Making A Murderer (Spoilers)

So Kratz's transgressions unrelated to this case are to be scrutinized but not Avery's?

Avery had a history of violence, inappropriate and threatening actions towards women and Teresa Halbach, but that gets overlooked?
I feel that both parties' transgressions are very important to the case... I'm not saying to let Avery walk free, but I do believe that he deserves another trial, free of state/county bias... and prosecuted by a team whose integrity isn't in the toilet...

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
So Kratz's transgressions unrelated to this case are to be scrutinized but not Avery's?

Avery had a history of violence, inappropriate and threatening actions towards women and Teresa Halbach, but that gets overlooked?

I'm not saying Avery is innocent! As a matter of fact, I said he is most likely guilty! But that doesn't excuse the actions of Kratz, Lenk, Colburn and others.

So, you find yourself defending your freedom and Ken Kratz is sitting at the prosecution table. You feeling good about your future outcome?
 
I'm not saying Avery is innocent! As a matter of fact, I said he is most likely guilty! But that doesn't excuse the actions of Kratz, Lenk, Colburn and others.

So, you find yourself defending your freedom and Ken Kratz is sitting at the prosecution table. You feeling good about your future outcome?
I would feel good. Because the bones of a dead girl weren't found on my property in a fire pit intertwined with steel fibers. DNA from my sweat also wasn't found on the hood latch of her car.
 
I would feel good. Because the bones of a dead girl weren't found on my property in a fire pit intertwined with steel fibers. DNA from my sweat also wasn't found on the hood latch of her car.

You better hope it isn't Kratz, Lenk and company investigating. They will find whatever they need to in order to convict you!
 
Last edited:
The entire state of Wisconsin is corrupt ? That's a leap

Agreed, unfair to criticize the entire state but if your information is accurate on this site, Appleton isn't far from Manitowoc County!
 
If this trial was going on today do you think Avery's defense would try and argue that the 18 years in jail for the crime he did not commit made him crazy and use the not mentally competent to stand trial aspect?
 
Agreed, unfair to criticize the entire state but if your information is accurate on this site, Appleton isn't far from Manitowoc County!

I live one county over from Calumet and less than an hour from Manitowoc County.
 
Ken Kratz was being investigated during the Avery trial so it wasn't "years earlier". It isn't a giant leap for a person to be corrupt in one area lead to further corruption in another.

I am intrigued by the Anonymous angle. If they have indeed found inflammatory emails between DA and sheriff's office personnel, the media blitz has only just begun.
I think you are getting his prosecution of the trial, and post trial conviction hearings mixed up... He was not doing any of this behavior in 2006, i believe it started in 2010
 
I think you are getting his prosecution of the trial, and post trial conviction hearings mixed up... He was not doing any of this behavior in 2006, i believe it started in 2010

Some of it may have been the post trial hearings but it didn't begin in 2010, he resigned in 2010. A 26 year old woman filed charges in October 2009 and the harassment began long before that. Since she came forward in October 2009, several other women have done the same.
 
I live one county over from Calumet and less than an hour from Manitowoc County.
Did you live in this area when the murder trial was going on? It would be interesting to see the opinions of people exposed to the media stories of the time, and then the documentary, as it seems you would get two were different polarizing takes on the same case

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Did you live in this area when the murder trial was going on? It would be interesting to see the opinions of people exposed to the media stories of the time, and then the documentary, as it seems you would get two were different polarizing takes on the same case

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Yea, everyone thought he was guilty then.... and still does now..
 
Did you live in this area when the murder trial was going on? It would be interesting to see the opinions of people exposed to the media stories of the time, and then the documentary, as it seems you would get two were different polarizing takes on the same case

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
A lot of people my age, around 30, have been heavily influenced by this episodic TV series. I believe their bleeding hearts have something to do with that.
 
A lot of people my age, around 30, have been heavily influenced by this episodic TV series. I believe their bleeding hearts have something to do with that.
Those that will soon be called the "Netflix Generation"?
 
