Making A Murderer ***CONTAINS SPOILERS***
Discussion
Happened to catch a rerun of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, interesting bit on public defenders if you need any more evidence that the American legal system is f
ked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4
ked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4jammy_basturd said:
Happened to catch a rerun of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, interesting bit on public defenders if you need any more evidence that the American legal system is fked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4
Simply means if you are poor you are screwed, and often you admit guilt to things you didnt do because its easier that way.ked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USkEzLuzmZ4http://www.thefearof13.com
Was shown on BBC 4 Storyville tonight, another man who spent 20 years on death row for a murder he didn't commit. An amazing story.
Was shown on BBC 4 Storyville tonight, another man who spent 20 years on death row for a murder he didn't commit. An amazing story.
Swmbo and I binge watched it as we just could not tear ourselves away utterly incredible.I just dont figure how either of them were convicted even if guilty.I think the multi million dollar lawsuit was a strong motive to frame him but ultimately what jury is going to make that leap and acquit on that basis.Although apparently one juror was quoted as saying "if they can frame him they can frame me".
I definiitely have some man love for the defence attorneys who gave it their best but had an enormous hill to climb as well as fighting a judge who seemed to make some decisions which seemed very weighted towards the prosecution.And how come the same judge presided over the motion for a retrial of the SA case and surprise surprise denied it.I was also amazed by the forensic dept testimony where she had contaminated the DNA but still thought it should be presented because she was under pressure from one of the two imo dodgy detectives to "place him in the house".
If it was me I would be looking very closely at the ex boyfriend or the brother.
I definiitely have some man love for the defence attorneys who gave it their best but had an enormous hill to climb as well as fighting a judge who seemed to make some decisions which seemed very weighted towards the prosecution.And how come the same judge presided over the motion for a retrial of the SA case and surprise surprise denied it.I was also amazed by the forensic dept testimony where she had contaminated the DNA but still thought it should be presented because she was under pressure from one of the two imo dodgy detectives to "place him in the house".
If it was me I would be looking very closely at the ex boyfriend or the brother.
Watched the whole series and done extensive reading online and I am utterly gob smacked and bewildered at how this case was handled.
If we completely ignore the issue of who killed her there are so many things that don't add up.
Firstly the burn site. There were 3 burn sites, as far as I understood the burn pit and burn barrel were located together or very close and can essentially be counted as the same burn site, but perhaps I misheard that. Anyway, bones were found in all 3 of those sites, so we know as fact that at the very least some bones were moved. If SA burned her on his own property, why would he then move only a couple of bones all the way out to the quarry leaving the rest in his back 'yard'? If SA burned her at the quarry site, why would he move the bones back onto his own property so as to incriminate himself? From the evidence seen I think the only reasonable explanation is that she was burned at the quarry site and the bones moved to SA's back 'yard'? By whom, I have no idea.
Secondly, the location she was killed. From what I saw, Brendan gave many inconsistent testimonies, one which said they killed her in the bedroom and one which said they killed her in the garage. Regardless, there was not one single shred of evidence to support the theory that she was killed in the bedroom, no DNA, no sign of a struggle, no knife, no scratches on the bed posts/board or on Brendan/SA. The only piece of evidence mentioned to connect her to the garage was the bullet, which had contaminated DNA on it and had so many inconsistencies as to how it was found (completely clean bullet on top of a dusty floor, no mention of any bullet damage to the floor or anywhere else in the garage, bullet only found after several searches, also conveniently only found after Brendan 'confesses' to seeing SA shoot her). Furthermore, the prosecutor's own DNA evidence found not one single trace of her DNA in the garage and it even proved that the garage could not have been cleaned of her DNA because SA's DNA was present in the cracks in the floor (where cleaning with bleach would have eliminated ALL dna, not just hers). Based on this evidence I don't see how anyone could say she was killed in either of these locations, I certainly don't believe for a minute that she was.
Thirdly, Brendan's first lawyer (Len someone?). Unless I completely misheard, I'm sure that when he was very first introduced in the show, he said something along the lines of how it was such a good thing for his profile to be on this case as he had recently come 3rd or won 3rd prize in some poll/event which he seemed to imply was a bad thing but by taking on this case he would become popular again?!
There are many many other points which have already been raised on this thread so little point me repeating them but one other thing that AMAZES me is how early on in this thread someone mentioned how in Steven Avery's criminal past he had burnt a cat and that this made him seem more likely of being able to commit a murder and many other posters seemed to agree. Yet some of those same posters think it is unfair to judge the prosecutors potential to be unreliable or have framed SA based on his involvement in sexting, harassing etc of vulnerable people he is meant to be representing.
Regardless of the outcome, I really hope that Steven Avery gets the fair trial that he is entitled to under his constitutional rights.
If we completely ignore the issue of who killed her there are so many things that don't add up.
