Making A Murderer (Netflix)

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah I don't know if his lawyers just didn't prep him enough for those questions, or if he just simply couldn't handle the questioning.

I suspect the latter. His second set of lawyers seemed at least somewhat on the ball.

[Vanimal46]

For those that have Twitter, the creators of the documentary did a Q&A earlier today on their twitter handle @MakingAMurderer

[nicksaviking]

 

I suspect the latter. His second set of lawyers seemed at least somewhat on the ball.

 

I agree, other than the fact that he wasn't mentally capable, the only reason I can think of that he wouldn't say the cops fed him those details was because then perhaps the videotaped interview may need to be played, and if I recall, both the prosecution and the defense agreed not to show it for some reason.

[#1ShaneMackFan]

Thought this was an interesting read,

 

http://www.sunnyskyz.com/blog/1244/This-Is-The-Most-Credible-Making-A-Murderer-Theory-I-ve-Seen-So-Far

 

[Shane Wahl]

 

Thought this was an interesting read,

 

http://www.sunnyskyz.com/blog/1244/This-Is-The-Most-Credible-Making-A-Murderer-Theory-I-ve-Seen-So-Far

That is a very good theory that matches much of the evidence, the odd behavior Mike and Ryan, and the suspicious mutual alibis of Scott and Bobby.

[nicksaviking]

 

Thought this was an interesting read,

 

http://www.sunnyskyz.com/blog/1244/This-Is-The-Most-Credible-Making-A-Murderer-Theory-I-ve-Seen-So-Far

 

These things are going to be fun to read while this topic is still hot, but that one seems to take two huge leaps of logic, and that's aside from the giant coincidence that two separate groups did the framing independently.

 

1st, that theory basically assumes the cops planted the blood, the key and due to the assumption of Avery's innocence, the bullet, all to cover up for the fact that the brother and boyfriend were trespassing. Judging by the evidence that was allowed in both trials, there's no way the judge would have thrown out any evidence just because two civilians trespassed and found the car, probably not even if they were law enforcement. Also, there would have been no reason for the cops to take the key, it should have remained in the ignition.

 

2nd, how did the two boys contact Colborn? As mentioned in the article calling dispatch would have gotten their call recorded, so they would have somehow had to know that A ) Colborn would help them cover their tracks, and B ) know his personal phone number.

 

It's a fun read, but I my warning lights start flashing when some nobody calls their own article, "This Is The Most Credible 'Making A Murderer' Theory I've Seen So Far" and says they saw it on Youtube.
 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

These things are going to be fun to read while this topic is still hot, but that one seems to take two huge leaps of logic, and that's aside from the giant coincidence that two separate groups did the framing independently.

 

1st, that theory basically assumes the cops planted the blood, the key and due to the assumption of Avery's innocence, the bullet, all to cover up for the fact that the brother and boyfriend were trespassing. Judging by the evidence that was allowed in both trials, there's no way the judge would have thrown out any evidence just because two civilians trespassed and found the car, probably not even if they were law enforcement. Also, there would have been no reason for the cops to take the key, it should have remained in the ignition.

 

2nd, how did the two boys contact Colborn? As mentioned in the article calling dispatch would have gotten their call recorded, so they would have somehow had to know that A ) Colborn would help them cover their tracks, and B ) know his personal phone number.

 

It's a fun read, but I my warning lights start flashing when some nobody calls their own article, "This Is The Most Credible 'Making A Murderer' Theory I've Seen So Far" and says they saw it on Youtube.
 

That story reads like a bad crime novel.

 

One thing that amazes me about conspiracy theories is how dramatically the theorist overestimates human intelligence/planning, foresight, and the ability to keep quiet.

[diehardtwinsfan]

The warning lights start flashing for me when it becomes very clear that no one understands what reasonable doubt means.

 

I'm not sure there's really anything fun on this topic, because a man is in jail right now and shouldn't be.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

That story reads like a bad crime novel.

 

One thing that amazes me about conspiracy theories is how dramatically the theorist overestimates human intelligence/planning, foresight, and the ability to keep quiet.

 

You're getting lost in the conspiracy and not the facts of the case.  The fact of the matter is that a conflict of interest was present. You may question whether a cop would plant evidence (that's fair) or if their motive to do so (also fair), but there's a reason that it was publicly announced that the Manitowoc police wasn't involved, and proper procedure indicates you distance anyone with a conflict of interest from that case.   They had no business being there (it was said publicly that they weren't supposed to be there while these individuals investigated this murder), and their presence pretty much contaminates any of the evidence that they touched (which so happens to be all of the key evidence). 

 

It is not the defense's job to present a better picture of what happened. It's the prosecutions job to do that. It's the defense's job to establish a reasonable amount of doubt to what the prosecution said happened.  Like it or not, there's plenty of that. The case was poorly managed from the get go, and people who should have had no business being involved were heavily involved from day 1. That stops any sort of fair investigation in it's tracks.  You can question the motives of Netlfix (again fair), how the conspiracy over estimates some people or underestimates others (again fair), but it doesn't somehow make the facts they presented any less true. 

 

The fact that you even admit it reads like a bad crime novel and have made comments such as 'wtf Wisconsin' in other posts belays what I've been saying.  The investigators dropped the ball from the beginning which has invited all of this.  Right or wrong, they invited it. Had proper procedures been followed for collecting and securing evidence, and the right people never allowed on site, there would be no case for conspiracy, and whatever evidence they actually recovered would have been what was presented in his trial.  But they didn't.  That, Brock, is reasonable doubt.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You're getting lost in the conspiracy and not the facts of the case.  The fact of the matter is that a conflict of interest was present. You may question whether a cop would plant evidence (that's fair) or if their motive to do so (also fair), but there's a reason that it was publicly announced that the Manitowoc police wasn't involved, and proper procedure indicates you distance anyone with a conflict of interest from that case.   They had no business being there (it was said publicly that they weren't supposed to be there while these individuals investigated this murder), and their presence pretty much contaminates any of the evidence that they touched (which so happens to be all of the key evidence). 

 

It is not the defense's job to present a better picture of what happened. It's the prosecutions job to do that. It's the defense's job to establish a reasonable amount of doubt to what the prosecution said happened.  Like it or not, there's plenty of that. The case was poorly managed from the get go, and people who should have had no business being involved were heavily involved from day 1. That stops any sort of fair investigation in it's tracks.  You can question the motives of Netlfix (again fair), how the conspiracy over estimates some people or underestimates others (again fair), but it doesn't somehow make the facts they presented any less true. 

 

The fact that you even admit it reads like a bad crime novel and have made comments such as 'wtf Wisconsin' in other posts belays what I've been saying.  The investigators dropped the ball from the beginning which has invited all of this.  Right or wrong, they invited it. Had proper procedures been followed for collecting and securing evidence, and the right people never allowed on site, there would be no case for conspiracy, and whatever evidence they actually recovered would have been what was presented in his trial.  But they didn't.  That, Brock, is reasonable doubt.

You seem to believe I'm giving the police and prosecution a pass. I'm not. They made mistakes and it appears they were some pretty big mistakes.

 

The only thing I've refuted about your reasonable doubt claims is that it's basically impossible to establish whether the reasonable doubt threshold was met because the documentary didn't gloss over the prosecution's case, it skipped the prosecution's case entirely. I can't say with any kind of certainty whether reasonable doubt was met when I didn't get to see the actual presentation of the case (not even a little bit of it).

 

And that loops us back around to the obviously slanted aspect of the documentary. Why didn't they address the prosecution's case? Why did they omit important details from the case entirely? These are reasonable questions and the documentary should have addressed them. The documentary's failure to do so makes me question other aspects of the case that were shown to us. Maybe that's unfair, maybe it's not... But if I catch someone trying to deceive me in some way, I'm going to start reviewing everything they say with skepticism (just as I view everything that came from the Manitowoc Sheriff's department with skepticism).

 

For the umpteenth time, I don't know whether Avery is guilty. I suspect he is but that's only suspicion, not fact. The police did some, at best, unscrupulous things. Whether that was borne from malice or incompetence, I do not know. At worst, they're entirely corrupt and planted evidence.

 

Lots of question marks, very few answers.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess if I believed Avery was innocent and wanted to be taken seriously the LAST thing I'd do is use less than 30 minutes of a biased documentary to establish a timeline of events and guilt.

 

I mean, at that point you should apply for the Manitowoc sheriff's department.  You seem like you'd fit in.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

For the umpteenth time, I don't know whether Avery is guilty. I suspect he is but that's only suspicion, not fact. The police did some, at best, unscrupulous things. Whether that was borne from malice or incompetence, I do not know. At worst, they're entirely corrupt and planted evidence.

 

.

 

This pretty much sums up my beliefs as well (though I won't go so far as to suspect he's guilty, at least so far, and I've read through the list of things that weren't in the documentary to be clear).  But whether it was of malice or incompetence, the fact that the investigation was done in this manner creates all the reasonable doubt he needs.  The fact that a clear conflict of interest existed by many of the same folks being accused of malice or incompetence meets the standards of reasonable doubt as well, and should also be more than enough to remove these people from their jobs and in some cases punish them. 

