"Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
12-30-15, 11:15 AM
#51
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,296
Received 372 Likes
on
266 Posts
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
That may be, but if he didn't commit this crime, does a murderer deserve to be free because Avery killed a cat? Does his nephew deserve to spend the rest of his life in jail because his uncle killed a cat?
12-30-15, 11:34 AM
#52
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
12-30-15, 11:42 AM
#53
DVD Talk Hero
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
I haven't read much of the thread as I'm only 4 episodes in, but I'd like to start a fund to launch Brendan's defense attorney and his investigator into the sun.
12-30-15, 11:58 AM
#56
DVD Talk Godfather & 2020 TOTY Winner
12-30-15, 01:21 PM
#57
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Picture a cup in the middle of the sea
Posts: 10,706
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
If you want to read more about the case Reddit is a good source. Just remember the Boston bombings. 
One of Avery's lawyers linked one Reddit theory but the post was deleted by the admins. It seems it looked interesting.
One of Avery's lawyers linked one Reddit theory but the post was deleted by the admins. It seems it looked interesting.
12-30-15, 07:00 PM
#58
DVD Talk Special Edition
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/uproxx/warmingglow/~3/NWOwm-VHads/
Special prosecutor Ken Kratz, with his giant head and creepy lady voice, who pursued a weak case against Steven Avery and an even weaker one against Avery’s nephew Brendan Dassey, probably came out looking the worst in Making A Murderer (and is currently getting plenty of grief for it). So it’s not surprising that he would take issue with the documentary series. He spoke to People yesterday, claiming filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos left out key pieces of evidence.
“You don’t want to muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie with what actually happened,” Kratz tells PEOPLE by email, “and certainly not provide the audience with the evidence the jury considered to reject that claim.”
As to what that evidence might be, he presents a theory that Steven Avery “targeted” photographer Teresa Halbach, who disappeared October 31st after being last seen taking photographs of a van on Steven Avery’s property.
He cites Halbach’s Oct. 10, 2005 visit to the property owned by Avery’s family for a photo shoot for AutoTrader magazine: According to Kratz, Avery allegedly opened his door “just wearing a towel.”
“She was creeped out [by him],” Kratz says by phone, later adding by email: “She [went to her employer and] said she would not go back because she was scared of him.”
Steven Avery is a guy who famously didn’t own any pairs of underwear, so answering the door in a towel wouldn’t be out of character.
At 8:12 a.m. on Oct. 31, the day Halbach was killed, Kratz says Avery called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.” He says that Halbach knew Avery was leery of him, so he allegedly gave his sister’s name and number to “trick” Halbach into coming.
“Phone records show three calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct. 31,” says Kratz. “One at 2:24 [p.m.], and one at 2:35 – both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives.
“Then one last call at 4:35 p.m., without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up…so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.”
Kratz never says whether these assertions ever made it into the official evidence at trial. Though the show does show Halbach’s ex-boyfriend testifying that he logged into her cell phone account online after she disappeared. Further testimony strongly suggested that someone had erased messages after her disappearance.
During his time in prison for a rape he was later cleared of, Kratz says Avery allegedly “told another inmate of his intent to build a ‘torture chamber’ so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.” Kratz adds, “He even drew a diagram.”
Kratz also claims that “another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to ‘burn it.’ ” Halbach’s bones were discovered in the fire pit behind Avery’s house. He says “were ‘intertwined’ with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn,” says Kratz, disputing the defense’s allegation that Halbach was burned elsewhere and her bones were later moved.
Obviously, I’m a bit biased, because I didn’t trust a single thing Kratz guy said after his bizarre press conference where he improvised an episode of Law and Order SVU scenario based on coerced testimony from a 16-year-old with a 70-something IQ. It’s hard to come back from that. And after seeing Brendan Dassey’s stick-figure drawing of a rape chamber, drawn after being henpecked by a guy who was supposed to be his lawyer, I’m a touch skeptical of Kratz citing a “torture chamber” drawing allegedly done by an unnamed inmate.
Kratz also has some claims about the DNA evidence.
According to Kratz, Avery’s DNA, which he says was not taken from his blood, was also found under the hood of Halbach’s car, a Toyota RAV4. “How did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat?” asks Kratz.
Kratz also claims that a bullet, recovered from Avery’s garage, couldn’t possibly have been planted by police, as the defense also alleged. “Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since Nov. 6, 2005,” says Kratz. “If the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from [Avery’s] gun? This rifle, hanging over Avery’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired before Nov. 5.” [People]
Whether the filmmakers deliberately left this bit out or if Kratz is just making claims too unsupported to bring up in court is still unclear at this point, and Avery’s lawyer’s have yet to respond.
Special prosecutor Ken Kratz, with his giant head and creepy lady voice, who pursued a weak case against Steven Avery and an even weaker one against Avery’s nephew Brendan Dassey, probably came out looking the worst in Making A Murderer (and is currently getting plenty of grief for it). So it’s not surprising that he would take issue with the documentary series. He spoke to People yesterday, claiming filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos left out key pieces of evidence.
“You don’t want to muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie with what actually happened,” Kratz tells PEOPLE by email, “and certainly not provide the audience with the evidence the jury considered to reject that claim.”
As to what that evidence might be, he presents a theory that Steven Avery “targeted” photographer Teresa Halbach, who disappeared October 31st after being last seen taking photographs of a van on Steven Avery’s property.
He cites Halbach’s Oct. 10, 2005 visit to the property owned by Avery’s family for a photo shoot for AutoTrader magazine: According to Kratz, Avery allegedly opened his door “just wearing a towel.”
“She was creeped out [by him],” Kratz says by phone, later adding by email: “She [went to her employer and] said she would not go back because she was scared of him.”
Steven Avery is a guy who famously didn’t own any pairs of underwear, so answering the door in a towel wouldn’t be out of character.
At 8:12 a.m. on Oct. 31, the day Halbach was killed, Kratz says Avery called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.” He says that Halbach knew Avery was leery of him, so he allegedly gave his sister’s name and number to “trick” Halbach into coming.
“Phone records show three calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct. 31,” says Kratz. “One at 2:24 [p.m.], and one at 2:35 – both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives.
“Then one last call at 4:35 p.m., without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up…so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.”
Kratz never says whether these assertions ever made it into the official evidence at trial. Though the show does show Halbach’s ex-boyfriend testifying that he logged into her cell phone account online after she disappeared. Further testimony strongly suggested that someone had erased messages after her disappearance.
During his time in prison for a rape he was later cleared of, Kratz says Avery allegedly “told another inmate of his intent to build a ‘torture chamber’ so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.” Kratz adds, “He even drew a diagram.”
Kratz also claims that “another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to ‘burn it.’ ” Halbach’s bones were discovered in the fire pit behind Avery’s house. He says “were ‘intertwined’ with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn,” says Kratz, disputing the defense’s allegation that Halbach was burned elsewhere and her bones were later moved.
Obviously, I’m a bit biased, because I didn’t trust a single thing Kratz guy said after his bizarre press conference where he improvised an episode of Law and Order SVU scenario based on coerced testimony from a 16-year-old with a 70-something IQ. It’s hard to come back from that. And after seeing Brendan Dassey’s stick-figure drawing of a rape chamber, drawn after being henpecked by a guy who was supposed to be his lawyer, I’m a touch skeptical of Kratz citing a “torture chamber” drawing allegedly done by an unnamed inmate.
Kratz also has some claims about the DNA evidence.
According to Kratz, Avery’s DNA, which he says was not taken from his blood, was also found under the hood of Halbach’s car, a Toyota RAV4. “How did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat?” asks Kratz.
Kratz also claims that a bullet, recovered from Avery’s garage, couldn’t possibly have been planted by police, as the defense also alleged. “Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since Nov. 6, 2005,” says Kratz. “If the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from [Avery’s] gun? This rifle, hanging over Avery’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired before Nov. 5.” [People]
Whether the filmmakers deliberately left this bit out or if Kratz is just making claims too unsupported to bring up in court is still unclear at this point, and Avery’s lawyer’s have yet to respond.
12-31-15, 01:40 AM
#59
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
What a fascinating story about the criminal justice system on many levels. I have a few thoughts:
- A "documentary" doesn't provide enough information to determine guilt (or lack of guilt). While this one seems to use only real footage with a minimum of staging, the filmmakers still make editorial decisions about what to show and what not to show. It's certainly not the picture the jury gets.
- Even if Brendan did the worst of what he's accused of, I don't agree with his sentence based on his history, age, and IQ.
- Just in case there are others here who aren't familiar with reddit, here's the hotlink: Reddit
- A "documentary" doesn't provide enough information to determine guilt (or lack of guilt). While this one seems to use only real footage with a minimum of staging, the filmmakers still make editorial decisions about what to show and what not to show. It's certainly not the picture the jury gets.
- Even if Brendan did the worst of what he's accused of, I don't agree with his sentence based on his history, age, and IQ.
- Just in case there are others here who aren't familiar with reddit, here's the hotlink: Reddit
12-31-15, 07:31 AM
#60
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
12-31-15, 07:08 PM
#61
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Picture a cup in the middle of the sea
Posts: 10,706
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
The most important thing about anything that Kratz says is: what that used in the trial? Otherwise is hard to believe. All the comments about inmates saying things about Kratz, I'm sure that was never used in the trial. And come on, we know that any inmate will say anything for a reduce or pardon in their sentence.
01-02-16, 03:12 AM
#62
DVD Talk Hero
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
Finished it tonight.
Brendan is the only one I feel confident in saying he had nothing to do with it.
I don't think they had enough to convict Steve, but I can't say with great confidence that he is innocent.
Kratz sexually harassing domestic violence victims is a perfect ending for him
Brendan is the only one I feel confident in saying he had nothing to do with it.
I don't think they had enough to convict Steve, but I can't say with great confidence that he is innocent.
Kratz sexually harassing domestic violence victims is a perfect ending for him
01-02-16, 07:59 AM
#63
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
Wasn't the gun unloaded? I'd say that's not really violence then, just anger. I don't dispute the cat killing incident is a huge red flag, but I still don't see how someone with his mental capacity would be able to pull off this murder so cleanly and then fuck up seemingly easy things like disposing the body or car. I just wish they found the murder site.
I find it interesting that the creators of the documentary didn't dispute the evidence that Kratz said was omitted, but they also didn't provide any further insight in it either. There definitely seems to be more to the story of him and Teresa than the documentary wanted us to know.
I find it interesting that the creators of the documentary didn't dispute the evidence that Kratz said was omitted, but they also didn't provide any further insight in it either. There definitely seems to be more to the story of him and Teresa than the documentary wanted us to know.
Last edited by flashburn; 01-02-16 at 08:24 AM.
01-02-16, 01:15 PM
#65
DVD Talk Hero
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
Kratz's yelp page is hilarious
Here the first "review" that shows up
http://www.yelp.com/biz/kratz-law-firm-west-bend
Here the first "review" that shows up
Are you a victim of a sex crime in need of some self-esteem-enhancing sexts from an older affluent (by Wisconsin standards) mustachio-ed lothario?
Are you a vindictive dirty cop who needs a charismatic prosecutor to help you put an innocent man in jail?
Are you a developmentally disabled teen who needs some help fabricating a confession inflammatory enough to get you life in prison?
Do you feel like the criminal justice system needs more perversion? Or even just more perverts?
If you answered "YES" to any one of these questions, then Ken Kratz is your man! With a proven and documented record of obsession with his own penis and vindication of corruption, Ken Kratz can help you perpetrate your evil deeds - he might even join in the fun, because if he's anything, he's a people person.
Ken Kratz - because he's never met a work of fiction he thought was too sweaty to repeat. Or embellish
Are you a vindictive dirty cop who needs a charismatic prosecutor to help you put an innocent man in jail?
Are you a developmentally disabled teen who needs some help fabricating a confession inflammatory enough to get you life in prison?
Do you feel like the criminal justice system needs more perversion? Or even just more perverts?
If you answered "YES" to any one of these questions, then Ken Kratz is your man! With a proven and documented record of obsession with his own penis and vindication of corruption, Ken Kratz can help you perpetrate your evil deeds - he might even join in the fun, because if he's anything, he's a people person.
Ken Kratz - because he's never met a work of fiction he thought was too sweaty to repeat. Or embellish
01-02-16, 02:41 PM
#66
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
I think anytime someone pulls a gun on another person and threatens them with it, whether or not it is loaded or unloaded, that is a crime of violence. Keep in mind, it's not like the person on the other end of the gun knows it's unloaded. They see a gun and think "Oh my God, this guy is pointing a gun at me I hope he doesn't shoot!" And I think the only evidence that the gun was unloaded was him saying that...but we're dealing with a felon that shouldn't have even had that gun in the first place.
From what I've read online it definitely seems like there's more to the case than was presented in the documentary. If true, the fact that Avery specifically requested the photographer and gave his sister's name when making the request seems very suspicious. The stuff I read about him*67-ing his phone number until after the murder also seems indicative of someone trying to cover their tracks and lay the foundation for a defense of "she didn't show up, so I called her." I don't know if that was presented at trial, but there was so much talk about the phone and messages that I imagine it would've come out if all that was true.
From what I've read online it definitely seems like there's more to the case than was presented in the documentary. If true, the fact that Avery specifically requested the photographer and gave his sister's name when making the request seems very suspicious. The stuff I read about him*67-ing his phone number until after the murder also seems indicative of someone trying to cover their tracks and lay the foundation for a defense of "she didn't show up, so I called her." I don't know if that was presented at trial, but there was so much talk about the phone and messages that I imagine it would've come out if all that was true.
This whole case is just bizarre. Because of the shoddy police work of them obviously wanting it to be Avery we'll never know the true story. Shit, I wouldn't even put it past someone else setting up the Auto Trader visit just to help frame him. Or he did it, but I still just can't see how with such an inconsistent crime scene(s). Regardless of the evidence shown, there was so much suspect evidence (his original blood vial being punctured/tampered, key, bullet, etc) that I find it impossible to believe some of it wasn't tampered or fabricated. I'm obviously not confident enough to say he didn't or did do it, but there's no way in fuck I'd give a guilty verdict on that jury.
