We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Making A Murderer (Spoilers)

tequila4kapp said:
Interesting read. Somehow I think it's more likely that Avery is 100% innocent than Whalberg actually wrote that entire piece by himself.
Click to expand...
Nah. He's got the right stuff. Whoa whoa
 
They still come back constantly to the piece of evidence that Avery's DNA (via Sweat... not blood) was found under the hood of the car. All other blood evidence aside, how would that have been planted... And it was corroborated by Dassey saying he opened up the hood and pulled out the battery cable(still not sure why)...
 
After reading more about evidence that wasn't presented in the (Insert proper title of the show), I'm not 100% convinced they didn't do it anymore, but I saw a Fox News interview with both Kratz and Strang and Strang still has a way of having an answer for just about every piece of evidence not presented in the show. Dude is good at what he does.

The only things I'm sure of now: Some of those local cops are still scumbags, imagining Kratz sexting is still hilarious, and if she was killed in the garage there should have been blood. A great quote from Strang: "Mr. Avery has been accused of a lot of things: a good housekeeper is not one of them."
 
rallo said:
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
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more!
 
blugold said:
This is the most important part of this whole story

https://medium.com/@dianaalvear/her...-making-of-a-murderer-f95becb4c628#.tpm1iadwe
Click to expand...

Girardcorp said:
Something all too many seem to forget, because of the one sided nature of this 'series'
Click to expand...

I agree completely, which makes law enforcement handling of the case all the more difficult. I am not one of those "free Steven Avery" guys. He is the absolute most likely to have committed the crime. Just convict him ethically, morally and without creating {probable cause} reasonable doubt. The {probable cause} reasonable doubt in this case was created entirely by law enforcement behavior.

This case wouldn't be front a center in the public conscience if not for the way police and the DA handed it.
 
Last edited:
sixcat said:
I agree completely, which makes law enforcement handling of the case all the more difficult. I am not one of those "free Steven Avery" guys. He is the absolute most likely to have committed the crime. Just convict him ethically, morally and without creating probable cause. The probable cause in this case was created entirely by law enforcement behavior.

This case wouldn't be front a center in the public conscience if not for the way police and the DA handed it.
Click to expand...
To be fair. Probable cause was created by Avery. The prosecution created the potential for reasonable doubt. Which the jury did not find.
 
I agree about the dismissal of the victim in the documentary to a point. As sixcat has said, the behavior of law enforcement has just muddied up the way i've thought about the case. For instance, the reporter in this article said

"It was only after documents were filed in the case that I learned I’d been standing on her remains as we conducted our interview."

I will admit my thought process followed as
"you were standing where the remains were found LATER, you have no idea if they were there at the time"

I shouldn't think this way!!!! And i wouldn't be if the county police wouldn't have handled this so poorly!
 
blugold said:
To be fair. Probable cause was created by Avery. The prosecution (and law enforcement) created the potential for reasonable doubt. Which the jury did not find.
Click to expand...
edited

Although 7 of 12 the jurors DID find that there was reasonable doubt, (according to the documentary) before one juror was released for family reasons, and then had to re-deliberate... this case overall is just bizarre

the Avery ruling doesn't bother me as much as the Dassey ruling TBH... it's very telling that the Avery jury could count him innocent on the false imprisonment charge and Kratz even said something to the effect that Avery "acted alone" in his closing statement... then Dassey be convicted of the same false imprisonment charge... with less evidence... the whole thing is very inconsistent and troubling
 
blugold said:
To be fair. Probable cause was created by Avery. The prosecution created the potential for reasonable doubt. Which the jury did not find.
Click to expand...

Correct, poor choice of words on my part. I should have said reasonable doubt.

Without the questionable at best, criminal at worst law enforcement handling of the case, Avery wouldn't have anything to point toward for a conspiracy. Even if he tried, nobody would buy into it if law enforcement had conducted itself in a professional, ethical and moral fashion. If law enforcement acted above board, these questions wouldn't linger, no matter how the filmmakers spin it.
 
Admittedly, my mind often takes the "road less traveled", meaning I tend to think about things nobody else would. After watching the entire series, I couldn't help but think how absolutely insane Avery's "girlfriend" must be to seek out someone with his history for a "relationship". And when I say "his history", throw out anything from the original case in 1985, it is still pretty disturbing! I mean, it isn't like he could have met her at random, he was in prison. She had to seek him out!
 
sixcat said:
Admittedly, my mind often takes the "road less traveled", meaning I tend to think about things nobody else would. After watching the entire series, I couldn't help but think how absolutely insane Avery's "girlfriend" must be to seek out someone with his history for a "relationship". And when I say "his history", throw out anything from the original case in 1985, it is still pretty disturbing! I mean, it isn't like he could have met her at random, he was in prison. She had to seek him out!
Click to expand...

I also thought this aspect weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Girardcorp said:
I also thought this aspect weird.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
She seemed like an odd bird. Although maybe that is because she is quite a bit older and just lost her husband... although a convicted murderer is one hell of a rebound

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
sixcat said:
I agree completely, which makes law enforcement handling of the case all the more difficult. I am not one of those "free Steven Avery" guys. He is the absolute most likely to have committed the crime. Just convict him ethically, morally and without creating {probable cause} reasonable doubt. The {probable cause} reasonable doubt in this case was created entirely by law enforcement behavior.

This case wouldn't be front a center in the public conscience if not for the way police and the DA handed it.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem.

The standard to convict is incredibly difficult. No matter how small the doubt, as long as it is reasonable, is enough to prevent a guilty verdict. It's an incredibly high standard, because we want to be as certain as possible when we are putting someone in prison (or, in some states, condemning someone to death).