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I guess if I believed Avery was innocent and wanted to be taken seriously the LAST thing I'd do is use less than 30 minutes of a biased documentary to establish a timeline of events and guilt.

 

I mean, at that point you should apply for the Manitowoc sheriff's department.  You seem like you'd fit in.

 

As I said before, I don't know if he's innocent.  What I do know is that there's plenty of reason to doubt his guilt due to the handling of that investigation.  It is this type of crap that put him away for 18 years for a crime he didn't commit, and it's this type of crap that puts lots of innocent people in jail.  Innocent or guilty, he should be a free man right now.

 

What is honestly lost on me is the simple fact that no one seems to understand what reasonable doubt is, and if you honestly think he should be in jail, I hope for your sake you're never on the receiving end of treatment like this being heard by a jury of people like yourself. 

[nicksaviking]

But I think the point being made is that without seeing the full trail, we can't make a fair assessment of reasonable doubt.

 

I'm guessing nearly everyone who saw the documentary would agree the case had reasonable doubt as presented to us by the filmmakers. Scumbags or not, we haven't allowed the prosecution to present us their full arguement. If I had to bet, I'd guess I'd still have reasonable doubt, but for all we know the filmmakers left out the selfie Avery took while drinking the victims blood straight from her decapitated skull.

[Brock Beauchamp]

But I think the point being made is that without seeing the full trail, we can't make a fair assessment of reasonable doubt.

Yes.

 

I'm guessing nearly everyone who saw the documentary would agree the case had reasonable doubt as presented to us by the filmmakers.

Yes.

 

I don't feel my argument is complicated. Based on only the documentary, Avery looks to have easily crossed the reasonable doubt threshold.

 

That doesn't mean he achieved reasonable doubt status in the seven week long court case because we didn't get to see the case, not even a few minutes of it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

With that said, this case stunk. I think a thorough investigation should begin to look into whether things were handled above-board and I feel Steve Avery probably deserves a new trial because, again, this case stunk.

 

I literally question everything about this case. It's not that I trust the police and courts and distrust Avery or the documentarians, it's that I trust no one involved in the situation because everyone has shown at one point or another that they do not deserve my trust.

[#1ShaneMackFan]

There is a Podcast in iHeartRadio called Rebutting a Murderer.  It's interesting to listen to because it gives the complete other side that is missing from the doc.  I don't know if I like it or not.  It's a media from Wisconsin, and he does a good job showing what was left out, but his tone is just as biased and one-sided as the doc.  I feel more convinced that Avery did it now, but I don't think he really proves anything.  And he keeps saying it id the defense's job when making these outrageous claims that they need to supply more proof of the accusations.  As many have said on here, I thought it was more about creating reasonable doubt.

 

I haven't finished it yet, but one thing I am more sure of, though, is that Avery is definitely a creep whether he did it or not.  There is some really interesting stuff about things he said and claimed while in prison that make him sure look a lot more guilty and capable of this.

[Seauville]

 

There is a Podcast in iHeartRadio called Rebutting a Murderer.  It's interesting to listen to because it gives the complete other side that is missing from the doc.  I don't know if I like it or not.  It's a media from Wisconsin, and he does a good job showing what was left out, but his tone is just as biased and one-sided as the doc.  I feel more convinced that Avery did it now, but I don't think he really proves anything.  And he keeps saying it id the defense's job when making these outrageous claims that they need to supply more proof of the accusations.  As many have said on here, I thought it was more about creating reasonable doubt.

 

I haven't finished it yet, but one thing I am more sure of, though, is that Avery is definitely a creep whether he did it or not.  There is some really interesting stuff about things he said and claimed while in prison that make him sure look a lot more guilty and capable of this.

I've listened to 3 or 4 episodes of it, and I agree that it is a very good listen. Whether he did it or not though, whether he was capable or a creep holds no bearing on whether he did this or not. It may raise some red flags, but it makes him no more or less guilty.

 

One thing they mentioned though was that Dassey's pants were practically drenched in bleach when he got him. Was that mentioned in the documentary at all? I remember the mom saying something about his pants but not that it was bleach on them.

[Shane Wahl]

 

The warning lights start flashing for me when it becomes very clear that no one understands what reasonable doubt means.

 

I'm not sure there's really anything fun on this topic, because a man is in jail right now and shouldn't be.

 

Smackdown!

[Shane Wahl]

 

You're getting lost in the conspiracy and not the facts of the case.  The fact of the matter is that a conflict of interest was present. You may question whether a cop would plant evidence (that's fair) or if their motive to do so (also fair), but there's a reason that it was publicly announced that the Manitowoc police wasn't involved, and proper procedure indicates you distance anyone with a conflict of interest from that case.   They had no business being there (it was said publicly that they weren't supposed to be there while these individuals investigated this murder), and their presence pretty much contaminates any of the evidence that they touched (which so happens to be all of the key evidence). 