Brendan is obviously a different story, and every single person on that jury should be ashamed.
01-02-16, 04:31 PM
#67
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
I in the consensus that I can't wholeheartedly say Steven is innocent but could not convict with what was presented, unless the filmmakers edited a massive amount of information.
Oh Krantz...I tried to be as unbiased as possible with him. I tried to push aside the creep vibe I was getting so I could assess the information and not be unduly swayed. As soon as the revelation about him came out, I was glad my intuition is still a good guage.
01-03-16, 12:02 AM
#68
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Picture a cup in the middle of the sea
Posts: 10,706
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
The thing about Theresa and Avery is that she was a smart lady. She went to Avery's house several times. If he requested her, using her sister information, she would be figure out that she was going to see Avery. I mean Avery lives next to his sister. If Theresa was afraid of Avery she would take some precautions or say something to someone.
Also, Avery is a redneck. And his IQ is very low. We civilized people are not used to some actions from people from the country.
But yet, I can't be 100% sure that Avery is innocent. If you pay attention you can see that the documentary is perfectly edited. One scene of 5 minutes can show testimony from several days, just to show how bad the trial was.
Oh, and the only way that Avery can be free right now, is if someone else confess that he committed the crime.
Also, Avery is a redneck. And his IQ is very low. We civilized people are not used to some actions from people from the country.
But yet, I can't be 100% sure that Avery is innocent. If you pay attention you can see that the documentary is perfectly edited. One scene of 5 minutes can show testimony from several days, just to show how bad the trial was.
Oh, and the only way that Avery can be free right now, is if someone else confess that he committed the crime.
01-03-16, 02:54 AM
#69
DVD Talk Special Edition
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
Yea I can't say he's innocent either. But for god damn sure there is reasonable doubt in this case. Beyond question, no way he should've been convicted. There are just to many questions raised unanswered.
One thing we as an audience got to see it unfold after the facts is one problem. The jury's didn't know they basically claimed two entirely different events occurred. One the kid cutting throat in the bedroom tied up, then in Steve's case shot in the garage. You can't kill a person twice last time I checked.
But the cop asking about vehicle model along with the plate number before shes even missing...the blood vial in police care with syringe hole in it. Those two reasons ALONE cause doubt to me. Not to mention all the other stuff.
Two people seen her leave the property as well that wasn't mentioned in the Doc at all.
Basically they have no idea what happened at all and made up whatever they wanted/needed to convict with a jury that was already tainted bigger than life. Unjust to say the least.
Complete lack of her blood in his place , after cutting a throat....come on seriously. In one minute people say well he bleached it up. You seen that garage and his room. So on one hand he's a criminal mastermind and on the other he says fuck it, ill just bury her 10 ft outside my fucking window and park her car behind this branch here in my own backyard....for fuck sake.
Likely someone she knew did it, for whatever reason. And they went hey we'll put it all in this crazy fucks place he'll go down for it for sure. And then the prosecution made up whatever they wanted planted key and blood and the rest is history.
The police felt fuck we have to nail him he got us once looking like idiots , he gets off again it'll be all our careers.
We owe it to ourselves to do a better job as a society. The denials on appeal to even hear them are failures of the system without question. Uh how bout the fact they made up two stories for same event and convicted two people. Fucking sickening.
One thing we as an audience got to see it unfold after the facts is one problem. The jury's didn't know they basically claimed two entirely different events occurred. One the kid cutting throat in the bedroom tied up, then in Steve's case shot in the garage. You can't kill a person twice last time I checked.
But the cop asking about vehicle model along with the plate number before shes even missing...the blood vial in police care with syringe hole in it. Those two reasons ALONE cause doubt to me. Not to mention all the other stuff.
Two people seen her leave the property as well that wasn't mentioned in the Doc at all.
Basically they have no idea what happened at all and made up whatever they wanted/needed to convict with a jury that was already tainted bigger than life. Unjust to say the least.
Complete lack of her blood in his place , after cutting a throat....come on seriously. In one minute people say well he bleached it up. You seen that garage and his room. So on one hand he's a criminal mastermind and on the other he says fuck it, ill just bury her 10 ft outside my fucking window and park her car behind this branch here in my own backyard....for fuck sake.
Likely someone she knew did it, for whatever reason. And they went hey we'll put it all in this crazy fucks place he'll go down for it for sure. And then the prosecution made up whatever they wanted planted key and blood and the rest is history.
The police felt fuck we have to nail him he got us once looking like idiots , he gets off again it'll be all our careers.
We owe it to ourselves to do a better job as a society. The denials on appeal to even hear them are failures of the system without question. Uh how bout the fact they made up two stories for same event and convicted two people. Fucking sickening.
01-04-16, 12:44 AM
#70
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
Just finished watching this SA: MOAM ten-part true crime/documentary series - incredible. This was both compelling but extremely hard to get through at times; I had to literally stop watching this at some points since it was so upsetting. What an extremely disturbing & horrific miscarriage of justice. I'm not surprised by the way this went down at all, and it just proves what I've always known: If you're poor & uneducated - no matter your race - you may very well unjustly be made a scapegoat by the system. Obviously SA had gotten into some trouble over the years, and the authorities had it in for him. And, he was an easy target - he was poor, had little education, and was not a mainstream/accepted member of society. The same held true for his nephew BD - and, the nephew was not only poor & uneducated, but learning disabled.
Some points:
I had never heard of this SA case prior to seeing this doc. I don't watch/follow the news much (except for the huge stories), so am not surprised I missed this back in the 200X's.
It was obvious that the local authorities framed SA in the first mid-1980's case (the assault), and it was later proven that he unequivocally didn't do this.
When he got out in 2003 after it was proven he was innocent, that was obviously embarrassing for the authorities. And, then he decided to sue the authorities because of this - rightfully so. And, right before the lawsuit against the authorities was going to get heated, then he's again under suspicion of a heinous crime, even worse than the first one that?! Yeah, right. I don't believe in coincidence, and I do absolutely believe that the authorities framed him for the second crime as well.
I don't believe anything BD said about the alleged crime at SA's trailer, other than his initial statement - which was that he went over to SA's house to give him mail that was mistakenly delivered to his house, and that was it. When you saw the taped interview, it was obvious the two investigators were feeding him information & expecting him to corroborate this. Since BD was obviously slow & developmentally/learning disabled, he was an easy target here & just told them what they wanted to hear. Unconsionable & sickening. He never should have agreed to talk to them without a lawyer present - or at least without his mother/father present - especially since he was a minor at the time. Amazing that this even happened. Something similar happened during the West Memphis Three Case; one of those three kids charged there was slow, and also made up a horrible story - that convicted all three of them.
Going along with the above, I don't believe TH was ever in SA's trailer - there was absolutely no evidence that she was.
In Episode 9, BD's mother (SA's sister) said that she wanted to be with BD while he was being interviewed by the authorities, but that the authorities said she couldn't be there - however, the investigator said that BD's mother didn't want to be there with BD during the interview - which was an obvious lie. What mother WOULDN'T want to be be with her son during such a serious interview, especially considering he was a minor & slow. Very dishonest & deplorable behavior on the part of the investigators.
I do believe the blood was planted in TH's jeep by the authorities, and I believe they planted the TH's car key in SA's trailer as well.
Also, as the defense attorneys (Dean & Jerry) mentioned, if SA had committed the crime, why just hide the jeep in a corner of the salvage yard & cover it up with branches and twigs?! It would be - and was - easily found that way. I.e., if SA did this, why didn't he just destroy/flatten the vehicle in his crusher so it wouldn't be recognized - since he had ample opportunity to do so?! SA didn't seem extremely intelligent - but, I would think that if he did commit the crime, that he would definitely do everything he could to destroy the evidence.
I don't have a lot of respect for most lawyers since I find them dishonest & opportunistic. However, based on what we saw in the doc., I was extremely impressed by SA's defense lawyers (Dean & Jerry). They obviously knew SA was innocent, had done their homework & were very thorough in their investigations, and did a great job cross-examining everyone on the stand. They also had the guts to take on the authorities, which couldn't have been easy for them. The fact that the case was lost is terribly sad, but it doesn't change the fact that these two were good people.
Conversely, BD's first lawyer (the short, balding blonde guy w/glasses) was quite shifty & I felt he was hiding something. He kept smiling throughout interviews, which I guess was meant to put everyone at ease - but just made me more suspicious of him. I definitely feel he was not acting in BD's best interests.
I've got a hell of a lot of respect for the juror on the SA trial that was excused from the case due to a family emergency. He had the guts to come onto the doc. & be interviewed, and speak about his doubts re: the SA trial. He was also seen talking the family outside the court during the BD trial, and spoke his doubts about that trial as well. Kudos to this guy.
So, the question is, who ended up committing the horrible crime?! There are a couple of possibilities here:
1) The most likely possibility is that someone else committed the crime, the authorities found the body, and then proceeded to frame SA. It's very telling that they didn't interview/investigate anyone other than SA, despite the fact that there was an ex-boyfriend & room-mate in the picture - they should have definitely also been investigated, since one had previously dated TH and was apparently still in touch with her, and the other lived with her. And, who was the person calling TH that she didn't want to talk to?! The identity of this person was never made clear.
1) The other possiblility is that the authorities committed the crime (since they knew TH was last @ SA's house) & framed SA for this. To believe this, you would have to believe the authorities are capable of such a cold-blooded crime - and, I absolutely believe this is very possible. After all, again, look at the timing here - they were about to be involved in an expensive, embarrassing lawsuit brought by SA, and they wanted to get him out of the picture/get even with him. So, there was absolutely motive for them to have done this - no question about that.
