Making A Murderer ***CONTAINS SPOILERS***
Discussion
I started watching this with the thought in my head that it's a documentary and documentary makers can emphasise one side and not the other. So I've kept a very open mind.
Having watched the series and then researched the case and evidence that wasn't shown in the documentary, I'm inclined to think they did commit the murders. I do however believe that some of the local law enforcement were determined to prove his guilt by whatever means.
Some interesting reading here. Particularly about the dna on the hood catch of the RAV4
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-ste...
Having watched the series and then researched the case and evidence that wasn't shown in the documentary, I'm inclined to think they did commit the murders. I do however believe that some of the local law enforcement were determined to prove his guilt by whatever means.
Some interesting reading here. Particularly about the dna on the hood catch of the RAV4
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-ste...
Just finished and then read that link.
My gut feel from the series was that they didn't do it.
After reading the link; it sounds like they did.
What's interesting though is that Steven's lawyers still think he's innocent. I get they might think the trial was unfair and evidence was planted and on that basis he (they) shouldn't have been convicted but... innocent?
My gut feel from the series was that they didn't do it.
After reading the link; it sounds like they did.
What's interesting though is that Steven's lawyers still think he's innocent. I get they might think the trial was unfair and evidence was planted and on that basis he (they) shouldn't have been convicted but... innocent?
Elroy Blue said:
I started watching this with the thought in my head that it's a documentary and documentary makers can emphasise one side and not the other. So I've kept a very open mind.
Having watched the series and then researched the case and evidence that wasn't shown in the documentary, I'm inclined to think they did commit the murders. I do however believe that some of the local law enforcement were determined to prove his guilt by whatever means.
Some interesting reading here. Particularly about the dna on the hood catch of the RAV4
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-ste...
Careful with that link, there is a lot of information without basis, sources or any evidence. For instance, the fact that he made several hidden number calls or that Halbach complained to her boss that she didn't want to go to the Averys - both appear to be false and without basis.Having watched the series and then researched the case and evidence that wasn't shown in the documentary, I'm inclined to think they did commit the murders. I do however believe that some of the local law enforcement were determined to prove his guilt by whatever means.
Some interesting reading here. Particularly about the dna on the hood catch of the RAV4
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-ste...
jammy_basturd said:
Careful with that link, there is a lot of information without basis, sources or any evidence. For instance, the fact that he made several hidden number calls or that Halbach complained to her boss that she didn't want to go to the Averys - both appear to be false and without basis.
I'd have thought that would have been mentioned as the documentary (and maybe even defence) used these calls to suggest someone else may be involved, no?The shackles being bought (if true) and the nephew describing their use (how did he know) are what worry me!
Edited by dom9 on Tuesday 5th January 12:51
31mph said:
A really incredible watch.
I couldn't stand Theresa's brother, he made my blood boil whenever he appeared on screen.
Unless I missed it, the prosecution never actually said what Steven's motive for the murder was?
I know what you mean about the brother, I honestly thought at one point it was going to turn out that he was the killer.I couldn't stand Theresa's brother, he made my blood boil whenever he appeared on screen.
Unless I missed it, the prosecution never actually said what Steven's motive for the murder was?
Absolutely. Brother, flat mate and ex all seemed a bit 'odd' and the brother seemed to love the attention yet she only seemed to mention her sisters etc in the videos.
Will be interesting to see if anything happens post-documentary as I can't see how there wasn't 'reasonable' doubt, though I think there's a fair chance the result was correct.
Will be interesting to see if anything happens post-documentary as I can't see how there wasn't 'reasonable' doubt, though I think there's a fair chance the result was correct.
Finished this a few days ago, then spent time mulling over and looking into various internet sites and the truth is, no idea.
The documentary is obviously going to be biased towards the Avery's, and if that was my only source of info, I would definitely be incredulous at the outcome. But then reading the various links, including those posted here, there HAS to be more that we're not being told.
What's even more shocking though it the seemingly complete shutdown of the appeal process. All the way up to the supreme court, he's been denied another hearing, and that's what sticks in my throat. What really was the turning point for me was the forensic chemist lady who when asked about the lack of EDTA in the blood said "I don't know if EDTA was not present, OR, was not found in the sample" and I think that's the key here. Now that this documentary is out there at a global reach, surely a super-lab can offer their services to the team and offer to test the blood samples?
The other part I don't know how to take is the complete lack of DNA. This lady is meant to have been trussed to a bed, on a mattress, stabbed, throat slit, dragged through the house and then burnt. A complete lack of DNA? Makes zero sense. Absolutely zero.
There are so many holes in the prosecution, that regardless of the outcome, my personal opinion is that there HAD to be enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
The documentary is obviously going to be biased towards the Avery's, and if that was my only source of info, I would definitely be incredulous at the outcome. But then reading the various links, including those posted here, there HAS to be more that we're not being told.
What's even more shocking though it the seemingly complete shutdown of the appeal process. All the way up to the supreme court, he's been denied another hearing, and that's what sticks in my throat. What really was the turning point for me was the forensic chemist lady who when asked about the lack of EDTA in the blood said "I don't know if EDTA was not present, OR, was not found in the sample" and I think that's the key here. Now that this documentary is out there at a global reach, surely a super-lab can offer their services to the team and offer to test the blood samples?
The other part I don't know how to take is the complete lack of DNA. This lady is meant to have been trussed to a bed, on a mattress, stabbed, throat slit, dragged through the house and then burnt. A complete lack of DNA? Makes zero sense. Absolutely zero.