Steven Avery is a pretty unsavory person, and by his own admission he's done a lot of criminal (and scummy) things. With that said, if you cannot be certain that he committed murder, you cannot commit.

Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict regardless of what appears to be police and prosecutional tampering.
 
I agree Seth, I do not like Steven Avery and I think he is a bad person.

But my mind keeps going back to a key "appearing" after 3 days and found by a detective who should not have been in the trailer, and according the DA would not be in the trailer.

ATLGolfer said:
Here's the problem.

The standard to convict is incredibly difficult. No matter how small the doubt, as long as it is reasonable, is enough to prevent a guilty verdict. It's an incredibly high standard, because we want to be as certain as possible when we are putting someone in prison (or, in some states, condemning someone to death).

Steven Avery is a pretty unsavory person, and by his own admission he's done a lot of criminal (and scummy) things. With that said, if you cannot be certain that he committed murder, you cannot commit.

Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict regardless of what appears to be police and prosecutional tampering.
Click to expand...
 
ATLGolfer said:
Here's the problem.

The standard to convict is incredibly difficult. No matter how small the doubt, as long as it is reasonable, is enough to prevent a guilty verdict. It's an incredibly high standard, because we want to be as certain as possible when we are putting someone in prison (or, in some states, condemning someone to death).

Steven Avery is a pretty unsavory person, and by his own admission he's done a lot of criminal (and scummy) things. With that said, if you cannot be certain that he committed murder, you cannot commit.

Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict regardless of what appears to be police and prosecutional tampering.
Click to expand...

I am not going to weigh in on guilt or innocence. I am not privy to evidence files, trial transcripts and testimony. Neither is anyone viewing this thread. We are privy to what filmmakers want us to see. I am simply appalled at the actions of law enforcement and prosecutors in the case. Those actions leave little doubt as to their mindset leading up to the arrest and ultimate conviction of Steven Avery.

I completely agree with your view on the standard to convict but cannot agree in the slightest with your statement "Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict". There can be no question whether enough evidence exists to convict. He was convicted!

Now if you want to argue the legitimacy of the evidence used to convict raises considerable reasonable doubt based solely on the actions of law enforcement and the DA's office, I couldn't agree more. In my opinion, the evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict based solely on the fact a guilty verdict was reached. The legitimacy of that verdict based on methods used to collect evidence in the case raises several red flags.
 
ATLGolfer said:
Here's the problem.

The standard to convict is incredibly difficult. No matter how small the doubt, as long as it is reasonable, is enough to prevent a guilty verdict. It's an incredibly high standard, because we want to be as certain as possible when we are putting someone in prison (or, in some states, condemning someone to death).

Steven Avery is a pretty unsavory person, and by his own admission he's done a lot of criminal (and scummy) things. With that said, if you cannot be certain that he committed murder, you cannot commit.

Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict regardless of what appears to be police and prosecutional tampering.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question, what was going through the jury's mind at deliberations? Maybe that's answered in the TV Series (I am done calling this a documentary, because it's not), I don't have Netflix.
 
blugold said:
Which begs the question, what was going through the jury's mind at deliberations? Maybe that's answered in the TV Series (I am done calling this a documentary, because it's not), I don't have Netflix.
Click to expand...


As I have learned over the years, jury deliberations are possibly the most inexact system of doing anything. Talking to jurors after a trial often leaves the attorneys wondering why there was a trial at all. Jurors will latch onto the strangest evidence, or even things that are not evidence, to make their findings.
 
sixcat said:
I am not going to weigh in on guilt or innocence. I am not privy to evidence files, trial transcripts and testimony. Neither is anyone viewing this thread. We are privy to what filmmakers want us to see. I am simply appalled at the actions of law enforcement and prosecutors in the case. Those actions leave little doubt as to their mindset leading up to the arrest and ultimate conviction of Steven Avery.

I completely agree with your view on the standard to convict but cannot agree in the slightest with your statement "Based on what I've seen in the documentary and online on this case, I'm not sure there's enough evidence to convict". There can be no question whether enough evidence exists to convict. He was convicted!

Now if you want to argue the legitimacy of the evidence used to convict raises considerable reasonable doubt based solely on the actions of law enforcement and the DA's office, I couldn't agree more. In my opinion, the evidence is sufficient for a guilty verdict based solely on the fact a guilty verdict was reached. The legitimacy of that verdict based on methods used to collect evidence in the case raises several red flags.
Click to expand...


See my post above. Saying that this particular jury found Avery guilty doesn't change the sufficiency (or insufficiency) of the evidence in the case.

With that said, I'd love to know the jurors' rationale for their guilty findings. It would be fascinating to see what they locked in on.
 
All that article does for me is reinforce reasonable doubt. I'm not saying he did or didn't do it. All I'm saying is all that is presented, there is no way I could convict on what was presented
 
blugold said:
This story is pretty bad timing. Wisconsin County Sheriff's offices need to get their sh!t together.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wiscon...f-convicted-killer-b99647249z1-364446091.html



PS. I do not disagree with this hiring. I just found the timing of this story to be unfortunate.
Click to expand...

i really love all the people saying this guy can't do IT stuff. It's not like he's a deputy. Clearly they do not believe in rehabilitation even after 20+ years of being a member of society.
 
Girardcorp said:
i really love all the people saying this guy can't do IT stuff. It's not like he's a deputy. Clearly they do not believe in rehabilitation even after 20+ years of being a member of society.
Click to expand...
We're on the same page
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top