In either of the above instances, I do definitely believe the authorities framed SA for the second crime, just as they had for the first. This solved the problem that they had re: the lawsuit SA had against him. Since he was out of the picture, obviously the lawsuit went away.
Also, it's amazing that the prosecutor Ken K. was able to present two two separate theories as to where TH died: In the SA case, when the defense established that there was no DNA evidence of TH found in SA's trailer, Ken K. then stated that the crime occurred in the garage. Then, later on in the BD trial, he said that the crime occurred in the trailer - since that's where BD said it happened (under coercion). So, this shyster was talking out of two sides of his mouth - in one trial, he said the crime occurred in one place; and, in the next, he said the crime occurred in the other. Well, which was it?! It obviously couldn't have occurred in BOTH places. It's horrible that he was able to get away with these lies, but not too surprising. In any case, it's terrible that Ken K. is still able to practice law after obviously being so dishonest here. What a scum-bag.
The jurors in both the SA & BD case were a bunch of fu#$#$#@ morons. Hard to believe they convicted both SA & BD. Idiots. And, This was especially true in the BD case - they sent an innocent kid to prison for life, despite the fact that there was NO evidence to support that he was involved in this crime. Forget what he said - since it should have been obvious to them that this "confession" was coerced. This reminds me yet again why I never want to serve on a jury - there are too many stupid people out there.
And, obviously BD's case is much sadder than SA's situation. While SA spent a lot of time in prison for a crime he didn't commit, at least he had some time on the outside (both before his first prison sentence, and after he got out the first time). Conversely, BD will probably spend the rest of his life in prison, and he hasn't even started to live his life. Reprehensible. That being said, this is horrible for both of them.
In closing, two innocent people's lives are irrevocably ruined & they will probably both be in prison for the rest of their lives for a crime they did not commit. Going along with this, a family is torn apart & is driven against each other. And, it's also clear to me that the real killer(s) of TH is still out there - and that it was someone(s) we almost certainly did see in this 10-part doc.
Some points:
I had never heard of this SA case prior to seeing this doc. I don't watch/follow the news much (except for the huge stories), so am not surprised I missed this back in the 200X's.
It was obvious that the local authorities framed SA in the first mid-1980's case (the assault), and it was later proven that he unequivocally didn't do this.
When he got out in 2003 after it was proven he was innocent, that was obviously embarrassing for the authorities. And, then he decided to sue the authorities because of this - rightfully so. And, right before the lawsuit against the authorities was going to get heated, then he's again under suspicion of a heinous crime, even worse than the first one that?! Yeah, right. I don't believe in coincidence, and I do absolutely believe that the authorities framed him for the second crime as well.
I don't believe anything BD said about the alleged crime at SA's trailer, other than his initial statement - which was that he went over to SA's house to give him mail that was mistakenly delivered to his house, and that was it. When you saw the taped interview, it was obvious the two investigators were feeding him information & expecting him to corroborate this. Since BD was obviously slow & developmentally/learning disabled, he was an easy target here & just told them what they wanted to hear. Unconsionable & sickening. He never should have agreed to talk to them without a lawyer present - or at least without his mother/father present - especially since he was a minor at the time. Amazing that this even happened. Something similar happened during the West Memphis Three Case; one of those three kids charged there was slow, and also made up a horrible story - that convicted all three of them.
Going along with the above, I don't believe TH was ever in SA's trailer - there was absolutely no evidence that she was.
In Episode 9, BD's mother (SA's sister) said that she wanted to be with BD while he was being interviewed by the authorities, but that the authorities said she couldn't be there - however, the investigator said that BD's mother didn't want to be there with BD during the interview - which was an obvious lie. What mother WOULDN'T want to be be with her son during such a serious interview, especially considering he was a minor & slow. Very dishonest & deplorable behavior on the part of the investigators.
I do believe the blood was planted in TH's jeep by the authorities, and I believe they planted the TH's car key in SA's trailer as well.
Also, as the defense attorneys (Dean & Jerry) mentioned, if SA had committed the crime, why just hide the jeep in a corner of the salvage yard & cover it up with branches and twigs?! It would be - and was - easily found that way. I.e., if SA did this, why didn't he just destroy/flatten the vehicle in his crusher so it wouldn't be recognized - since he had ample opportunity to do so?! SA didn't seem extremely intelligent - but, I would think that if he did commit the crime, that he would definitely do everything he could to destroy the evidence.
I don't have a lot of respect for most lawyers since I find them dishonest & opportunistic. However, based on what we saw in the doc., I was extremely impressed by SA's defense lawyers (Dean & Jerry). They obviously knew SA was innocent, had done their homework & were very thorough in their investigations, and did a great job cross-examining everyone on the stand. They also had the guts to take on the authorities, which couldn't have been easy for them. The fact that the case was lost is terribly sad, but it doesn't change the fact that these two were good people.