There are so many holes in the prosecution, that regardless of the outcome, my personal opinion is that there HAD to be enough reasonable doubt to acquit.
Watched all 10 in just over 24 hours. Gripping series!
I am still baffled at how either man ended up in prison for life????
There was NO good evidence according to the documentary. I find it extremely hard to believe these two had the capability to completely clean up a very messy crime scene and then the stupidity to put the key under a pair of slippers, leave blood in the car and most importantly... cover the car up with a couple of branches and a sign when he had a crusher on his property? Makes no sense. 8 days of searching.. I'm surprised they didn't plant more. For example some sort of confession note under Avery's bed in one of the detectives handwriting but claimed Avery did it anyway. Would have been more believable than the evidence they presented.
Why was the Brother so convinced the entire way through both were guilty? Why did he keep smiling every time he was interviewed? Why was he nor the ex boyfriend questioned about the deleted messages?! Why were the police allowed to search the salvage yard with their obvious conflict of interest?
Also, with Avery in line to get all that money in compensation why would he kill someone and have to spend it all on lawyers?
However, I understand the documentary was Biased towards Avery. But I still see no way that he could be convicted, even with all the 'evidence' I've read that was left out, there's still reasonable doubt. Worst case of justice I've ever seen.
Perhaps Avery will mastermind an Andy Dufresne style escape?
I am still baffled at how either man ended up in prison for life????
There was NO good evidence according to the documentary. I find it extremely hard to believe these two had the capability to completely clean up a very messy crime scene and then the stupidity to put the key under a pair of slippers, leave blood in the car and most importantly... cover the car up with a couple of branches and a sign when he had a crusher on his property? Makes no sense. 8 days of searching.. I'm surprised they didn't plant more. For example some sort of confession note under Avery's bed in one of the detectives handwriting but claimed Avery did it anyway. Would have been more believable than the evidence they presented.
Why was the Brother so convinced the entire way through both were guilty? Why did he keep smiling every time he was interviewed? Why was he nor the ex boyfriend questioned about the deleted messages?! Why were the police allowed to search the salvage yard with their obvious conflict of interest?
Also, with Avery in line to get all that money in compensation why would he kill someone and have to spend it all on lawyers?
However, I understand the documentary was Biased towards Avery. But I still see no way that he could be convicted, even with all the 'evidence' I've read that was left out, there's still reasonable doubt. Worst case of justice I've ever seen.
Perhaps Avery will mastermind an Andy Dufresne style escape?
The girl (according to the prosecution)was killed in the garage, not the bedroom. The documentary fails to mention this. Avery and Brendan admitted to cleaning the floor with bleach and the boy's mum handed over a pair of bleach stained trousers at the time of the murder. They also failed to mention Avery's DNA on the bonnet catch of the RAV4.
I do think the key may have been planted in an attempt to ensure a strong case against Avery
I do think the key may have been planted in an attempt to ensure a strong case against Avery
Elroy Blue said:
The girl (according to the prosecution)was killed in the garage, not the bedroom. The documentary fails to mention this. Avery and Brendan admitted to cleaning the floor with bleach and the boy's mum handed over a pair of bleach stained trousers at the time of the murder. They also failed to mention Avery's DNA on the bonnet catch of the RAV4.
I do think the key may have been planted in an attempt to ensure a strong case against Avery
I do think the key may have been planted in an attempt to ensure a strong case against Avery
jammy_basturd said:
On the point that there was no blood, after reading Reddit, I found that one of the omissions from the documentary was that the stabbing and shooting actually happened in the garage (hence the focus on that building), as told by Brendan, but again, lead to those answers by the detectives. Brendan then goes on to say that him and Steve did clean the garage, with bleach and even gave the detectives a pair of his trousers stained with bleach.
However, there are a number of holes in this story.
1 - We would have to believe that Steve and Brendan meticulously cleaned the garage and then put back, or missed, the spent bullet casings.
2 - The bullet found was clean, but found in amongst the dust and dirt under the compressor.
3 - To stain trousers they would have had to use chlorine based bleach. Chlorine based bleach actually leaves traces of blood that can be detected using a particular test (that the detectives should have done by I don't believe they did), this test involves using a chemical then a special light which makes traces of blood show up. If S & B really used chlorine based bleach for their clean up, then, having done this test the garage would have lit up like a Christmas tree. Only if S & B had used an Oxygen based bleach would they have removed all traces of blood - however Oxygen based bleach does not stain clothes.
However, there are a number of holes in this story.
1 - We would have to believe that Steve and Brendan meticulously cleaned the garage and then put back, or missed, the spent bullet casings.
2 - The bullet found was clean, but found in amongst the dust and dirt under the compressor.
3 - To stain trousers they would have had to use chlorine based bleach. Chlorine based bleach actually leaves traces of blood that can be detected using a particular test (that the detectives should have done by I don't believe they did), this test involves using a chemical then a special light which makes traces of blood show up. If S & B really used chlorine based bleach for their clean up, then, having done this test the garage would have lit up like a Christmas tree. Only if S & B had used an Oxygen based bleach would they have removed all traces of blood - however Oxygen based bleach does not stain clothes.
The court documents are there for everyone to read. From what I've seen on Reddit they left out a few things, but nothing that major (probably the biggest thing was SA DNA on the bonnet of TE's Rav4). Nothing that has since come out about the trial that wasn't in the docu has made me think SA or DA are guilty.
Haven't watched it myself but did see this posted in my twitter feed yesterday.
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidenc...
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-damning-evidenc...
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff