Making a Murderer Discussion (spoilers)

[rtstr]

Anyone else watch this and just want to BS about it?


I have some strong opinions on the documentary. I think Steven Avery is clearly guilty as sin.

[Mr. Guru]

I think guilty too.

Still interesting how terrible the investigation was.

[forumname]

I think he might be guilty, but I do believe at least some of the evidence was planted/altered/etc in order to 'make sure' he was convicted. Because of that, I think he deserves a new trial, along with some new charges brought against those who seemingly couldn't keep their grubby hands off of things. There's just no room for that and they shouldn't get away with it, regardless of their intentions.

[evans334]

Was an interesting watch for sure, but I kept asking myself as I was watching it for everything that is being presented to me to feel for or side with Steven Avery, what is not being shown to me that would show him in a bad light.

I haven't done too much research into it but I did read one article that mentioned a lot of the evidence that Mantiwok County presented to the court wasn't shown in the documentary.

The scene that really sticks with my is when the lawyer is in the car driving to the court house and has somewhat of break down and questions the entire justice system, the thing he has dedicated his life too.

Also, it's very interesting listening to these people communicate, they are not stupid by any means, they just lack the vocabulary that most people have. You can understand the emotions or points they are trying to get across, even though they aren't saying much.

Anyways, great watch, and is a great reminder that people are just people, not matter what label, power, or title we give them in life.

[rtstr]

I think he might be guilty, but I do believe at least some of the evidence was planted/altered/etc in order to 'make sure' he was convicted. Because of that, I think he deserves a new trial, along with some new charges brought against those who seemingly couldn't keep their grubby hands off of things. There's just no room for that and they shouldn't get away with it, regardless of their intentions.

These are my thoughts exactly. I definitely think he's guilty but I definitely think that some evidence was planted/altered. Officials in charge need to be held accountable, too.

My biggest issue with the documentary isn't just about whether he's guilty or not, though--- I think it's such a despicable slap in the face to the victim's family. There's basically no detail about her whatsoever which is just insensitive, I think. And the whole documentary is essentially just a scheme to make money and it pokes holes in wounds that probably took a long time to heal. These filmmakers couldn't care less about Steven Avery or the victim, and now half of Western Civilization is up-in-arms about this guy being in jail because Netflix proved his innocence.

I too have read a lot about how crucial evidence was left out of the documentary-- and I wasn't so sure he was guilty until I read about that evidence. How convenient to leave it out of the documentary. I also think it's awful how they portrayed Steven Avery as an "innocent victim" to demonstrate that he didn't possess the character required to be a murderer... but they fail to mention what 18 YEARS in prison did to this guy's mind? I'd be messed up by 18 days in prison, let alone 18 years? I'm not buying it that he was just this sweet unintelligent soul taken advantage of by the world. I understand that documentaries always have an agenda, but when you take a "true crime" approach I think it's really shitty to be so biased about it, especially when a young girl died. Give me a break Netflix.

[TheBadger]

I too have read a lot about how crucial evidence was left out of the documentary-- and I wasn't so sure he was guilty until I read about that evidence.

Please enlighten me on what you think would be the most damaging from this crucial evidence you read about to the hundreds of thousands of people with this shitty 'biased approach' to Steven Avery's innocence.

I for one was sold by the pending, what was it? 36 million dollar lawsuit against the Manikow County PD that evaporated because of this case; the tampered evidence and the non mention of any blood or hair in his residence also what was up with those interrogations on the kid with a below 70 IQ which just so happened to be the most crucial piece used against Steven A... the vile of blood with the needle hole! cumaaan.. I literally felt sick watching this. What a blow to the American Judicial system

[Shake]

I'm on episode 6 so I need to keep out of this thread until I watch it to completion, but I have some thoughts.
Those thoughts could change however as I watch the rest of the episodes, but wow.

[GinFizz]

These are my thoughts exactly. I definitely think he's guilty but I definitely think that some evidence was planted/altered. Officials in charge need to be held accountable, too.

My biggest issue with the documentary isn't just about whether he's guilty or not, though--- I think it's such a despicable slap in the face to the victim's family. There's basically no detail about her whatsoever which is just insensitive, I think. And the whole documentary is essentially just a scheme to make money and it pokes holes in wounds that probably took a long time to heal. These filmmakers couldn't care less about Steven Avery or the victim, and now half of Western Civilization is up-in-arms about this guy being in jail because Netflix proved his innocence.

I too have read a lot about how crucial evidence was left out of the documentary-- and I wasn't so sure he was guilty until I read about that evidence. How convenient to leave it out of the documentary. I also think it's awful how they portrayed Steven Avery as an "innocent victim" to demonstrate that he didn't possess the character required to be a murderer... but they fail to mention what 18 YEARS in prison did to this guy's mind? I'd be messed up by 18 days in prison, let alone 18 years? I'm not buying it that he was just this sweet unintelligent soul taken advantage of by the world. I understand that documentaries always have an agenda, but when you take a "true crime" approach I think it's really shitty to be so biased about it, especially when a young girl died. Give me a break Netflix.

What did 18 years of prison do to his mind?

[rtstr]

Please enlighten me on what you think would be the most damaging from this crucial evidence you read about to the hundreds of thousands of people with this shitty 'biased approach' to Steven Avery's innocence.

I for one was sold by the pending, what was it? 36 million dollar lawsuit against the Manikow County PD that evaporated because of this case; the tampered evidence and the non mention of any blood or hair in his residence also what was up with those interrogations on the kid with a below 70 IQ which just so happened to be the most crucial piece used against Steven A... the vile of blood with the needle hole! cumaaan.. I literally felt sick watching this. What a blow to the American Judicial system

1. he didn't "throw a cat over a fire", he doused it in oil and threw it in a fire. this isn't evidence, but tells a lot about the guy.

as far as key evidence left out, here are a few quick hits:

2. the key that was supposedly planted and he supposedly had never seen had DNA from his sweat on it... so someone would literally have to harvest his sweat and somehow get it on the key. Not even possible, so he was lying when he said he never saw it.
3. he called autotrader SEVERAL times in the prior MONTH and requested that Teresa and ONLY Teresa come to take pictures. After going there for a second time, he answered the door wearing nothing but a towel. She told her boss she felt uncomfortable there and never wanted to go again
4. On the day she died he called her 3 times using *67 to hide his identity
5. The bullet with the girl's DNA on it came from his gun which was hanging above his bed


Numbers 3 and 4 are what did it for me. I'm sorry, but it's not a "coincidence" that the charred remains of a girl you've been harrassing for a month happen to magically appear in your massive fire pit when you were the last person to see her alive.

- - - Updated - - -

What did 18 years of prison do to his mind?

That's what I would like to know! There's no way he came out of prison the same guy he went in. It's very likely that incarcerating an innocent man for 18 years is what turned him into a murderer.

[forumname]

My biggest issue with the documentary isn't just about whether he's guilty or not, though--- I think it's such a despicable slap in the face to the victim's family. There's basically no detail about her whatsoever which is just insensitive, I think.

I too have read a lot about how crucial evidence was left out of the documentary-- and I wasn't so sure he was guilty until I read about that evidence. How convenient to leave it out of the documentary.

Oh come on, you would have rather it been some kind of sob story about the murdered woman and her life story? Who she was is 100% irrelevant to the story they are telling. This isn't a bleeding heart memorial, it's a story about the ****ed up judicial system, and mucking it up with personal details about the victim for absolutely no reason would have ruined it. A "despicable slap in the face"? Jesus.

The "crucial evidence" that was left out isn't actually all that "crucial". It does make him seem slightly more guilty, but it's by no means conclusive. Also worth noting is that everybody else was invited to participate in the show but declined. Only Steve, his family and his legal people agreed to be involved (or so I've read), so of course it's going to come out seeming a little one sided. Seems strange to me to think that a guilty man would be so eager for more digging into his case, while the rest involved would prefer to not talk about it...

There's also some additional "crucial evidence" pointing to his innocence that didn't make the show. It's not realistic for every detail of the case/trial to be included, so they had to make some decisions on how to frame the story.

[GinFizz]

1. he didn't "throw a cat over a fire", he doused it in oil and threw it in a fire. this isn't evidence, but tells a lot about the guy.

as far as key evidence left out, here are a few quick hits:

2. the key that was supposedly planted and he supposedly had never seen had DNA from his sweat on it... so someone would literally have to harvest his sweat and somehow get it on the key. Not even possible, so he was lying when he said he never saw it.
3. he called autotrader SEVERAL times in the prior MONTH and requested that Teresa and ONLY Teresa come to take pictures. After going there for a second time, he answered the door wearing nothing but a towel. She told her boss she felt uncomfortable there and never wanted to go again
4. On the day she died he called her 3 times using *67 to hide his identity
5. The bullet with the girl's DNA on it came from his gun which was hanging above his bed


Numbers 3 and 4 are what did it for me. I'm sorry, but it's not a "coincidence" that the charred remains of a girl you've been harrassing for a month happen to magically appear in your massive fire pit when you were the last person to see her alive.

- - - Updated - - -



That's what I would like to know! There's no way he came out of prison the same guy he went in. It's very likely that incarcerating an innocent man for 18 years is what turned him into a murderer.

Sweat does not contain DNA.

Some people come out of prison better than they went in. Hurricane Carter for 1

[rtstr]

Oh come on, you would have rather it been some kind of sob story about the murdered woman and her life story? Who she was is 100% irrelevant to the story they are telling. This isn't a bleeding heart memorial, it's a story about the ****ed up judicial system, and mucking it up with personal details about the victim for absolutely no reason would have ruined it. A "despicable slap in the face"? Jesus.

The "crucial evidence" that was left out isn't actually all that "crucial". It does make him seem slightly more guilty, but it's by no means conclusive. Also worth noting is that everybody else was invited to participate in the show but declined. Only Steve, his family and his legal people agreed to be involved (or so I've read), so of course it's going to come out seeming a little one sided. Seems strange to me to think that a guilty man would be so eager for more digging into his case, while the rest involved would prefer to not talk about it...

There's also some additional "crucial evidence" pointing to his innocence that didn't make the show. It's not realistic for every detail of the case/trial to be included, so they had to make some decisions on how to frame the story.

I don't want a sob story, I want real investigative journalism. To say who she was is irrelevant to the crime is one of the dumber comments I've heard about this. Who she was is imperative to the story because he (or whoever the killer was) killed her for a reason. The history he had with her is CRUCIAL. This show was also not a "story about the ****ed up judicial system", it's a documentary. It's a completely different type of work.

Also, the evidence that was left out of the documentary happens to be the big pieces of evidence used to convict him, so yea, it was all pretty crucial. Like I said, the biggest thing for me is how he harrassed her for a month. Come on dude. "Not relevant to the story"?

I don't disagree that it's not realistic to include every detail, but to purposefully omit details that discredit the stance your documentary takes really discredits the work, and yea, makes it despicable to other parties involved.

[rtstr]

Sweat does not contain DNA.

Some people come out of prison better than they went in. Hurricane Carter for 1

Sweat does contain DNA, but it's a common misconception that it doesn't. Kind of like the misconception that bourbon has to be from bourbon county. Generally accepted as true, but actually not at all.

Props on the Hurricane Carter call out. Anyway, I'm not trying to say he didn't come out better than he went in. He very well could have. What I'm saying is that I think it's a huge piece of the puzzle when evaluating how he was at the time of the crime, and it's not addressed at all.

[forumname]

1. he didn't "throw a cat over a fire", he doused it in oil and threw it in a fire. this isn't evidence, but tells a lot about the guy.

as far as key evidence left out, here are a few quick hits:

2. the key that was supposedly planted and he supposedly had never seen had DNA from his sweat on it... so someone would literally have to harvest his sweat and somehow get it on the key. Not even possible, so he was lying when he said he never saw it.
3. he called autotrader SEVERAL times in the prior MONTH and requested that Teresa and ONLY Teresa come to take pictures. After going there for a second time, he answered the door wearing nothing but a towel. She told her boss she felt uncomfortable there and never wanted to go again
4. On the day she died he called her 3 times using *67 to hide his identity
5. The bullet with the girl's DNA on it came from his gun which was hanging above his bed


Numbers 3 and 4 are what did it for me. I'm sorry, but it's not a "coincidence" that the charred remains of a girl you've been harrassing for a month happen to magically appear in your massive fire pit when you were the last person to see her alive.

- - - Updated - - -



That's what I would like to know! There's no way he came out of prison the same guy he went in. It's very likely that incarcerating an innocent man for 18 years is what turned him into a murderer.

you need to exercise some critical thinking here.

2. Why could sweat not have been found somewhere else and put onto the key? This guy is fat and cruises around shirtless, there is probably sweat on most of the things on their property.
3. I read that the whole towel thing was dropped because the details were all blurry, so it was deemed inaccurate/irrelevant. Asking for ONLY Teresa also says nothing. There could be 1000 reasons why he preferred her over other photographers (do you know how many they were to choose from? Was it 2? Did he have any reason to prefer her over the other? Was she in fact the only photographer they worked with? I'm sure you don't have any of these answers). Also, a young girl being creeped out by an older lower class junkyard owner isn't exactly surprising, but old lower class junkyard owners aren't necessarily killers.
4. This is a little suspicious, but doesn't prove murder. If she wouldn't answer his calls for one reason or another, hiding his number isn't that unusual. Maybe he was creepy towards her, but again there is a big difference between that and murder.
5. Big deal! Nobody is saying he doesn't have a gun or that he doesn't shoot it off all over his property. They found shells all over the damn place.

The whole idea here is that he was framed to some extent. So in theory your points 3 and 4 only help make that framing more possible. He's creeping out this girl, girl ends up dead, bingo.

What do you have to say to the evidence pointing to his innocence? The blood tube that was clearly tampered with? The lack of dna evidence in the trailer? The rest of it? You seem like one of the people who has made up their mind and looks only for information to confirm your bias.

[forumname]

To your other point, I thought you meant you wanted more narrative about who she was as a means of 'honoring' her in some way, which is why I called you out. If you meant that you think more details about her life leading up to her murder are relevant to the murder itself or potential motives, then yes I agree that those things may have been useful. At the end of the day the filmmakers had to choose what to leave in and what to omit, and nobody is stopping anyone from making a new movie that frames the events differently.