I am still looking for a valid explanation for this
"Why were link and colburn in the trailer when Kratz himself said that manitwoc county would only be there to assist with equipment"

Shaking a bookshelf in the trailer that a key mysteriously appears from 3 days later is not assisting with equipment.
 
I am still looking for a valid explanation for this
"Why were link and colburn in the trailer when Kratz himself said that manitwoc county would only be there to assist with equipment"

Shaking a bookshelf in the trailer that a key mysteriously appears from 3 days later is not assisting with equipment.

the naive part of me wants to believe that the investigation needed boots on the ground, so why not go local and save some taxpayer dollars rather than transporting other investigators in. but it flies in the face of any effort to remove the appearance of impropriety. it's form without substance.
 
My gut and logic tell me they are guilty as sin... What i struggle with is that those two morons don't have enough brain capacity between the two of them to get away with it to an extent that no tangible evidence exists. We're talking some major crime scene cleanup going on here... Even with burning it all.
 
I don't think viewers were given half the story. The filmmakers reached out to anyone who would talk to them. One side was far more willing than the other.
 
A fairly well written article, but Mark Wahlberg's brother is as guilty of assumptions as the next man... he misinterpreted the defense lawyer in his critical 9th point:

"Avery’s lawyers seem very admirable and incredibly competent, but if you build a case on the premise that “the police framed an innocent man,” and subsequently tell the jury “I do not believe the police frame innocent people,” haven’t you essentially told the jury your client is not innocent?"

He does this by taking the statement out of context (a trait that can be seen in both the prosecutors, documentary makers, and Netflix watchers alike). The lawyer's point, which is continued in his statement is that he believe that the police thought that avery was guilty and proceeded as such. I think this is fairly obvious in the way they didn't consider or even seriously question her ex-boyfriend or male roommate (who were both able to hack into her phone records). The lawyers full quote was:
“I do not believe the police frame innocent people, they frame people that they think are guilty.”

To me, unlike Mr. Wahlberg, this was pretty straight forward, as the prosecution was asserting that the defense was insinuating that the police murdered and moved the body to frame Steven... the statement basically says the police over stepped their bounds by becoming the judge and jury, and trying to add damning evidence to the case, instead of presenting the evidence that existed. Whether this was true I will never know.

As others have said, it wouldn't surprise me if Avery did it. But the police really blundered this investigation and may have caused a reasonable doubt.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
I don't think viewers were given half the story. The filmmakers reached out to anyone who would talk to them. One side was far more willing than the other.

It seemed to me that only the evidence that they had an answer for was presented, and they constantly spun it towards the defenses side. Many things were left out, such as found personal items outside the house, the location of the gun and when it was taken as evidence, or the consistency between Brendan's testimony about moving the vehicle and where Steven's DNA found Whether it was their intent or just their natural bias it seemed one sided to me. Now what evidence for the defense was left out?

It doesn't mean he is guilty, but I don't think it was an unbiased documentary.
 
It seemed to me that only the evidence that they had an answer for was presented, and they constantly spun it towards the defenses side. Many things were left out, such as found personal items outside the house, the location of the gun and when it was taken as evidence, or the consistency between Brendan's testimony about moving the vehicle and where Steven's DNA found Whether it was their intent or just their natural bias it seemed one sided to me. Now what evidence for the defense was left out?

It doesn't mean he is guilty, but I don't think it was an unbiased documentary.

I don't think the filmmakers (I have stayed away from calling this a documentary as well) really cared about the outcome of the case. I think the point they made was that the system is failing us and it was highlighted in all 3 cases. How these individuals were convicted beyond a reasonable doubt escapes me. Even if they are guilty, the people who are in charge of law enforcement and the criminal justice system failed to do their job in my opinion. The jury failed as well.
 
I don't think viewers were given half the story. The filmmakers reached out to anyone who would talk to them. One side was far more willing than the other.
That still can mean viewers only got half the story.
 
Back
Top