Making A Murderer (Netflix)

[Shane Wahl]

Brendan Dassey basically = Jesse Miskelley from the West Memphis Three case. It's so painful to watch those quite slow wheels turn as he tries to figure out what to say after everything he has . . . already said.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm at the halfway mark in the series. Don't tell me what happens next.

 

I'm going to try to unpack my thoughts on this documentary, which addresses so many things it's hard to unravel it all.

 

1. Don't be poor. We talk about race in this country... We talk about it a lot. I'm not suggesting the deck isn't stacked against people of color but the real issue - the one that could affect the most people in one fell swoop - is socio-economic status. Avery is railroaded from day one and it's because he's poor.

 

2. Don't be stupid, especially if you're poor. The Dassey situation - a minor obviously incapable of understanding the situation presented him - is a travesty even to the most casual viewer. He has no ****ing idea what's happening to him and because he's also poor, no one can stop it. Steven Avery was in a very similar situation two decades prior, though he's not an obvious simpleton in the style of Dassey. Dassey's public defender is a perfect example of how the system fails the poor. My wife - a trial lawyer - nearly went into a blind rage over how the lawyer was presenting Dassey's case and how he allowed nearly unfettered access to the boy. Thankfully, the judge saw the light and dismissed the smug, arrogant, grand-standing prick.

 

3. Police and district attorneys are arrogant. This is probably the most complex issue so far in the series. When you deal with ****ty people all day long - as police and DAs often do - it's hard to not fall into the trap of tunnel vision over the course of a long career. When you're right 99% of the time and a crime's perpetuator is obvious, how do you recognize the 1% of the time when you're terribly wrong? That's why constant vigilance is required and the system failed Avery every step of the way during that process. Add in some pretty obvious corruption and you have a system that allows the corrupt few to get away with some really tragic things.

 

4. The internal review system was the most egregious situation in the documentary in my eyes. Yes, police can be corrupt, arrogant, and ignorant. Part of the DA's job is to keep them in line. Obviously, that didn't happen... But what really sent me into "seeing red, can't assemble coherent thoughts due to Hulk Rage" mode was the review process that examined the 1985 conviction and said "yeah, they're alright". NO, THAT WAS NOT ALRIGHT. No matter how noble the intentions of everyone involved - and I don't believe there was a lick of nobility in that situation - HEADS MUST ROLL when things go that horribly, horribly wrong. I can accept corruption from a few individuals. I cannot accept a system that tolerates corruption, or, at the very least, complete and utter indifference to doing their jobs. Also mix in a spattering of incompetence.

 

5. I suspect Avery is guilty of the murder. I'll just leave it at that because I feel the real lesson here is to be learned in the first two episodes for the reasons I listed above this bullet point.

 

6. WTF, Wisconsin.

 

There's so much more I want to say about this documentary but I can't fully unpack my thoughts quite yet. This documentary says so much about what's wrong with America and while Steven Avery is the vessel used to explain those problems, he is only one man. There's a lot to be learned here and it has little to do with Steven Avery. I only wish America was capable of understanding the underlying themes that feed this continued insanity instead of focusing on the man.

[Vanimal46]

Can't wait to read the rest of your thoughts in the Spoilers thread when you're done watching the series, Brock. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Finished the series. I still think Avery was guilty though if I was on the jury, I doubt I would have found him guilty.

[Vanimal46]

Brad Dassey, half-brother of Brendan Dassey, released a rap song about the documentary. And I will say, I've heard MUCH much worse songs on the radio than this...

[stringer bell]

I'm through four episodes and I almost can't believe some of what I've seen. How can any county sheriff's department turn into what Manitowoc County's did? How can so many court-appointed attorneys and judges be so incompetent? What the h#&* is wrong with Wisconsin?

 

It is criminal how the young Dassey was handled and mishandled. Avery was also depicted as having a low IQ, but he seems pretty competent to me, but not competent enough to have covered up the murder as he was purported to do. Must see more!

[nicksaviking]

If I were to guess, the cops, the DA and Dassey's own joke of a public defender all just assumed they'd just use Dassey as another piece of fabricated evidence against Avery. However by the time they realized his BS confession and extremely low IQ were more likely to help Avery, not hurt him, the scumbag DA had already broadcasted the fake confession to the world (Wisconsin World) and they had no choice but to prosecute him or else they'd have come clean about their investigative "techniques".