 

It is not the defense's job to present a better picture of what happened. It's the prosecutions job to do that. It's the defense's job to establish a reasonable amount of doubt to what the prosecution said happened.  Like it or not, there's plenty of that. The case was poorly managed from the get go, and people who should have had no business being involved were heavily involved from day 1. That stops any sort of fair investigation in it's tracks.  You can question the motives of Netlfix (again fair), how the conspiracy over estimates some people or underestimates others (again fair), but it doesn't somehow make the facts they presented any less true. 

 

The fact that you even admit it reads like a bad crime novel and have made comments such as 'wtf Wisconsin' in other posts belays what I've been saying.  The investigators dropped the ball from the beginning which has invited all of this.  Right or wrong, they invited it. Had proper procedures been followed for collecting and securing evidence, and the right people never allowed on site, there would be no case for conspiracy, and whatever evidence they actually recovered would have been what was presented in his trial.  But they didn't.  That, Brock, is reasonable doubt.

Thanks for posting this with ample reason.

The truth is that the entire narrative that the State concocted is ridiculous. Forget even just the *legal* definition of reasonable doubt, I have a hard time understanding how Avery does this in any way.

[Shane Wahl]

How is it still being claimed that none of the prosecution's case was presented here? What in the hell? Did I not see Kratz in court?

 

What other "facts" were not presented? Leg irons? Irrelevant when you understand that the Dassey confession is A: a joke and a half, and B: doesn't square with a shred of evidence. *67? Avery used it frequently to not let people know his number. Other domestic abuse? Far cry from murder. Etc. etc. etc.

[Shane Wahl]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-new-lawyer-destroys-prosecution-case-on-twitter-a6829741.html

 

 

[nicksaviking]

 

How is it still being claimed that none of the prosecution's case was presented here? What in the hell? Did I not see Kratz in court?

 

What other "facts" were not presented? Leg irons? Irrelevant when you understand that the Dassey confession is A: a joke and a half, and B: doesn't square with a shred of evidence. *67? Avery used it frequently to not let people know his number. Other domestic abuse? Far cry from murder. Etc. etc. etc.

 

That hardly seems fair, who has said none? Doesn't the prosecution have the right to present their FULL case? They did to the jury, they did not to those of us viewing the documentary.

 

We have no clue what other facts were not presented because we didn't see the full trial.

 

Reasonable doubt is a judgment call unfortunately, not a stone cold fact. Even so, you are not giving the prosecution a fair chance unless you think the filmmakers presented the entirety of their argument. Even if they showed 99.9% of the prosecutions argument, we have no idea if that .1% might be the evidence that removes all reasonable doubt.

 

It seems like a double standard that people are questioning the reasonable doubt of Avery's guilt without also thinking that there is reasonable doubt that the prosecution had presented a stronger case than what was shown in the documentary.

 

And I feel sick defending a group of people who appear to be decidedly unethical and awful.

[TheLeviathan]

It's a weird bizarro turn.  People who are avidly defending Avery's innocence based on a one-sided presentation of the case are basically doing their own Manitiwoc impersonation.  

 

Talk about missing the most central point of this.

 

[Shane Wahl]

The media presented a very one-sided view of the case for the entire time it was occurring. Someone has to speak for the defense.

 

To claim that there isn't a significant amount of prosecution presentation in the documentary is pretty comical.

And when Kratz complains about the documentary, he mentions "DNA" under the hood, *67, and the gun. That's it.

[TheLeviathan]

I've heard the defense speak, I haven't heard the prosecution and can't say I was following Wisconsin media 10 years ago.

 

I can even understand being convinced of his innocence, but extrapolating a BS conspiracy whodunit, or buying into such nonsense, immediately loses credibility IMO.

[Vanimal46]

Here's a good stocking stuffer idea... Ken Kratz, #1 douche in the entire documentary, has now decided to write a book about the case. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to hear that clown's side of the story..... 

http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-book-2016-1

[ALessKosherScott]

I can't decide if this Ken Kratz letter is best defined as awesomeful or awfulsome. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/making-murderer-letter-ken-kratz-130010948.html

[Brock Beauchamp]

I got a chuckle out of this.

 

[nicksaviking]

 To claim that there isn't a significant amount of prosecution presentation in the documentary is pretty comical.

But it's not all of the presentation. How can anyone objectively say the jury failed in terms of reasonable doubt if we don't hear all of it.