# 'MAKING A MURDERER'



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*'MAKING A MURDERER'
Calls grow to pardon subject of Netflix series*

*VIDEO: Petition seeks pardon for subject of 'Making a Murderer'*








*VIDEO: Will 'Making a Murderer' exonerate Steven Avery?*


----------



## bok (Mar 28, 2009)

A solid, entertaining documentary. Although this was filmed in Wisconsin, it is Similar to the fictional characters in the Fargo T.V. Series. There is much to be disturbed with concerning their jurisprudence. Documentarian of course is subjective with their tone and path of story telling, however, it is worth a watch.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

I watched it with the Wife......Not exactly happy with the "defense" team and "detectives" colluding on the special needs dude....


----------



## visible25 (Feb 7, 2012)

Just finished watching this, despite being a bit one-sided this was a fascinating watch. To be honest, I don't really have an opinion one way or another; lots of items pointed to him being innocent but at the same time lots of things pointed to him being guilty. 

Overall a great watch and outstanding job done by Steven's lawyers regardless. Anyone else have any thoughts?


----------



## bok (Mar 28, 2009)

Guilty.


----------



## USM C-2 (Oct 27, 2010)

His defense lawyers were good... REALLY good. I'm not sure... I guess if I was on the jury I'd have to say reasonable doubt based on what the series has shown me so far (not done yet.)

However, there was more to the evidence than that. Certainly some things looked wrong in the state's case. 

I wondered about motive to frame him, though. Does Wisconsin have a Tort Claims Act to indemnify cops? Seems like getting sued for 36 mil sucks, but enough to frame someone? To kill an innocent person? I'm not convinced.


----------



## visible25 (Feb 7, 2012)

USM C-4 said:


> To kill an innocent person? I'm not convinced.


To be honest, I'm confident the cops didn't kill her. As odd as this sounds, I think two different sets of people tried to frame him and coincidentally and unknowingly aided eachother. It's far stretched but also plausible when you look at everything


----------



## Patr8726 (Dec 12, 2015)

It's mildly interesting but there's a lot of slant and BS to sift through. The 1st episode, his mom talks about how hard it was to drive all over the place to visit him while serving his rape sentence. He was at multiple prisons in WI and 1 in TN. Ask yourself, why would WI DOC ship an inmate to a prison in another state if he was parole eligible & behaving otherwise? There's a tremendous cost and bureaucratic headache associated with a transfer like that. Avery was a multiple convicted felon before either case, crimes he admits he committed. He also demonstrated the classic danger signs of fire setting/cruelty to animals as a teenager.

I'm only on the 3rd episode now, but a young girl disappeared immediately after paying him a visit, and a volunteer unrelated tto the police who he's convinced are out to get him found the victims car on his land. I've spent a lot of time around career criminals like him, and the truth of their crimes is always simpler than the convoluted web they weave. There was some bad policework, sure, but the things he admits to and minimizes are huge red flags. He might be innocent of the rape, but he's farfrom an innocent person.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

woodyd said:


> I honestly feel like the film-makers and Netflix have done a grave disservice to the victim's family and to victim's rights in general. Families of murder victims are re-victimized at trial, by publicity of the crime, and during subsequent appeals. This case has gone through all of those stages. Teresa Halbach's family should finally, at long last, be able to find some closure after the last of her killer's appeals ended. Now comes Netflix and some liberal filmmakers to re-open old wounds and thrust their personal hell back onto the national stage again. I'm tempted to cancel my subscription and send a letter to Netfilix letting them know WHY I am.


Why? Does objectivity scare you? If I'm right, this much-less-than perfect convict was previously convicted on FALSE evidence and lost decades of his life. Now he has been convicted of a second capital crime, for which there is no forensic evidence at all to support how it was alleged to have occurred in the bedroom scene. Yeah I suppose it is impossible for there to be any chance of inept or corrupt motives to be a factor in another prosecution. In any event, Netflix won't really miss ya bro.


----------



## 9X19 (Jun 17, 2012)

I watched the whole series recently, then I did some research. Appears the whole series is completely bias toward the defense. Steven Avery is guilty period.
They never mentioned about the sweat DNA from Steven found on the hood over Teresa's car, they also failed to mention about the 3 phones calls made to Teresa's cell phone by Steven of which two were made using #69, why would anyone use that unless they needed to conceal their ID?, this was never brought into the series. Another that they failed to mention was her co-workers said that Teresa said Steven gave her the creeps and that she felt uncomfortable around him especially after one interaction when he answered the door in just a towel.

They also failed to mention of his prison comments made to other inmates about how he wanted to rape and torture a women when he got out, he also apparently made a drawing of this in prison that was witnessed by other inmates, again this is never talked about in the series. Oh and that girlfriend that seemed so supportive of him recently went on the record telling about how much of a monster Steven was and how she only supported him out of fear of retaliation from him.

They failed to go into detail about his conviction of that assault on that women earlier in the series which ran concurrent with the 18 years he did on the wrongful conviction. He was convicted of that assault, he did 7 years on that convicted you just never heard about it cause it ran concurrent with that wrongful imprisonment bid. They never mention this in the Netflix series. He rammed that women's car and held her at gunpoint with a baby in the car!

The series also never went into detail about the cat he threw into the fire. They made it seem like he was just a kid who did a very stupid thing, wrong! he was 22 years old! He doused a cat in gasoline and threw in a fire! This is one troubled individual.

There's more instances that were never brought into the series. I'll post links later so you can take a look for yourself. He's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what's left in all this? People are being lied to and hating the police even more now, just go on the Manitowoc Co. Sheriff facebook page and see all the threats people are saying toward the Deputies and their families. In fact just days ago The Sheriffs office has been receive bomb threats! Last but not least Theresa's family is now having to live with the pain more now that its in the public light. These producers should be ashamed of themselves!

Heres a link to a 10 series podcast called "Rebutting a Murderer" on iheartradio about 10 mins a piece listen for yourself:
National News proving-steven-14263826


----------



## BxDetSgt (Jun 1, 2012)

The series was very slanted, but it is great training on how NOT to run an investigation. That was hands down the worst homicide investigation I have ever seen. I realize that they were a small, rural community without much violence to investigate, however they lost control of their investigation from the start. The civilian searchers needed to be supervised by a sworn member. Every person needed to be considered a suspect prior to zeroing in on Avery. They never interviewed the other relatives on the property. The interview with the nephew was horrible. Never, ever, give a subject any information. It is not a two way street, we are only there to take information. The did not mention any forensic computer/phone work that could have established or disproved alibis. The scene was processed so poorly that it left the door wide open for defense to create doubt. Did the cops plant evidence, no way. Did the cops document how they found and recovered evidence, no they did not. This is a classic example of cops who knew who did the crime, but did not put the time and effort into to proving who did it. And I still can not believe the statements from the Sheriff about how "it would be easier to kill hime than frame him". Apparently the Sheriff has never had to testify in court before.
I agree the film was completely slanted in favor of Avery. That being said is it a surprise that the media went for the easy target? They only took what the defense gave them, and the defense only gave them what the cops did wrong, or more correctly what the cops did poorly. Remember, especially in homicide cases and media cases, every action you take, and every action you don't take, will be examined and portrayed in the worst possible light. This is a great learning tool for anyone who is, or wants to be a Detective. It is also great for patrol officers and supervisors to watch and understand what they need to do. Always be able to explain why you did or did not do something.


----------



## Rogergoodwin (Feb 15, 2016)

mpd61 said:


> Why? Does objectivity scare you? If I'm right, this much-less-than perfect convict was previously convicted on FALSE evidence and lost decades of his life. Now he has been convicted of a second capital crime, for which there is no forensic evidence at all to support how it was alleged to have occurred in the bedroom scene. Yeah I suppose it is impossible for there to be any chance of inept or corrupt motives to be a factor in another prosecution. In any event, Netflix won't really miss ya bro.[/Q
> This documentary was the furthest thing from objective. They neglected to include a lot of evidence that clearly shows Avery is guilty. Even the 3 phone calls he made to the victim, two of which he used *67 to disguise his # , weren't included in the show. Its not surprising that she requested to not have to ever go back to his house after her uncomfortable interactions with him.


----------



## BxDetSgt (Jun 1, 2012)

That is true, but the fact of the matter is that the investigation was so flawed that the defense was able to spread reasonable doubt all over the place.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

BxDetSgt said:


> That is true, but the fact of the matter is that the investigation was so flawed that the defense was able to spread reasonable doubt all over the place.


_"Yeah I suppose it is impossible for there to be any chance of *inept* or corrupt motives to be a factor in another prosecution."_


----------

