Making a Murderer Documentary on Netflix

[Mozza1987]

The trial footage primarily focused on the defence lawyers cross-examining prosecution witnesses, and not vice versa.

Re Avery's past convictions, it's not sufficient to summise "oh, he was messing about and committed two burglaries. Then he burnt a cat alive''. These are serious offences, and they are an indication of what he is capable of as a person.

My main problem however was the "conspiracy" suggestions propagated by the documentary series, which got too far fetched. It started by blaming the Sherriff's dept cops (rightly so, their behaviour was disgusting). It points the finger at Brendan's pre-trial lawyer (again, rightly so). It then points the finger at the investigators. Then Ken Kratz. Then the judge. Then the jury. There is a line somewhere, and they overstepped it. The factors do point out that Avery had an unfair trial, but not that he was framed for murder (in my view).

Yes he did them things but that doesn't make him guilty for this. The point of the jury is to listen to the evidence in the trial and give a verdict from only that. What he did was totally wrong though.

There are things that could suggest a conspiracy in my opinion as like I said they were being sued for a large amount of money and they also weren't a liked family in the area. They were then told to stay away from the investigation but didn't. Who knows though what the truth is I guess. The one thing is they defo deserved a fair trial which neither got.

 

[Mozza1987]

Never been on a jury as I have conflicting education, but how does everyone come to a unanimous decision? Do people just get tired and just say [Poor language removed] it, Hes guilty? If 7 were originally on the not guilty side, how can they all switch?

Guessing stronger personailties push people to change their mind and like you said they get fed up. I don't think they had an unanimous decision and that's why they didn't charge him with mutilation of a corpse.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Who said another possible killer would want to frame him? The police could have easily found it earlier, which would explain the officer calling the car in (when she hadn't even been reported missing at this point) and then planting the evidence on him. These were people who were being sued a small fortune for his false imprisonment.

You think that the police actually planted the car and Teresa Halbach's remains on the Avery property?

I think we can feasibly argue that the police may have planted the blood and the key, but this goes too far.

 

[evertoniandy]

Dunno how someone can sit in a jury for that long. I fell asleep during every episode of this.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Yes he did them things but that doesn't make him guilty for this. The point of the jury is to listen to the evidence in the trial and give a verdict from only that. What he did was totally wrong though.

Not saying it means he's guilty but (1) it does show he is capable of serious crime, and (2) I was responding to your suggestion that the series was not biased, when it conveniently dismisses his past conduct with a fleeting reference.

Very, very serious offences were committed by him. The other thing is that, if he testified in court (which he didn't), then these past convictions would have been disclosable, something his lawyers will have borne in mind when advising Avery.

 

[Mozza1987]

You think that the police actually planted the car and Teresa Halbach's remains on the Avery property?

I think we can feasibly argue that the police may have planted the blood and the key, but this goes too far.

We will never know will we to be honest. The way they have gone about the whole thing makes me feel they could easily do it. If they are going to plant some things they need everything to get a conviction. Like I said earlier the man has a crusher yet leaves the car on his property, makes no sense. He can somehow get rid of all traces off dna from his house yet doesn't get rid of the car?

Then other bones found miles away. None of it adds up to me. Just my feeling on it all. Can't be 100% that he is innocent though.

 

[Mogwai]

Guessing stronger personailties push people to change their mind and like you said they get fed up. I don't think they had an unanimous decision and that's why they didn't charge him with mutilation of a corpse.

Yeah true. So it's quite flawed then. Why can't they just say we aren't unanimous?

Mutilation of corpse was Not much of a compromise like.

 

[Mozza1987]

Yeah true. So it's quite flawed then. Why can't they just say we aren't unanimous?

Mutilation of corpse was Not much of a compromise like.

No idea mate, like you said it's weird how it went out from 7 thinking not guilty to then a guilty verdict.

 

[Mogwai]

We will never know will we to be honest. The way they have gone about the whole thing makes me feel they could easily do it. If they are going to plant some things they need everything to get a conviction. Like I said earlier the man has a crusher yet leaves the car on his property, makes no sense. He can somehow get rid of all traces off dna from his house yet doesn't get rid of the car?

Then other bones found miles away. None of it adds up to me. Just my feeling on it all. Can't be 100% that he is innocent though.

Don't forget the blood vile being tampered with which was never really focused on.

 

[DualityNSNO]

Started this right now.

 

[Mozza1987]

Not saying it means he's guilty but (1) it does show he is capable of serious crime, and (2) I was responding to your suggestion that the series was not biased, when it conveniently dismisses his past conduct with a fleeting reference.

Very, very serious offences were committed by him. The other thing is that, if he testified in court (which he didn't), then these past convictions would have been disclosable, something his lawyers will have borne in mind when advising Avery.

I do get what you mean. What he did in his past was disgraceful especially what he did to the cat. I do think he actually mentions about the cat in one episode not the burglaries though.

 

[evertoniandy]

The police didn't plant the car. That was the ex. Dead cert. Then he has folk go search the place and his mate gives them the camera but no one else. Defo.

 

[Mozza1987]

The police didn't plant the car. That was the ex. Dead cert. Then he has folk go search the place and his mate gives them the camera but no one else. Defo.

Ah yeah forgot about that. Can't believe the police just let them look on the property when they were investigating it.

 

[ncblue]

One point that bugs me so much is when Kratz says in his closing arguments for the Avery trail that the murder probably didn't take place in the trailer after all (trying to explain to the jury why no blood or DNA was found there) and yet says that it did happen when prosecuting Brendan Dassey a few months later!

 

[McBain]

The police didn't plant the car. That was the ex. Dead cert. Then he has folk go search the place and his mate gives them the camera but no one else. Defo.

You think that the police actually planted the car and Teresa Halbach's remains on the Avery property?

I think we can feasibly argue that the police may have planted the blood and the key, but this goes too far.

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.