytical chemist's testimony. Adoring to the show, the FBI couldn't identify the lowest detectable levels for their technique. That's a huge issue. Their test doesn't say there was no EDTA, only that they couldn't detect it. If the test in question has really low detection limits that result is a big deal for the prosecution, if it has high detection limits then not so much.

Netflix has presented a bunch of biased half-truths to steer you into a certain POV that is not based on fact. Six brazillion sites have cropped up with all the evidence and such that this show didn't bother to tell you about. Why? Because the creators of the show want you to think that an innocent man was convicted of killing that woman, which upon further review appears to be a lie.

Perhaps he didn't rape the first woman, but he clearly and obviously killed Teresa Halbach, based on the actual evidence presented at the trial and not on the bull#### TV show Netflix put together. If I were Teresa Halbach's family, I would sue their ass off.
.

There is no doubt about it, he did not rape that woman in 1985.

You should watch the show instead of railing against it in ignorance. It is certainly biased, but some of the corruption and mishandling of the case that is exposed is astounding. I don't know if the jury makes the same finding if they knew about most of it. That doesn't mean the guy is innocent, just that the police, prosecution, and some defense attorneys boogered the case up either intentionally or through ineptitude
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
You should watch the show instead of railing against it in ignorance.

:yeahthat:

Also, I keep hearing all of this "you didn't see all of the evidence", well okay, show me all of the evidence that was not shown in the documentary. Show me all of this evidence that "Six brazillion" sites have identified, because I have not seen any smoking gun evidence that would prove Steve Avery guilty. I have seen a whole lot of evidence (beyond what was in the documentary) that clearly points to purposeful shenanigans and the intent to railroad Steven Avery on the part of the Manitowoc PD. Then you get to his nephew, which is even worse. There is absolutely nothing that I have seen that any sane human being could look at and say "he's guilty".

I think people just really do not want to believe that this level of corruption could exist, topped with the increased amount of wrongful scrutiny on various police actions as of late, one would be inclined to step in and defend the police. I'm a huge defender of our over worked, and under appreciated law enforcement. However, in this case, there can be no denying the corruption and conspiracy to get this guy at all costs. You just can't.
 

Hank

my war
:yeahthat:

Also, I keep hearing all of this "you didn't see all of the evidence", well okay, show me all of the evidence that was not shown in the documentary. Show me all of this evidence that "Six brazillion" sites have identified, because I have not seen any smoking gun evidence that would prove Steve Avery guilty. I have seen a whole lot of evidence (beyond what was in the documentary) that clearly points to purposeful shenanigans and the intent to railroad Steven Avery on the part of the Manitowoc PD. Then you get to his nephew, which is even worse. There is absolutely nothing that I have seen that any sane human being could look at and say "he's guilty".

I think people just really do not want to believe that this level of corruption could exist, topped with the increased amount of wrongful scrutiny on various police actions as of late, one would be inclined to step in and defend the police. I'm a huge defender of our over worked, and under appreciated law enforcement. However, in this case, there can be no denying the corruption and conspiracy to get this guy at all costs. You just can't.
Apparently, all you have to do is get ahold the court transcripts, which I guess are available and read them... According to people that have been close to the case such as reporters, etc., they have done this and have commented that you are totally seeing the side the filmmaker wants to show you. Is the Police Dept. sketchy? No doubt. Still think he did it. With the Nephew, the verdict is still out. Again, I would have to see both sides equally instead of an obvious slanted piece of film.
 

Grung

New Member
Netflix has presented a bunch of biased half-truths to steer you into a certain POV that is not based on fact. Six brazillion sites have cropped up with all the evidence and such that this show didn't bother to tell you about. Why? Because the creators of the show want you to think that an innocent man was convicted of killing that woman, which upon further review appears to be a lie.

Perhaps he didn't rape the first woman, but he clearly and obviously killed Teresa Halbach, based on the actual evidence presented at the trial and not on the bull#### TV show Netflix put together. If I were Teresa Halbach's family, I would sue their ass off.
Perhaps he didn't rape the first woman? If you know anything about the case you would know he absolutely did not rape her. The police clearly framed him so I don't see why it is so hard to imagine that they did it again.

By the way, have you watched it yet or still spouting off in ignorance?
 

Grung

New Member
Apparently, all you have to do is get ahold the court transcripts, which I guess are available and read them... According to people that have been close to the case such as reporters, etc., they have done this and have commented that you are totally seeing the side the filmmaker wants to show you. Is the Police Dept. sketchy? No doubt. Still think he did it. With the Nephew, the verdict is still out. Again, I would have to see both sides equally instead of an obvious slanted piece of film.
I have seen and read most the transcripts from Brendan's so called confession. What I saw/read was the detectives leading him to tell the story that they wanted to hear. Don't you find it odd that they didn't use any of his story in Steven's trial?
 

Dakota

~~~~~~~
Perhaps he didn't rape the first woman? If you know anything about the case you would know he absolutely did not rape her. The police clearly framed him so I don't see why it is so hard to imagine that they did it again.

By the way, have you watched it yet or still spouting off in ignorance?
The police didn't frame him. The victim identified him as her rapist but later apologized to him when DNA showed him not to be her rapist. The fact that the victim was able to point to him and say "that's the guy...," is the reason he was convicted. So when I see comments saying "the police framed him the 1st time," I have to wonder if you watched it or did any further reading? :ohwell:
 

Grung

New Member
The police didn't frame him. The victim identified him as her rapist but later apologized to him when DNA showed him not to be her rapist. The fact that the victim was able to point to him and say "that's the guy...," is the reason he was convicted. So when I see comments saying "the police framed him the 1st time," I have to wonder if you watched it or did any further reading? :ohwell:
I have watched the documentary and done a lot of follow up research. She was led to him as a suspect. The police sketch was a copy of a previous mugshot, not how he actually looked at the time.
 

Dakota

~~~~~~~
I have watched the documentary and done a lot of follow up research. She was led to him as a suspect. The police sketch was a copy of a previous mugshot, not how he actually looked at the time.
She said in one of her interviews that she presumed the suspect was among the 8 photos shown in a lineup and when she saw Avery's photo, she selected it. She later learned the real rapist wasn't even among those photos. When you look at the photo of Gregory Allen vs. Steven Avery, they both had very similar traits. She never said anything in any of the articles I have read that lead me to believe she was prompted to select Avery as her rapist.

Even years later, as both Avery and Allen aged, the only thing that really set them apart was Allen had more of a receding hairline. I know the documentary focused on the police sketch but Penny Beernsten said she selected Avery based on photos. You have to remember this was a case back in the mid 80's and with the advances in DNA, we are hearing about so many cases of mistaken identity than ever before.... the tools to disprove just were not there before.

I just don't see how the 1st issue has anything to do with the 2nd but to garner sympathy of the viewer but maybe it does.
Could the system have created Avery to become a rapist and murder? For 18 years he was treated like the convicted rapist he was and could that have lead him to eventually fit the mold?

No doubt there are many problems with the conviction of both. I stand by my original opinion that the nephew was screwed over big time in all this and needs to be released but as for Avery, I'm not so sure either way. I have a very difficult time believing the police planted blood evidence in her vehicle but I do question the key and the bullet.
 
Last edited:
Top