Conversely, BD's first lawyer (the short, balding blonde guy w/glasses) was quite shifty & I felt he was hiding something. He kept smiling throughout interviews, which I guess was meant to put everyone at ease - but just made me more suspicious of him. I definitely feel he was not acting in BD's best interests.
I've got a hell of a lot of respect for the juror on the SA trial that was excused from the case due to a family emergency. He had the guts to come onto the doc. & be interviewed, and speak about his doubts re: the SA trial. He was also seen talking the family outside the court during the BD trial, and spoke his doubts about that trial as well. Kudos to this guy.
So, the question is, who ended up committing the horrible crime?! There are a couple of possibilities here:
1) The most likely possibility is that someone else committed the crime, the authorities found the body, and then proceeded to frame SA. It's very telling that they didn't interview/investigate anyone other than SA, despite the fact that there was an ex-boyfriend & room-mate in the picture - they should have definitely also been investigated, since one had previously dated TH and was apparently still in touch with her, and the other lived with her. And, who was the person calling TH that she didn't want to talk to?! The identity of this person was never made clear.
1) The other possiblility is that the authorities committed the crime (since they knew TH was last @ SA's house) & framed SA for this. To believe this, you would have to believe the authorities are capable of such a cold-blooded crime - and, I absolutely believe this is very possible. After all, again, look at the timing here - they were about to be involved in an expensive, embarrassing lawsuit brought by SA, and they wanted to get him out of the picture/get even with him. So, there was absolutely motive for them to have done this - no question about that.
In either of the above instances, I do definitely believe the authorities framed SA for the second crime, just as they had for the first. This solved the problem that they had re: the lawsuit SA had against him. Since he was out of the picture, obviously the lawsuit went away.
Also, it's amazing that the prosecutor Ken K. was able to present two two separate theories as to where TH died: In the SA case, when the defense established that there was no DNA evidence of TH found in SA's trailer, Ken K. then stated that the crime occurred in the garage. Then, later on in the BD trial, he said that the crime occurred in the trailer - since that's where BD said it happened (under coercion). So, this shyster was talking out of two sides of his mouth - in one trial, he said the crime occurred in one place; and, in the next, he said the crime occurred in the other. Well, which was it?! It obviously couldn't have occurred in BOTH places. It's horrible that he was able to get away with these lies, but not too surprising. In any case, it's terrible that Ken K. is still able to practice law after obviously being so dishonest here. What a scum-bag.
The jurors in both the SA & BD case were a bunch of fu#$#$#@ morons. Hard to believe they convicted both SA & BD. Idiots. And, This was especially true in the BD case - they sent an innocent kid to prison for life, despite the fact that there was NO evidence to support that he was involved in this crime. Forget what he said - since it should have been obvious to them that this "confession" was coerced. This reminds me yet again why I never want to serve on a jury - there are too many stupid people out there.
And, obviously BD's case is much sadder than SA's situation. While SA spent a lot of time in prison for a crime he didn't commit, at least he had some time on the outside (both before his first prison sentence, and after he got out the first time). Conversely, BD will probably spend the rest of his life in prison, and he hasn't even started to live his life. Reprehensible. That being said, this is horrible for both of them.
In closing, two innocent people's lives are irrevocably ruined & they will probably both be in prison for the rest of their lives for a crime they did not commit. Going along with this, a family is torn apart & is driven against each other. And, it's also clear to me that the real killer(s) of TH is still out there - and that it was someone(s) we almost certainly did see in this 10-part doc.
Last edited by TheDude; 01-04-16 at 12:50 AM.
01-04-16, 09:15 AM
#71
DVD Talk Legend
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
the glasses, man. The glasses.Here's another link that includes more stuff missing from the documentary. Another big one is that the bullet in the garage had Halbach's DNA on it and the gun used was found in Avery's house.
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies...nt-present.php
Last edited by Goat3001; 01-04-16 at 09:28 AM.
01-04-16, 09:45 AM
#72
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
01-04-16, 10:47 AM
#73
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
Here's another link that includes more stuff missing from the documentary. Another big one is that the bullet in the garage had Halbach's DNA on it and the gun used was found in Avery's house.
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies...nt-present.php
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies...nt-present.php
Here's the way I see this, though. I'm not saying I think SA is innocent because I don't think he's capable of the crime; I'm saying I think he's innocent because I don't think there is enough evidence to support that he did the crime & I believe there is definitely proof that the police planted evidence.
For example, why would C. (the officer with short hair & glasses, involved in both cases against SA) call in TH's car's license plate prior to the car being found in the salvage yard?! The only explanation I can come up with here is that the authorities planted the car in the salvage yard to frame SA.
In addition, if SA did the crime, why not destroy the car with his crusher - that he had on his property?! It doesn't make sense that he would leave the intact car on his property, and just try to cover it up with boards and branches. Sure, he doesn't seem to be extremely intelligent - but you would think that he would know better to keep a key piece of evidence in a heinous crime intact on his property. His defense lawyers said that same thing - how many people have access to a crusher like he did?! Very few - and he didn't use this. This makes 0 sense.
Last edited by TheDude; 01-04-16 at 10:58 AM.
01-04-16, 11:30 AM
#74
DVD Talk Legend
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
Thanks for the link. Very disturbing stuff here.
Here's the way I see this, though. I'm not saying I think SA is innocent because I don't think he's capable of the crime; I'm saying I think he's innocent because I don't think there is enough evidence to support that he did the crime & I believe there is definitely proof that the police planted evidence.
For example, why would C. (the officer with short hair & glasses, involved in both cases against SA) call in TH's car's license plate prior to the car being found in the salvage yard?! The only explanation I can come up with here is that the authorities planted the car in the salvage yard to frame SA.
In addition, if SA did the crime, why not destroy the car with his crusher - that he had on his property?! It doesn't make sense that he would leave the intact car on his property, and just try to cover it up with boards and branches. Sure, he doesn't seem to be extremely intelligent - but you would think that he would know better to keep a key piece of evidence in a heinous crime intact on his property. His defense lawyers said that same thing - how many people have access to a crusher like he did?! Very few - and he didn't use this. This makes 0 sense.
Here's the way I see this, though. I'm not saying I think SA is innocent because I don't think he's capable of the crime; I'm saying I think he's innocent because I don't think there is enough evidence to support that he did the crime & I believe there is definitely proof that the police planted evidence.
For example, why would C. (the officer with short hair & glasses, involved in both cases against SA) call in TH's car's license plate prior to the car being found in the salvage yard?! The only explanation I can come up with here is that the authorities planted the car in the salvage yard to frame SA.
In addition, if SA did the crime, why not destroy the car with his crusher - that he had on his property?! It doesn't make sense that he would leave the intact car on his property, and just try to cover it up with boards and branches. Sure, he doesn't seem to be extremely intelligent - but you would think that he would know better to keep a key piece of evidence in a heinous crime intact on his property. His defense lawyers said that same thing - how many people have access to a crusher like he did?! Very few - and he didn't use this. This makes 0 sense.
However, someone committed the crime and I believe it's MOST LIKELY Steve Avery. The closest alternative that has made any sense is that Avery did the crime and the Manitowic police planted evidence to make sure he got pinned for it. But that alternative still means SA did it. Every other alternative I heard is mostly half cooked and when you put actual thought into them, you come up with way more inconsistencies than the case against SA.
From the link I provided before is another link to the Dassey interview transcript. It's long. I haven't read it yet. I may peruse through it while not doing work this afternoon:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwg...Kelly.pdf?dl=0
01-04-16, 12:35 PM
#75
re: "Making a Murderer" -- Netflix documentary series
Well, my point is that there wasn't enough evidence to convict SA in this crime. I'm glad I wasn't serving on this jury, because there's no way I could have convicted him based on what I consider to be flimsy evidence.
Also, and as I mentioned in my last post, why was no one else investigated other than SA?! You would think that the ex-boyfriend, the room-mate, and the brother(s) should have been investigated as well - who knows, they may have had motive to do this. I do think the ex-boyfriend was somewhat shady - i.e., "guessing" TH's phone password, but conveniently forgetting what it was - WTF?!
And, I laughed out loud when the ex-boyfriend was asked if TH was romantically involved with the male room-mate, and he said no, that they were just friends. Bull$#@$. And, the ex-boyfriend was obviously still in contact with TH after the break-up, since he said that he saw her the weekend before she disappeared.
Also as I mentioned before, who was it that was calling TH that she didn't want to talk to?! I believe an older colleague of hers mentioned this. The identity of this person was never disclosed.
Also, and as I mentioned in my last post, why was no one else investigated other than SA?! You would think that the ex-boyfriend, the room-mate, and the brother(s) should have been investigated as well - who knows, they may have had motive to do this. I do think the ex-boyfriend was somewhat shady - i.e., "guessing" TH's phone password, but conveniently forgetting what it was - WTF?!
And, I laughed out loud when the ex-boyfriend was asked if TH was romantically involved with the male room-mate, and he said no, that they were just friends. Bull$#@$. And, the ex-boyfriend was obviously still in contact with TH after the break-up, since he said that he saw her the weekend before she disappeared.
Also as I mentioned before, who was it that was calling TH that she didn't want to talk to?! I believe an older colleague of hers mentioned this. The identity of this person was never disclosed.
Last edited by TheDude; 01-04-16 at 12:53 PM.