[biggentleben]

 

If I were to guess, the cops, the DA and Dassey's own joke of a public defender all just assumed they'd just use Dassey as another piece of fabricated evidence against Avery. However by the time they realized his BS confession and extremely low IQ were more likely to help Avery, not hurt him, the scumbag DA had already broadcasted the fake confession to the world (Wisconsin World) and they had no choice but to prosecute him or else they'd have come clean about their investigative "techniques".

 

There's a ton of that confession that isn't shown on the documentary. He was fed a number of things, but he also had offered a lot of things earlier that were outside of public knowledge of the case without prompting, and they chose not to include that with the documentary. Not saying that the interrogation was done well, but it's painted to be pure fabrication when in fact, there's probably at least some knowledge on Dassey's part in pieces of the case. 

[Shane Wahl]

 

There's a ton of that confession that isn't shown on the documentary. He was fed a number of things, but he also had offered a lot of things earlier that were outside of public knowledge of the case without prompting, and they chose not to include that with the documentary. Not saying that the interrogation was done well, but it's painted to be pure fabrication when in fact, there's probably at least some knowledge on Dassey's part in pieces of the case. 

 

And what were these things that *he* offered? Explain. Otherwise, you are saying nothing.

[diehardtwinsfan]

well, I'm 6 in.  Not sure if Avery did it or not, but no question that his attorneys have met the reasonable doubt standard. No way I'd have convicted him if I was on that jury. Based on what I've seen so far, I'm half convinced that Lenc did that too.

[stringer bell]

While this is a documentary, it is obvious that the people making the documentary are appalled by the DA/County Sheriff's Depts/Public Defender and put them in the worst possible light. They may be sympathetic to Avery, as well.

 

I am sure that the raw footage would be more damning for Avery and Brendan, but what is shown offers plenty of reasons to doubt every word out of the mouth of someone prosecuting the crime and/or testifying for the prosecution.

[biggentleben]

And what were these things that *he* offered? Explain. Otherwise, you are saying nothing.

I haven't seen the tape. I know that's one thing one of the media members from the trial remarked about the documentary, though, is that there's a lot of stuff Dassey mentions early on without prompting about the case that wasn't known at that time publicly.

 

Once again, I'm not saying he's guilty nor that Avery is. I'm just saying that the played tape in the film makes it look like he never offered any information without prompts, and this reporter said there's a big chunk of the first part of the interrogation that's not in the documentary that Dassey offers up case details without any prompts or nudges.

 

Googling this after watching it was almost as time consuming as the show itself. There are just a ton of layers to this case. After going through anything I could find online, I'm of the opinion that the brother of the victim was involved, Avery's family members were involved, and Avery himself was an odd duck where this woman was involved, especially when you look at the phone records of his calls to her.

[Riverbrian]

The Criminal Justice System probably has untold stories like this all over the place. 

 

Shadowed doubts everywhere and they don't get this level of exposure. 

 

I've watched all 10 on Netflix and I found it intriguing. However... I thought it had the potential to make a nice Zoolander script. 

[nicksaviking]

****Spoiler. Well, probably not by now, but just in case.*****

 

 

Lenk appears to be a dirtbag of the highest degree. I'd guess he planted evidence to frame Avery because he thinks Avery did it, not because Lenk did it. However his desire to play vigilante for the good of the community really is suspicious considering Avery just had him deposed because of his wrongful vigilantism the first time.

 

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a stronger desire to see the dirty cops and prosecutors put away than actually see Avery get out?

[biggentleben]

 

****Spoiler. Well, probably not by now, but just in case.*****


Lenk appears to be a dirtbag of the highest degree. I'd guess he planted evidence to frame Avery because he thinks Avery did it, not because Lenk did it. However his desire to play vigilante for the good of the community really is suspicious considering Avery just had him deposed because of his wrongful vigilantism the first time.

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a stronger desire to see the dirty cops and prosecutors put away than actually see Avery get out?

 

Absolutely agree there. I am not certain that Avery definitely did it, but I'm not sold that he's completely innocent either. The way the case was run, however, is criminally negligent for certain.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Not sure if Avery did it or not, but no question that his attorneys have met the reasonable doubt standard.

This is where the documentary falls short for me. We didn't see the prosecution's case.

 

Why not?

 

Obviously, there is something in there the documentarians didn't want the audience to see. I'm almost certain the case against Avery was more substantial than what was shown to us.

