[Netflix] Making a Murderer

I think it is what the jury did not see that was the issue. Why would they not show the footage of Brendan saying that the cops got to his head?? That was huge. I do get your point though and somewhat agree.

 

You have lots of good questions about the case. Here's one in return - why didn't the documentary makers interview anyone associated with the victim's family, the police, or the district attorney's office? They had plenty of interviews with the defense team, including every defense lawyer Avery ever had. They could have asked those who are in position to answer some of those questions.

If you believe the series represents unbiased journalism, then I understand where you're coming from. But if you think that the directors had an angle, then consider the source when you draw conclusions based on the interviews produced or curated from existing footage, and packaged together to fit a narrative.

 

I think they should have showed that part, too. And under the rule of optional completeness, the defense was entitled to show the entire video if they wanted to, instead of truncating it. Maybe there were other things he said to his mom that were less helpful? Or maybe they thought that Brendan's testimony would cover that angle?

I would probably have played all of it, just to show that nothing was excluded. The fact that the jury only deliberated 4.5 hours after a 9 day trial means they didn't have much trouble convicting him.

There's a website here that claims to have full trial transcripts along with more information. One thing that the phone call transcript says (if true) is that Brendan tells him mom that Steve used to touch him and Brian inappropriately. Don't remember that coming up in the documentary.

To answer your other question, Steve had a big cut on his thumb. The prosecution theory was that was where the blood would have come from.

 

Ah ok. Yeah I did not remember hearing that about the thumb. Thanks.

 

Yes he had a cut, but to have zero fingerprints anywhere inside our outside of the vehicle means a "murderer" would have to be wearing gloves. You're not going to bleed through gloves. It still just pisses me off even reading this thread.

 

No DNA of her was found inside the house or the garage. No blood splatter, not a tiny piece of her hair, not a finger print. They even cracked open the floor inside the garage to see if they could find blood that might have leaked and nothing was found. Besides the bullet was a murder weapon ever found? How could they link that bullet to the one that killed her?

The key not being found till the 7th time they searched raises a lot of questions. That cop calling in plates an never reporting anything seems suspicious. Not to mention the timeline of Lenk of him saying he got to the place at 2:30pm after 16 months that it happen and did not sign in but yet a month after this all happen it was in writing that he said he got there at 6:30pm. WTF? Not to mention that crooked officer was out to get him.

And the guy that testified he saw a fire that was pretty high saying about 10 feet. But prior to that 1 or 2 months after it happen they had it in writing saying he had said it was only 2 or 3 feet high.

It's all fkd up but there was not enough evidence to convict Steve Avery. Not to mention the tube had been tampered with that was thrown out of the case.

 

It's a fantastic true crime doc, one of the best I've seen. It's better than the Jinx and the filmmakers don't interject themsleves as characters.

The 16 year old's public "defender" made me want to crawl through the screen and wipe that smug smile off his face. What a total piece of human garbage that animal and is.

 

I agree on the brother. Maybe in that situation you just want someone to hold responsible, but his blind faith in the prosecution bothered me.

And yes, Avery had a cut on his hand. That's why they did that test to see if the blood was fresh or from the old vial.

 

This one's easy. The filmmakers have stated that when they first started documenting, they opened up participation to all parties involved, yet none of the people you are asking about wanted to.

http://fox6now.com/2015/12/22/netfl...-but-some-say-it-doesnt-tell-the-whole-story/

I haven't seen a response from the Halbach family or the prosecution stating that their involvement was suppressed or ignored, so I imagine they declined the invitation.

 

That is what I get for doing other stuff while watching!

 

I have not finished the series, but this type of stuff scares me to death. I've been on a jury where they were just ready to convict a guy for some pretty serious charges. All the evidence was inconsistent, and was all just he-said, she-said. Even the testimony from each person the prosecution brought to the stand was all over the place. Full of, what I thought, to be reasonable doubt. The defense lawyer was about as annoying of a person as you can imagine, but I didn't let that affect what the facts were.

I just remember our first vote was nearly guilty from each juror. I was young (mid-20s) at the time. I think I was the youngest there, by far. When it came my turn to speak my mind, I simply asked, "We are supposed to only say he's guilty if it's beyond a reasonable doubt, and I have plenty of doubt that seems reasonable." I felt like people don't recall that key phrase: "Beyond a reasonable doubt." They just GUESS as to what happened. If the answer is "maybe" they say guilty.

Ultimately, we had a verdict of not-guilty, but the guy may never know how close he was to being put away for good. And he would have been one of those inmates that gets abused by others b/c of the nature of his charges. His life was still F'd as you are branded as soon as you get accused of these types of things.

The Avery's in this documentary were supposed to be the lower than average intelligence ones...I have my reasonable doubts of that too.

 

The American Justice System

Rocket River
Capitalism at its best . . . winning is everything

 

I've finished the series and thought it was riveting. I have to agree with what others have said: it's a travesty that Brendan is in prison, convicted on his own stupidity and fear of abusive investigators.

I have a question for the lawyers among us: how is anything Brendan "confessed" to without the presence of an attorney or a legal guardian admissible in court? As a minor, how was he in position to speak unaccompanied to the police?

 

hrmmm

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">13 Hours <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ManitowocCounty?src=hash">#ManitowocCounty</a> Lights Out <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MakingAMurderer?src=hash">#MakingAMurderer</a> Gonna Shut It All Down <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GhostSec?src=hash">#GhostSec</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Anonymous?src=hash">#Anonymous</a> Justice Starts Every Website Tango Down</p>&mdash; OPAVERYDASSEY (@OPAVERYDASSEY) <a href="https://twitter.com/OPAVERYDASSEY/status/681671074866671618">December 29, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

J Sizzle started a war!

 

Good job J Sizzle, we got your back!!

 

wow this is so good. watched like 8hrs straight w/ my dog lol. i knew nothing about the case or outcome so I was on the edge the entire time. you get sucked into it. i felt relived when bredan's cousin told the truth and said she lied and was rooting for brendan to stand up to the prosecutors.

you feel so bad for the kid. never got a fair shake from the start. all he wanted was to be home in time for wrestlemania =(

 

Hopefully anonymous comes through.