Firstly the burn site. There were 3 burn sites, as far as I understood the burn pit and burn barrel were located together or very close and can essentially be counted as the same burn site, but perhaps I misheard that. Anyway, bones were found in all 3 of those sites, so we know as fact that at the very least some bones were moved. If SA burned her on his own property, why would he then move only a couple of bones all the way out to the quarry leaving the rest in his back 'yard'? If SA burned her at the quarry site, why would he move the bones back onto his own property so as to incriminate himself? From the evidence seen I think the only reasonable explanation is that she was burned at the quarry site and the bones moved to SA's back 'yard'? By whom, I have no idea.
Secondly, the location she was killed. From what I saw, Brendan gave many inconsistent testimonies, one which said they killed her in the bedroom and one which said they killed her in the garage. Regardless, there was not one single shred of evidence to support the theory that she was killed in the bedroom, no DNA, no sign of a struggle, no knife, no scratches on the bed posts/board or on Brendan/SA. The only piece of evidence mentioned to connect her to the garage was the bullet, which had contaminated DNA on it and had so many inconsistencies as to how it was found (completely clean bullet on top of a dusty floor, no mention of any bullet damage to the floor or anywhere else in the garage, bullet only found after several searches, also conveniently only found after Brendan 'confesses' to seeing SA shoot her). Furthermore, the prosecutor's own DNA evidence found not one single trace of her DNA in the garage and it even proved that the garage could not have been cleaned of her DNA because SA's DNA was present in the cracks in the floor (where cleaning with bleach would have eliminated ALL dna, not just hers). Based on this evidence I don't see how anyone could say she was killed in either of these locations, I certainly don't believe for a minute that she was.
Thirdly, Brendan's first lawyer (Len someone?). Unless I completely misheard, I'm sure that when he was very first introduced in the show, he said something along the lines of how it was such a good thing for his profile to be on this case as he had recently come 3rd or won 3rd prize in some poll/event which he seemed to imply was a bad thing but by taking on this case he would become popular again?!
There are many many other points which have already been raised on this thread so little point me repeating them but one other thing that AMAZES me is how early on in this thread someone mentioned how in Steven Avery's criminal past he had burnt a cat and that this made him seem more likely of being able to commit a murder and many other posters seemed to agree. Yet some of those same posters think it is unfair to judge the prosecutors potential to be unreliable or have framed SA based on his involvement in sexting, harassing etc of vulnerable people he is meant to be representing.
Regardless of the outcome, I really hope that Steven Avery gets the fair trial that he is entitled to under his constitutional rights.
macp said:
I definiitely have some man love for the defence attorneys who gave it their best but had an enormous hill to climb as well as fighting a judge who seemed to make some decisions which seemed very weighted towards the prosecution.And how come the same judge presided over the motion for a retrial of the SA case and surprise surprise denied it.I was also amazed by the forensic dept testimony where she had contaminated the DNA but still thought it should be presented because she was under pressure from one of the two imo dodgy detectives to "place him in the house".
On the Judge a similar happened on the West Memphis 3 case, same judge who convicted them then agrees if they can have a retrial. Seems odd as they will not tend to agree they screwed up. I wonder if its part of the judicial process in the US? In the West Memphis 3 case they where glad that the original judge was elected for senate so the retrial would be handled by someone else.
thetapeworm said:
davamer23 said:
Another vote for West Memphis 3. Watched last night and it was equally jaw dropping.
Another one from me too, utterly amazed how a handful of people with a set plan a little bit of power can get away with this kind of thing. Juicetin1 said:
I also watched West of Memphis, very good, recommended viewing if you liked MAM.
I watched this last night and I was severely disappointed.MAM takes the time to actually explain the evidence which casts doubt over the accused's guilt, West of Memphis just barely starts to do this before outlining the evidence against the step-dad which, is itself fairly inconclusive.
They gave no explanation as to why a throng of celebrities suddenly decided to get involved with the case believing it to be a miscarriage of justice and much of the 'evidence' seemed to be simply people changing their stories and saying 'Oh, I lied at the original trial', how do we know whether they were lying then or now?
On top of that, the continual shots of the dead boys bodies added nothing to the narrative of the film and were put in purely for shock value which, was entirely unnecessary.
I'm not suggesting the West Memphis 3 are not innocent but, as a piece of film-making it's not a patch on Making a Murderer.
Fascinating if a bit overly long. Am I the only one who thinks this would have been better as eight episodes with some of the repetition and irrelevant family stuff edited out?
I think it is key to remember that not even the makers claim that their documentary proves Steven innocent what they wanted to show is that neither he nor his nephew got a fair trial.
From watching the series it would not surprise if virtually every single piece of circumstantial evidence linking Steven with the crime was planted, but that also he was guilty.
It would seem incredible to me if the key and the bullet were not planted and if that is the case why not the blood streaks or even the bones. How on earth as well can you believe either the trailer or the garage were the murder locations? it just beggars believe.