 

Which is why, again, I feel the real lesson in Making a Murderer is how stupid, poor people don't stand a chance in our legal system... Whether Avery is guilty - and I believe he probably murdered the woman - is a side note to me. We simply do not have enough information to make an educated judgment on the matter because huge swaths of information was intentionally withheld from us.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Lenk appears to be a dirtbag of the highest degree. I'd guess he planted evidence to frame Avery because he thinks Avery did it, not because Lenk did it.

The police did not murder the woman. They had no motive to do it and they probably didn't even know she was on the property. There's no reason they'd kill her, not without going waaaaaayyy down a conspiracy rabbit hole.

 

It's far-fetched to believe police intentionally frame people for crimes... But what is possible - maybe even likely - is that they find "their guy" and then build a case around that person's guilt, reasonable or not.

 

As I mentioned earlier, if you're right 99% of the time - and police generally are because criminals are pretty stupid and obvious - how do you stay vigilant and identify the 1% of the time you're wrong? That's what the police did to Avery in 1985.

 

It's not that police are corrupt - a few are but most aren't - it's that when you're right so often and do whatever it takes to get "your man", it's hard to step back from the situation and spot the small percentage of times when you're wrong.

 

And if the suspect is poor and/or stupid, the legal system doesn't do enough to defend that person against a police force and prosecution that is determined to convict.

 

I don't believe most of the actions in this documentary are borne out of malice, I think most of the problems stem from intellectual laziness. The cops do this kind of **** all the time but the overwhelming majority of the time, they're right. They get the right guy.

 

So what can we do to protect people when they're wrong? How do we implement stronger checks and balances in the system? That's the real lesson to be learned here, IMO.

[Shane Wahl]

I still would like to hear one single person who thinks that Avery might be guilty (I hold this to be 10% likely or less) offer up a narrative as to how this crime went down. The State's case is bull****. That should be abundantly clear.

 

This thing called *lack of blood* and the problem of the bones in the quarry cause a lot of problem for any "Avery did it" scenario.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I still would like to hear one single person who thinks that Avery might be guilty (I hold this to be 10% likely or less) offer up a narrative as to how this crime went down. The State's case is bull****. That should be abundantly clear.

 

This thing called *lack of blood* and the problem of the bones in the quarry cause a lot of problem for any "Avery did it" scenario.

The prosecution's timeline we saw was nonsensical.

 

The prosecution's case was also roughly three weeks long and we saw nothing of it.

 

Doesn't that make you somewhat uncomfortable?

 

I'm not even convinced Making a Murderer should be considered a documentary. It set out with the goal of displaying Steve Avery's innocence and intentionally withholds information from the audience to illustrate that point.

 

Still, a lot of valuable lessons can be learned from the "documentary".

[TheLeviathan]

 

I still would like to hear one single person who thinks that Avery might be guilty (I hold this to be 10% likely or less) offer up a narrative as to how this crime went down. The State's case is bull****. That should be abundantly clear.

 

This thing called *lack of blood* and the problem of the bones in the quarry cause a lot of problem for any "Avery did it" scenario.

 

If you're going by the documentary I think you would have a hard time doing that, but the documentary left out quite a bit.  

 

I think the most important thing it fails to talk about is all the contact he had with her prior to this and the uncomfortable feelings he gave her.  He immediately becomes a key person of interest if she is literally asking her boss to send someone else to see him because he's harassing her.  That makes me question his innocence as much as anything else. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'll simply say that if I saw the prosecution's entire case, I'd still be saying not guilty. Sorry.  I'm not sure where to begin on this b/c all the defense had to do is present reasonable doubt, which they did. The police blew the case when they had guys with a clear conflict of interest (Lenk, who was being deposed for his actions in the 1st case) being involved in the investigation when they publically stated that Manitwoc would not be involved. Add to it that this guy is the one constantly coming up with all the key evidence after multiple searches missed it, and that there were huge problems with all of his evidence:

1) Key having only Avery's DNA on it and not the victims. 

2) Avery's blood in the car, the only visible cut on his hand, yet no prints

3) Avery's blood in police storage which was clearly tampered with.

4) Bullet showing up 4 months later. 

5) Proper procedures not followed in examination of bullet despite defense's request to have it independently analyzed (not to mention the deviation that was filed and what not)

6) Bones found at multiple sites.

7) A lack of physical evidence at the site for what was a very gruesome crime according to the prosecution...

8)  The complete inability of investigators to follow protocol. That protocol exists precisely for this reason.

 

That doesn't even get into problems with the prosecution's timeline, conflicting statements from witnesses, etc. 

 

I don't know if he did it or not (I suspect not), but the idea that someone wanted to get him for it is far more likely then him doing it himself.  I could watch 3 full weeks of the prosecution, and I still highly doubt I'm changing my mind, especially when you consider that best practices were not followed in this investigation. Those protocols exist precisely to avoid what happened here.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'll simply say that if I saw the prosecution's entire case, I'd still be saying not guilty. Sorry.  I'm not sure where to begin on this b/c all the defense had to do is present reasonable doubt, which they did. The police blew the case when they had guys with a clear conflict of interest (Lenk, who was being deposed for his actions in the 1st case) being involved in the investigation when they publically stated that Manitwoc would not be involved. Add to it that this guy is the one constantly coming up with all the key evidence after multiple searches missed it, and that there were huge problems with all of his evidence:

1) Key having only Avery's DNA on it and not the victims. 

2) Avery's blood in the car, the only visible cut on his hand, yet no prints

3) Avery's blood in police storage which was clearly tampered with.

4) Bullet showing up 4 months later. 

5) Proper procedures not followed in examination of bullet despite defense's request to have it independently analyzed (not to mention the deviation that was filed and what not)

6) Bones found at multiple sites.

7) A lack of physical evidence at the site for what was a very gruesome crime according to the prosecution...

8)  The complete inability of investigators to follow protocol. That protocol exists precisely for this reason.

 

That doesn't even get into problems with the prosecution's timeline, conflicting statements from witnesses, etc. 

 

I don't know if he did it or not (I suspect not), but the idea that someone wanted to get him for it is far more likely then him doing it himself.  I could watch 3 full weeks of the prosecution, and I still highly doubt I'm changing my mind, especially when you consider that best practices were not followed in this investigation. Those protocols exist precisely to avoid what happened here.

I agree that from the perspective *we've seen*, a conviction looks ridiculous but, again, Avery's case was 6-7 weeks long. We don't even know if the prosecution had arguments or even physical evidence that negate some or all of your above points because we didn't get to see the prosecution's case.

 

It just seems ridiculous to me. This documentary obviously had an agenda. Taking it as holy gospel when there were literally hundreds of courtroom hours not depicted in the series is ludicrous.

 

That doesn't mean the conviction is right. It also doesn't mean it's wrong. It means we, as an audience, are spouting judgment from a perspective of ignorance and should temper our outrage a bit and we certainly shouldn't be making a ruling from the couch.

[TheLeviathan]

I think the way the documentary presented Bobby Dassey's testimony alone is reason enough to doubt this documentary should be taken as a serious presentation of facts.

 

The full transcript and video of his testimony is not at all well represented in this documentary.  When I watched it on the documentary I couldn't help but think the police were using some poor, incredibly stupid kid to their advantage.  When you watch the whole thing you can see that what they're trying to do is get an incredibly stupid kid to be as forthcoming as possible if he wants to make a plea bargain and testify against Avery to save himself.  He had already proven to them that he had been involved, from that point it was clarification.  The documentary made it seem like putting words in his mouth when it really wasn't.

 

Finding that full picture through this entire documentary into question for me.  

[Shane Wahl]

I am flabbergasted by some of these comments. I am not commenting solely from the documentary (which it is, mind you) alone. I have seen the Dassey "confession" and it is ludicrous to conclude that he is not being led to what they want to hear from him. He gets *so* many things wrong, it is atrocious.

 

Again, I recommend "Paradise Lost" for some more about cops and confessions. Good grief.

[Shane Wahl]

And again, present any kind of narrative that fits with the actual damn evidence that points to Steven Avery (and, dear god and a half, Brendan Dassey). Good luck.

[nicksaviking]

I still would like to hear one single person who thinks that Avery might be guilty (I hold this to be 10% likely or less) offer up a narrative as to how this crime went down. The State's case is bull****. That should be abundantly clear.

 

This thing called *lack of blood* and the problem of the bones in the quarry cause a lot of problem for any "Avery did it" scenario.

I'll play amature homacidal maniac.

 

If he did it (nod to OJ's book), I'd think he shot her in the driveway and loaded her into her Rav 4 as I believe the show said her blood was in the back. I'd think blood on a gravel or dirt driveway could easily be concealed with a shovel and a hose. Since a couple of those bones were found in a quarry, I'd guess he simply drove her there and burned/dismembered her.

 

As to the set up: we heard the dispatch call where it sounded pretty clear that deputy dirt ball Colburn was looking at the car after she was reported missing but long before they found it, as he knew the make of the car when the dispatcher gave him the plate number. So he found the car at the quarry. He and Lenk then began the process of planting the evidence, the first of which was the car and the body. This would suggest they didn't see any kind of evidence at the quarry that would point the finger at Avery, which would further suggest that the blood was planted because why would they need to move the car and the body to frame a guy who very conspicuously left his blood near the ignition of a car a dead woman obviously couldn't drive. This would also indicate whoever drove the car was also last to have the key. Concerning the evidence that is the key, the car, the blood and the body, I don't think there is any question that either all had to have been planted, or none of it was. There's just no logical way that just the key was planted for instance.

 

A side note, I imagine investigating a crime scene with Lenk is like looking for something with your six year old when you know he stole it. As soon as your back is turned, "Oh here it is, I found it!"

[TheLeviathan]

I am flabbergasted by some of these comments. I am not commenting solely from the documentary (which it is, mind you) alone. I have seen the Dassey "confession" and it is ludicrous to conclude that he is not being led to what they want to hear from him. He gets *so* many things wrong, it is atrocious.

 

Again, I recommend "Paradise Lost" for some more about cops and confessions. Good grief.

Yes, he was bring lead...after he had already demonstrated he took part in the murders without them leading him along much at all. It's possible got him to have both made a true confession and been manipulated by officers. The documentary only showed the most blatant manipulation and that's fine, it wasn't interested in presenting the full case just highlight police misconduct.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And again, present any kind of narrative that fits with the actual damn evidence that points to Steven Avery (and, dear god and a half, Brendan Dassey). Good luck.

The entire Dassey situation is sketchy and I've never said otherwise. Was he involved? Possibly. Was he mishandled by the police and his own counsel? Absolutely.

 

Only being presented the events seen in the documentary - and, again, there are weeks of trial not presented to the audience and I highly doubt the prosecution sat in their chairs and did nothing during that time - the evidence points to Avery. Are there gaps in the evidence presented? Absolutely... But we only see a snippet of the entire picture.

 

And it's unreasonable to make an assertion while peering through a keyhole.

 

That's why I believe the lesson of the documentary is systemic misconduct by many of the involved parties, not whether Steven Avery actually murdered the girl. We can't tell if he murdered her because we weren't there and there are enormous gaps in our coverage... But we can see some pretty obvious misconduct during several steps of the process.

[Shane Wahl]

 

I'll play amature homacidal maniac.

If he did it (nod to OJ's book), I'd think he shot her in the driveway and loaded her into her Rav 4 as I believe the show said her blood was in the back. I'd think blood on a gravel or dirt driveway could easily be concealed with a shovel and a hose. Since a couple of those bones were found in a quarry, I'd guess he simply drove her there and burned/dismembered her.

As to the set up: we heard the dispatch call where it sounded pretty clear that deputy dirt ball Colburn was looking at the car after she was reported missing but long before they found it, as he knew the make of the car when the dispatcher gave him the plate number. So he found the car at the quarry. He and Lenk then began the process of planting the evidence, the first of which was the car and the body. This would suggest they didn't see any kind of evidence at the quarry that would point the finger at Avery, which would further suggest that the blood was planted because why would they need to move the car and the body to frame a guy who very conspicuously left his blood near the ignition of a car a dead woman obviously couldn't drive. This would also indicate whoever drove the car was also last to have the key. Concerning the evidence that is the key, the car, the blood and the body, I don't think there is any question that either all had to have been planted, or none of it was. There's just no logical way that just the key was planted for instance.

A side note, I imagine investigating a crime scene with Lenk is like looking for something with your six year old when you know he stole it. As soon as your back is turned, "Oh here it is, I found it!"

Yes, this is possible. I don't recommend searching for "how to burn a body down to bone" but apparently you really need to spend a lot of time stoking and keeping the fire hot. Everyone involved says that Avery had a bonfire behind his own house that night.

[Shane Wahl]

With regard to that "damning" evidence about the *67:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/3zk37j/67_was_this_a_function_avery_used_many_times/

 

 

He used it on a somewhat regular basis.

Just one thing that Kratz whines about with regard to the documentary and has a pretty reasonable explanation. Avery called the office to set up the appt. For the record.

 

(As though *67 calling someone is more important evidence than the lack of blood, the bone cremains evidence, etc. . . . but whatever).