Making a Murderer

[bileduct]

I'm surprised a thread hasn't kicked off about this yet.

Who wants to offer up some theories on wtf happened in this Netflix series?

 

[bileduct]

For those that have no idea what I am talking about and have access to Netflix (or the usual alternative means of watching stuff), do yourself a favour and just go and watch this series without learning too much about it beforehand.

But the basic description of the show it's a non-fiction documentary series about a dude who gets wrongfully convicted of sexually assaulting and beating a woman and spends 18 years in jail before being exonerated based on DNA evidence. This is all covered in the first episode.

The remaining 9 episodes document what happens AFTER that and it's utterly compelling television.

 

[redvscotty]

Very interesting show. Having done a bit of reading afterwards, apparently some of the evidence was left out of the show, and there are very differing views and opinions of what happened.

Personally? NFI. The evidence they had, whilst damning to look at directly, the ways in which it was found and how it eventuated seemed very sus. I found the words of the juror who was excused to be quite interesting. Big sway in numbers.

Always thought conspiracy theorists were f**king geniused mentals but when you see a story like this it really makes you wonder. As you said, absolutely compelling. A great watch.

Len Kratz and the smug fat merkin who did had his own sketch of Avery framed in the original sexual assault case are the scum of the earth though.

 

[bileduct]

I've seen a few lists of evidence that's been left out of the show and lists of reasons that indicate why Steven Avery *must* be guilty and they aren't very compelling.

The two main pieces of evidence that were left out of the show were that the woman's belongings were found in a nearby bin (which becomes redundant when it becomes clear the bones were most likely moved) and the DNA evidence found under the latch of the RAV4 hood (where investigators were shown to have not removed gloves between handling other pieces of evidence with Avery's DNA)

To me the biggest villain of the series was Len Kachinsky.

Absolute f**king scum of the earth.

As a public defender, the only thing this guy went in to do was secure the convictions of both Steven Avery and HIS OWN CLIENT Brendan Dassey, the latter of which whose testimony was nothing short of a coerced fabrication.

 

[bileduct]

Always thought conspiracy theorists were f**king geniused mentals but when you see a story like this it really makes you wonder.

The first sexual assault case showed the mentality of that department. Arrest the most obvious guy (or the town riff raff), ignore any contradictory evidence, make sure he gets convicted, make sure he stays in jail no matter what. It's not hard to see the same thing playing out again in the second case, especially when the department is now super motivated to clear their names.

It's silly to see these people going around saying that for there to be a conspiracy the cops must have killed the woman. That doesn't seem necessary to me at all. Colburn's licence plate check two days before the car was found was extremely odd and his answers on the witness stand regarding why he made that call were extremely vague and evasive. The call sounds like he's just found that car somewhere.

I think it's a massive stretch to say the cops killed the woman, but I don't put it past them to change the evidence to make it look like Steven Avery did.

That sheriff saying it would have been easier to just kill Steven Avery (how crazy was that?), that may well have been the case. But then you've got a guy that spent 18 years in jail for something he didn't do, clearly framed by his now disgraced police department who are now individually and collectively on the hook for financial damages and he suddenly goes missing?

Is it easier to have or not have the trust of the public and other authorities?

 

[thorson1987]

Very interesting show. Having done a bit of reading afterwards, apparently some of the evidence was left out of the show, and there are very differing views and opinions of what happened.

Personally? NFI. The evidence they had, whilst damning to look at directly, the ways in which it was found and how it eventuated seemed very sus. I found the words of the juror who was excused to be quite interesting. Big sway in numbers.

Always thought conspiracy theorists were f**king geniused mentals but when you see a story like this it really makes you wonder. As you said, absolutely compelling. A great watch.

Len Kratz and the smug fat merkin who did had his own sketch of Avery framed in the original sexual assault case are the scum of the earth though.

 

[thorson1987]

I'm 3 episodes in so haven't got to all the juicy parts.

But from what I have seen, it's dodgy as f**k.

 

[umina panther]

The way Steven and especially Brenden were treated has done nothing to change my opinion of most cops, absolute scum.

I believe he's probably innocent and no one in their right mind would argue against him needing a new trial.

 

[McNulty]

Once you're done with that, follow it up with " Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" and then "Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three"

 

[bileduct]

Haha, that's so f**king true.

 

[thorson1987]

Once you're done with that, follow it up with " Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" and then "Devil's Knot: The True Story of the West Memphis Three"

Yep seen them both. Also there are 2 other Paradise Lost docos.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

I'm guessing that Fassbender and his mates did the same thing to Kayla as they did to Brendan and get her to say what they wanted to hear. Pathetic how they conducted themselves with those two kids.

 

[bileduct]

With Kayla you see the tremendous damage that pre-trial publicity can cause. Everything she said to them was based on something she'd learned from the news.

Ken Kratz held a press conference and described in great detail how Steven and Brendan carried out the murder but in the subsequent trials they could not prove any of that story at all.

People ask why would someone like Brendan tell a story like that, but after watching the interviews it's pretty clear why. You've got a kid with an IQ of 70 who has grown up his entire life knowing that the cops are capable of putting the wrong people away for crimes they didn't commit, being told that the cops already know that he was involved in a crime and that if he tells the cops the truth everything will be ok. Every time he tries to tell them his story and he says something that doesn't fit into a pre-conceived narrative they tell him he's lying and that he's going to go to jail if he doesn't come out with the truth.

The kid changes his answer to a single question multiple times before the cops are satisfied. When he does start telling them what they want to hear they sometimes stop him and change the subject before he gives them too much information.

 

[thorson1987]

 

[thorson1987]

 

[thorson1987]

 

[Walt Flanigan]

The kid changes his answer to a single question multiple times before the cops are satisfied. When he does start telling them what they want to hear they sometimes stop him and change the subject before he gives them too much information.

I was also blown away that it's considered ok for them to interview a minor like that without a lawyer or parent present.

Then I recalled someone in an earlier ep saying to the press that in this sort of situation it's quite normal. Then I remembered it was that Kachinsky rat that said it......f*ck me that guy is a piece of work.

 

[bileduct]

Yup, that guy may as well have been part of the prosecution team.

 

[McNulty]

Yep seen them both. Also there are 2 other Paradise Lost docos.

I didn't know about the other 2 paradise lost until I watched Devil's Knot

 

[PJ]

hich becomes redundant when it becomes clear the bones were most likely moved

I missed it but where did it become clear the bones were moved.


For mine the bit that made it clear Brendan was innocent was when he wanted a polygraph. He knows he is very dumb and doubt he thinks he could beat it. (Just in case I realise polygraph are useless but think Brendan believes them)