Making a Murderer Documentary on Netflix

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where did the key come from to be planted then? No record of the key being found, car gets found on the property.

Key gets found by Lenk by his own admission on the 3rd (apparently) search of the Bedroom.

I deduce, Dear Watson's, that whoever planted the key, drove, or conspired to drive that car onto the property.
That bent cop recovered the key from the car when he called it in and gave it to his bent cop mate to plant while searching.

Were they using a telescope to search the place the first few times?
 

That bent cop recovered the key from the car when he called it in and gave it to his bent cop mate to plant while searching.

Were they using a telescope to search the place the first few times?

Drones from 35,000 feet.

The bent cop recovered the key...? well for starters he'd have to know it was there. You saw the size of the property. It took that bizarre silly old woman less than 15 minutes to find the car and a known (to the family) copper wandering around their property in broad daylight finds the car, checks the plate... I don't think so. He would have been in a squad car and would have been seen by any number of the family.

People seem so quick to defend the cops as bumbling and declare there is no way a copper could have done that. I don't know what world you live in but it must be a warm and fuzzy one where nothing bad ever happens.
 

Interesting video interview with Avery's ex-fiance Jodi, who features in the documentary. Warning for those who haven't finished the series: contains spoilers.

Here

And here is Avery's lawyer giving his side (in the interest of fairness!):

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news...ex-fiancee-turn-on-him-20160114#ixzz3xGfiMrCi

I know some people have changed their minds about Steven Avery's innocence since the documentary was filmed. Jodi, his ex-fiancée, has recently come out and said she is convinced that he is guilty. Do you remain convinced of his innocence?
I do. Realize that there was a fair amount of coverage with Jodi [in the documentary]. She was getting a lot of pressure, even while the trial was going on, to try and turn her away from Steven Avery. It's many years, who knows what kind of pressure and influences have been exerted against her to try and make express that kind of opinion. Bottom line is that when things were contemporaneous, happening back during that time, she did not have that opinion. She was very supportive of him. So, why is she changing her opinion? I don't know at this point.

I think that the documentary showed that she was not going to be a reliable witness. She was not called at trial in part because of that — because she had been arrested three times by the police and interviewed to try and get her to change her story and she never did. Of course, she was in jail at the time on her own drunk driving case. So she wasn't a direct witness, although she did talk to him on the phone twice on that same night and noted nothing out of the ordinary, like [for instance that], he somehow stopped in the middle of a rape, murder, dismemberment, burning of a body, and came in and had two 15-minute phone calls with her and acted perfectly normal.
 
And here is Avery's lawyer giving his side (in the interest of fairness!):

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news...ex-fiancee-turn-on-him-20160114#ixzz3xGfiMrCi

I know some people have changed their minds about Steven Avery's innocence since the documentary was filmed. Jodi, his ex-fiancée, has recently come out and said she is convinced that he is guilty. Do you remain convinced of his innocence?
I do. Realize that there was a fair amount of coverage with Jodi [in the documentary]. She was getting a lot of pressure, even while the trial was going on, to try and turn her away from Steven Avery. It's many years, who knows what kind of pressure and influences have been exerted against her to try and make express that kind of opinion. Bottom line is that when things were contemporaneous, happening back during that time, she did not have that opinion. She was very supportive of him. So, why is she changing her opinion? I don't know at this point.

I think that the documentary showed that she was not going to be a reliable witness. She was not called at trial in part because of that — because she had been arrested three times by the police and interviewed to try and get her to change her story and she never did. Of course, she was in jail at the time on her own drunk driving case. So she wasn't a direct witness, although she did talk to him on the phone twice on that same night and noted nothing out of the ordinary, like [for instance that], he somehow stopped in the middle of a rape, murder, dismemberment, burning of a body, and came in and had two 15-minute phone calls with her and acted perfectly normal.

Interesting.

Buting was always the more convinced of Avery's innocence. Strang was much more ambivalent about the actuality of guilt, and seemed more frustrated with Dassey's case in the end. He took umbrage with the criminal justice process without ever being clear over whether he thought Avery could've committed the crime.

There's also Kratz's itemised list of what the documentary failed to show, which is very interesting too. Warning, more spoilers if you click here.
 

I've just got to the end of ep5. It's a very good show.

It's the pattern of the blood next to the ignition that does it for me. No way has that been smeared on unwittingly (as it would've been for Avery to have got the key in the ignition, given that it was his index finger that had been cut) - that blood had been deliberately dripped on there; look at the accumulation blobs at the bottom of those two marks - that wouldn't have made that pattern any other way.
 
Len Kachinsky was the ultimate horror story of the series, an awful man.

CXNTQsnUEAAO6mS.jpg:large
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top