The most likely scenario IMO is that she was killed and then driven in the boot of her car to the quarry and burnt and the bones then reallocated to his burn pit. Where this took place and who did it will probably never be proven "beyond reasonable doubt".
Steven is actually a reasonable plausible suspect given that he was the last appointment and what we know about past sexual allegations and animal cruelty (not all shown on the documentary), but I don't believe there is any real evidence to connect him to the crime, so some was invented.
I do feel more sorry for the kid. Even if he was involved he was 16 with learning problems being coerced by an older family member, does that deserve 40 years inside, no IMO. Even more sorry for him if he was entirely unconnected and just being made to give a false confession to help the case against Steven. As Steven could be guilty and the kid innocent.
I think it is key to remember that not even the makers claim that their documentary proves Steven innocent what they wanted to show is that neither he nor his nephew got a fair trial.
From watching the series it would not surprise if virtually every single piece of circumstantial evidence linking Steven with the crime was planted, but that also he was guilty.
It would seem incredible to me if the key and the bullet were not planted and if that is the case why not the blood streaks or even the bones. How on earth as well can you believe either the trailer or the garage were the murder locations? it just beggars believe.
The most likely scenario IMO is that she was killed and then driven in the boot of her car to the quarry and burnt and the bones then reallocated to his burn pit. Where this took place and who did it will probably never be proven "beyond reasonable doubt".
Steven is actually a reasonable plausible suspect given that he was the last appointment and what we know about past sexual allegations and animal cruelty (not all shown on the documentary), but I don't believe there is any real evidence to connect him to the crime, so some was invented.
I do feel more sorry for the kid. Even if he was involved he was 16 with learning problems being coerced by an older family member, does that deserve 40 years inside, no IMO. Even more sorry for him if he was entirely unconnected and just being made to give a false confession to help the case against Steven. As Steven could be guilty and the kid innocent.
JagLover said:
Fascinating if a bit overly long. Am I the only one who thinks this would have been better as eight episodes with some of the repetition and irrelevant family stuff edited out?
I think it is key to remember that not even the makers claim that their documentary proves Steven innocent what they wanted to show is that neither he nor his nephew got a fair trial.
From watching the series it would not surprise if virtually every single piece of circumstantial evidence linking Steven with the crime was planted, but that also he was guilty.
It would seem incredible to me if the key and the bullet were not planted and if that is the case why not the blood streaks or even the bones. How on earth as well can you believe either the trailer or the garage were the murder locations? it just beggars believe.
The most likely scenario IMO is that she was killed and then driven in the boot of her car to the quarry and burnt and the bones then reallocated to his burn pit. Where this took place and who did it will probably never be proven "beyond reasonable doubt".
Steven is actually a reasonable plausible suspect given that he was the last appointment and what we know about past sexual allegations and animal cruelty (not all shown on the documentary), but I don't believe there is any real evidence to connect him to the crime, so some was invented.
I do feel more sorry for the kid. Even if he was involved he was 16 with learning problems being coerced by an older family member, does that deserve 40 years inside, no IMO. Even more sorry for him if he was entirely unconnected and just being made to give a false confession to help the case against Steven. As Steven could be guilty and the kid innocent.
didnt the prosecution claim she was killed in the garage in SA's trial but in the bedroom in BD's trial too? I think it is key to remember that not even the makers claim that their documentary proves Steven innocent what they wanted to show is that neither he nor his nephew got a fair trial.
From watching the series it would not surprise if virtually every single piece of circumstantial evidence linking Steven with the crime was planted, but that also he was guilty.
It would seem incredible to me if the key and the bullet were not planted and if that is the case why not the blood streaks or even the bones. How on earth as well can you believe either the trailer or the garage were the murder locations? it just beggars believe.
The most likely scenario IMO is that she was killed and then driven in the boot of her car to the quarry and burnt and the bones then reallocated to his burn pit. Where this took place and who did it will probably never be proven "beyond reasonable doubt".
Steven is actually a reasonable plausible suspect given that he was the last appointment and what we know about past sexual allegations and animal cruelty (not all shown on the documentary), but I don't believe there is any real evidence to connect him to the crime, so some was invented.
I do feel more sorry for the kid. Even if he was involved he was 16 with learning problems being coerced by an older family member, does that deserve 40 years inside, no IMO. Even more sorry for him if he was entirely unconnected and just being made to give a false confession to help the case against Steven. As Steven could be guilty and the kid innocent.
AOK said:
briangriffin said:
didnt the prosecution claim she was killed in the garage in SA's trial but in the bedroom in BD's trial too?
I believe thats correct... and by the same prosecutor! Days apart! Steven denied it so they had to prove it another way.
just noticed this update on the beeb regarding his new lawyer
judging by the comments, looks to be a few weeks old
judging by the comments, looks to be a few weeks old
comments said:
Cellphone tower records of SA & TH provide airtight alibi for him. She left property he didn't. #MakingAMurderer #UnmakingAMurderer
trouble is, I think he'll need a far more concrete alibi than this...Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff