Making a Murderer on Netflix **SPOILERS**

[Annie G]

I think SA could have killed her. I think there is zero chance it happened the way the prosecution claims. And I don't think we'll get to the truth on Brendan on this side of heaven. I'm not sure Brendan knows the truth at this point.

 

I think SA could have killed her. But I also think it's likely there were other suspects that should have been investigated.  His brothers,  the two guys who went hunting, maybe even her ex boyfriend or the crazy German guy.  Or someone else entirely.    I would feel a lot more sure if they had investigated anyone else. 

 

I think the police believed SA was guilty and did what it took to convict him.  

 

I don't think Brendan was involved. I think he is easily led and was so confused about the term 'truth'. When he was being questioned, the investigators or cops only believed as truth anything that implicated him. And often led him or suggested to him what the truth was. Then he told his mom what she wanted to hear because to her, that was truth.  He is such a simple guy- he clearly wanted to do what would please people.  

 

Why would Steven ask Brendan to come get involved? Surely he would have known Brendan wouldn't have been able to keep the secret. And it just doesn't make sense. No, I can't believe that Brendan was involved. 

 

I'm not saying SA is a great guy. But I'm also not convinced he received fair treatment by the police or prosecutor. But I love his attorney- that guy is a gem. 

[Farrar]

I finally finished this (well, all but the final episode...).

 

I have no idea if he killed that woman or not. Really, I can't tell.

 

I'm completely beyond sure that the police manipulated the evidence to frame him for it though. And if he did kill her, none of the stories told by the prosecution about her death make any sense in terms of timeline and so forth. The job they did is just so unsatisfying overall. And it seemed clear from the film that they picked him out as the only suspect and then didn't follow any other leads - exactly the same as the first case. And maybe he was the killer - they had reason to have him as a serious suspect... but then all they did was manipulate evidence. Even knowing that there was other evidence not shown in the documentary... so what? They still did so many things wrong.

 

I felt increasingly frustrated by the documentary makers as it went on. I felt sure there was more to the other side of the story and I wanted it to be more balanced. A lot of people compared it to Serial, but one of the things that made Serial so compelling was Sarah Koenig's frank struggle to figure out if Sayad was guilty or not and the way she constantly played devil's advocate for both sides. Like, the episode where she and the other woman drive around trying to make the timeline work was one of the best ones for me. Making a Murderer never did anything along those lines - there was no struggle for the filmmakers - it's a one sided affair.

 

[MrsWeasley]

Well, I think the documentary makes a very compelling case for Brendan Dassey. I truly hope he gets a new trial that leads to his release.

 

Steven Avery....well, I don't buy the state's narrative. I have more than a few suspicions that they tampered with evidence. But...even though I can't say I believe this beyond a reasonable doubt, I can't get past Steven Avery's sweat found on the hood latch of the car and on the key, however shady the discovery of the key is. I think he was in all likelihood involved in Theresa Halbach's death, and unfortunately, how badly the case was mishandled will prevent anyone from ever knowing for sure.

Edited January 7, 2016 by MrsWeasley

[livetoread]

I finally finished this (well, all but the final episode...).

 

I have no idea if he killed that woman or not. Really, I can't tell.

 

I'm completely beyond sure that the police manipulated the evidence to frame him for it though. And if he did kill her, none of the stories told by the prosecution about her death make any sense in terms of timeline and so forth. The job they did is just so unsatisfying overall. And it seemed clear from the film that they picked him out as the only suspect and then didn't follow any other leads - exactly the same as the first case. And maybe he was the killer - they had reason to have him as a serious suspect... but then all they did was manipulate evidence. Even knowing that there was other evidence not shown in the documentary... so what? They still did so many things wrong.

 

I felt increasingly frustrated by the documentary makers as it went on. I felt sure there was more to the other side of the story and I wanted it to be more balanced. A lot of people compared it to Serial, but one of the things that made Serial so compelling was Sarah Koenig's frank struggle to figure out if Sayad was guilty or not and the way she constantly played devil's advocate for both sides. Like, the episode where she and the other woman drive around trying to make the timeline work was one of the best ones for me. Making a Murderer never did anything along those lines - there was no struggle for the filmmakers - it's a one sided affair.

 

Yes, my thoughts exactly!!

[Annie G]

Well, I think the documentary makes a very compelling case for Brendan Dassey. I truly hope he gets a new trial that leads to his release.

 

Steven Avery....well, I don't buy the state's narrative. I have more than a few suspicions that they tampered with evidence. But...even though I can't say I believe this beyond a reasonable doubt, I can't get past Steven Avery's sweat found on the hood latch of the car and on the key, however shady the discovery of the key is. I think he was in all likelihood involved in Theresa Halbach's death, and unfortunately, how badly the case was mishandled will prevent anyone from ever knowing for sure.

 

About the DNA found on the hood latch...is there a clear chain of evidence as far as documenting that the  swab from the hood latch was actually taken from the hood latch? Like, could the Manitowoc police have swabbed something he touched and then used the swab on the hood latch? I know it sounds far fetched, but so do other things.  I guess I wonder if the crime lab swabbed the latch themselves or if the Manitowoc police sent a swab labeled as coming from the hood latch to a lab for testing. 

 

It just seems so odd that they found DNA on the hood match but not on the steering wheel, for instance. Or only Steven's DNA on the key. Stuff like that makes me doubt evidence that I would otherwise accept. 

 

Did they ever make it clear why Teresa's keychain was the backup key for the Toyota and not the one that had the fob that unlocks doors, etc? And why no house key on it?  That left me wondering. 

 

I was particularly bothered that some investigators/cops seemed to not really believe that SA was innocent of the earlier rape. They didn't seem to believe that DNA evidence that exonerated him. 

 

 

SA might be guilty but they based that on him being 'the last person to see her alive'.  But when they found her car on Avery property they made that assumption and made SA their target even though there were others w access to the property who should have been investigated.   So while I agree that SA might be guilty, I can't feel confident that he is because they didn't make any effort to see if anyone else did it. 

[6packofun]

A couple of my childhood friends put a bird in a microwave. They are now functional, highly educated individuals.

 

I know someone who killed a kitten with a high heeled shoe and retelling it later laughed with his mom about it in front of us (small group of friends).  "Ah, life on the farm!" was part of what they said.   I was disgusted.  It has stayed with me every since and I just don't understand it.  And this man is an intelligent anesthesiologist who has won many awards and has a wonderful family with successful children.  ??  (Of course, could he secretly harbor desires to kill, I don't know.  But I doubt it a lot.)  No cases are exactly alike and that is the point, I think.  I certainly don't excuse it, though!

 

Oh, I also lived a few doors down from a girl--this is in *high school*--who thought it was funny to dismember large grasshoppers at the bus stop in different ways.  Saw her do it several times.  I doubt she has killed a human being. I sure never liked her, though.  lol

Edited January 7, 2016 by 6packofun

[6packofun]

But...even though I can't say I believe this beyond a reasonable doubt, I can't get past Steven Avery's sweat found on the hood latch of the car and on the key, however shady the discovery of the key is. I think he was in all likelihood involved in Theresa Halbach's death, and unfortunately, how badly the case was mishandled will prevent anyone from ever knowing for sure.

 

Who says it was sweat?  They found his DNA--is it clarified to be sweat or some other source?  I didn't think so, but I'd be interested to know.

 

Btw, everyone, Megyn Kelly has had a segment about Making a Murderer on her show for the past 2 nights, I think, and is having the documentary filmmakers on tonight.  It's 9 p.m. EST.  

 

Last night was the sensationalist Judge Jeanine Pirro and it was so interesting to see her jump to the defense of the prosecutors.  She basically said that you'd have to believe that there was this big conspiracy between several police officers, other state officials, the FBI and lawyers and the judge and that the COPS murdered her instead.  That seems like a really lame (and again, sensational) thing to say for someone whose job it is to use logic and is responsible for a person's freedom.  The prosecutors in Avery's case said something very similar.  Why does there have to be anything more than ONE, maybe 2 people who planted evidence and then everyone else BELIEVING it?   It does seem unlikely that police would be willing to let a killer go.  About as unlikely as a person who feels that the police were out to get him killing someone on his own property, burning the person right next to his house and leaving it there and hiding the vehicle on their own property in a place that was found by someone after 10 minutes of searching.  But I believe that there are other suspects in that family who were intentionally overlooked because they had laser vision on Steven.

[BigMamaBird]

I'm really on the fence about SA.  I find it hard to believe in a conspiracy but on the other hand, if Teresa was truly murdered at his house/garage, where is all the blood?  Murders are messy, when a person is stabbed and shot, blood gets everywhere.  The Averys, whoever did it, just don't seem clever enough to clean up all that evidence.   

[Farrar]

The idea that they (or just he) killed her anywhere in his home is preposterous. There's zero way he cleaned up that well. And, what, he managed to get every drop of blood and DNA but missed that key? No way. If he killed her, it was elsewhere, maybe elsewhere on the property though not indoors because they searched that stuff too well, but still, somewhere different, and the cops have no idea where. But this is what I mean... maybe he killed her... but their story about it makes no sense.

[MercyA]

I know someone who killed a kitten with a high heeled shoe and retelling it later laughed with his mom about it in front of us (small group of friends).  "Ah, life on the farm!" was part of what they said.   I was disgusted.  It has stayed with me every since and I just don't understand it.  And this man is an intelligent anesthesiologist who has won many awards and has a wonderful family with successful children.  ??  (Of course, could he secretly harbor desires to kill, I don't know.  But I doubt it a lot.)  No cases are exactly alike and that is the point, I think.  I certainly don't excuse it, though!

 

A couple of my childhood friends put a bird in a microwave. They are now functional, highly educated individuals.

 

Functional, intelligent people can still do evil things.  :(

Edited January 7, 2016 by MercyA

[Annie G]

 

Last night was the sensationalist Judge Jeanine Pirro and it was so interesting to see her jump to the defense of the prosecutors.  She basically said that you'd have to believe that there was this big conspiracy between several police officers, other state officials, the FBI and lawyers and the judge and that the COPS murdered her instead. 

 

I don't think that the police killed her. If SA didn't kill her, I believe she was killed and some evidence was planted on the Avery property because the police wanted to be sure SA wasn't getting out of it- they may have worried that his previous wrongful conviction would mean that this time they'd need a ton of evidence to convict him.  I think the police believed SA killed her, not that they set out to kill someone so they could frame her. I don't believe that if I think evidence was planted that it means the police killed her or there was a wide conspiracy. 

 

Do you guys have any thoughts on the cop who called dispatch the day TH was reported missing and asked about the plate number? He didn't ask what her plate was, he read a number and asked who it belonged to.  I never heard any good explanation other than the officer saying that he wasn't looking at the plates when he called it in. 

[DesertBlossom]

Clearly, functional, intelligent people can still be evil. :(

Oh for goodness sake. Sometimes kids do really stupid things. My friends I was referring to are actually very kind, empathetic and generous people. That's not to say hurting animals isn't a giant red flag, especially in combination with other things. But a one time thing is not enough brand someone as evil.

 

I didn't mean to derail the thread. In the case of SA it does sound like he may be somewhat dysfunctional. But killing a cat also doesn't make him capable of murder. Maybe he is. But maybe he isn't

[DesertBlossom]

I don't think that the police killed her. If SA didn't kill her, I believe she was killed and some evidence was planted on the Avery property because the police wanted to be sure SA wasn't getting out of it- they may have worried that his previous wrongful conviction would mean that this time they'd need a ton of evidence to convict him. I think the police believed SA killed her, not that they set out to kill someone so they could frame her. I don't believe that if I think evidence was planted that it means the police killed her or there was a wide conspiracy.

 

Do you guys have any thoughts on the cop who called dispatch the day TH was reported missing and asked about the plate number? He didn't ask what her plate was, he read a number and asked who it belonged to. I never heard any good explanation other than the officer saying that he wasn't looking at the plates when he called it in.

This is what I think. And it's a shame too because if SA really did kill her, but the police were planting evidence to make sure he was convicted, then there's a chance his conviction could be overturned if they can prove the police screwed up.

[Farrar]

It seems unlikely at this point that he'll get out barring even more evidence.

 

What makes me angry is that it's police corruption. I mean, if he did it and they couldn't prove it - that's the system! That's the price we all pay for living in a free society where innocence is presumed. And it's a price worth paying! But they didn't want to pay that price so they rigged things. But when that happens we all suffer - and whether he was guilty or not is almost beside the point - we can see from the past that they rigged it previously and were WRONG so then they learned from that and got better at rigging things.

 

See, that's what should have made this such a perfect, complex story of guilty and innocence and corruption and right and wrong and all that. You can see from his life that the police are corrupt and frame people and mismanage cases and it goes wrong. And then you can see that... maybe it goes right or maybe it doesn't. We don't know. But there's a big, juicy question there - is justice by any means necessary? Can it be? What's the consequences when it is? But instead, the filmmakers took it and made it so much about him and his supposed innocence (which, maybe he is... I have no idea) that it walks up toward those questions then walks back from them and pulls a curtain over them. Look over here instead and focus on petitions to get this guy a new trial.

[Farrar]

Also, the whole idea that, if SA didn't kill her then you have to think the police did is absurd. Who knows what went down - maybe, as he alleges, his brother did it. Maybe some random other person did it. The police didn't need to kill her to frame him. That's like saying that if SA didn't attack the first woman, that the police must have done it. Obviously not. They just continually ignored evidence that it wasn't him and manipulated the evidence they did have to fit their theory that it was him. And that was the case the second time. Of course... maybe he did really do it. But they still manipulated the evidence, broke their own rules, railroaded Brendan... ack, so many evils by the police.

 

I was reminded at several turns about this excellent pro publica piece about a rape case that I read recently (warning - it's long):

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

 

The jist: a small town police department massively mishandled a rape investigation - not on purpose, but out of a belief that they were doing the right thing. Many years later, the case was solved (that's a huge whole other part of the story) and the original department and victim were faced with the horror of what the police had done. Well, unlike in SA's case, they apologized, they asked for consultants to come teach them how to do it right, they changed their practices and training, they owned up to the mistakes. No one lost their job (though you could argue they maybe should...) and the department had to give a payout (undisclosed) as part of a settled lawsuit, but it was obvious no one was bitter at their victim. They knew they'd screwed up. The department in SA's case doubled down. They refused to admit they'd made any mistakes and as a result they also doubled down on those mistakes and committed them all over again in the most egregious ways. Obviously SA is a messed up dude (not like the much more sympathetic rape victim in the story) but it shouldn't make a difference.

[MercyA]

Oh for goodness sake. Sometimes kids do really stupid things. My friends I was referring to are actually very kind, empathetic and generous people. That's not to say hurting animals isn't a giant red flag, especially in combination with other things. But a one time thing is not enough brand someone as evil.

 

Okay, point taken. I should have worded my post differently and have changed it to "do evil things." Obviously people can change.

 

I do believe deliberately hurting animals without cause is evil, regardless of the age of the person (assuming they are old enough to understand they are causing harm). 

[DesertBlossom]

Also, the whole idea that, if SA didn't kill her then you have to think the police did is absurd. Who knows what went down - maybe, as he alleges, his brother did it. Maybe some random other person did it. The police didn't need to kill her to frame him. That's like saying that if SA didn't attack the first woman, that the police must have done it.

 

I definitely don't think the police did it either. If they had, they probably could have done a better job framing him.

[MercyA]

Awesome tweet from Kristen Bell: https://twitter.com/IMKristenBell/status/683766161322848256/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Guest]

I think someone killed her and the cop that read off the license plate (Lent?) found her car and realized that, since SA was the prime suspect, this would be a win/win. They could nail the guilty guy, end the lawsuit and solve a crime all at the same time. I think that the police honestly believed SA was guilty and that they were doing the right thing. Had they actually done their jobs correctly, maybe they would have found actual proof he did it. As it stands, their planting evidence might be why he walks free.

[Annie G]

I think someone killed her and the cop that read off the license plate (Lent?) found her car and realized that, since SA was the prime suspect, this would be a win/win. They could nail the guilty guy, end the lawsuit and solve a crime all at the same time. I think that the police honestly believed SA was guilty and that they were doing the right thing. Had they actually done their jobs correctly, maybe they would have found actual proof he did it. As it stands, their planting evidence might be why he walks free.

 

This, except I don't think he's ever getting out.  He has appealed to several courts and none of them felt the outrage we feel. I think the overriding opinion is that he did it and they'd rather keep the public safe and keep in him jail than to let him out on a technicality.  

 

I'm not sure if I even think he would get a fair trial if he won an appeal- what all evidence would be tossed? If they were allowed to present all the evidence they presented before, he'd probably be reconvicted.  I think they needed to investigate other suspects but that ship has sailed. 

 

I puffy heart love Dean Strang. He really cares about justice and it's clear he did his best for SA.  

 

I don't know how Ken Kratz sleeps at night.  Or a host of others who were involved in this case. 

[MrsWeasley]

Who says it was sweat?  They found his DNA--is it clarified to be sweat or some other source?  I didn't think so, but I'd be interested to know.

 

Btw, everyone, Megyn Kelly has had a segment about Making a Murderer on her show for the past 2 nights, I think, and is having the documentary filmmakers on tonight.  It's 9 p.m. EST.  

 

Last night was the sensationalist Judge Jeanine Pirro and it was so interesting to see her jump to the defense of the prosecutors.  She basically said that you'd have to believe that there was this big conspiracy between several police officers, other state officials, the FBI and lawyers and the judge and that the COPS murdered her instead.  That seems like a really lame (and again, sensational) thing to say for someone whose job it is to use logic and is responsible for a person's freedom.  The prosecutors in Avery's case said something very similar.  Why does there have to be anything more than ONE, maybe 2 people who planted evidence and then everyone else BELIEVING it?   It does seem unlikely that police would be willing to let a killer go.  About as unlikely as a person who feels that the police were out to get him killing someone on his own property, burning the person right next to his house and leaving it there and hiding the vehicle on their own property in a place that was found by someone after 10 minutes of searching.  But I believe that there are other suspects in that family who were intentionally overlooked because they had laser vision on Steven.

 

This is where I read that the DNA found on the hood of the car was sweat:

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

[6packofun]

Also, the whole idea that, if SA didn't kill her then you have to think the police did is absurd. Who knows what went down - maybe, as he alleges, his brother did it. Maybe some random other person did it. The police didn't need to kill her to frame him. That's like saying that if SA didn't attack the first woman, that the police must have done it. Obviously not. They just continually ignored evidence that it wasn't him and manipulated the evidence they did have to fit their theory that it was him. And that was the case the second time. Of course... maybe he did really do it. But they still manipulated the evidence, broke their own rules, railroaded Brendan... ack, so many evils by the police.

 

I was reminded at several turns about this excellent pro publica piece about a rape case that I read recently (warning - it's long):

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

 

The jist: a small town police department massively mishandled a rape investigation - not on purpose, but out of a belief that they were doing the right thing. Many years later, the case was solved (that's a huge whole other part of the story) and the original department and victim were faced with the horror of what the police had done. Well, unlike in SA's case, they apologized, they asked for consultants to come teach them how to do it right, they changed their practices and training, they owned up to the mistakes. No one lost their job (though you could argue they maybe should...) and the department had to give a payout (undisclosed) as part of a settled lawsuit, but it was obvious no one was bitter at their victim. They knew they'd screwed up. The department in SA's case doubled down. They refused to admit they'd made any mistakes and as a result they also doubled down on those mistakes and committed them all over again in the most egregious ways. Obviously SA is a messed up dude (not like the much more sympathetic rape victim in the story) but it shouldn't make a difference.

 

YES.  There is an article floating around about 4 alternative suspects (unnamed in the article) who should have been followed up on; 2 of them sound like Bobby Dassey and Scott something...is he Brendan's stepdad?  Can't remember.  Their alibi stories don't line up and yet it's totally blown off.  I think not being able to present possible alternative suspects was really tough on the defense.  I don't know how that is supposed to play out in court, but there were definitely other possibilities that would have made more sense, IMO.

 

I'm so annoyed by this whole documentary coverage. Regardless of SA's innocence or guilt, the prosecutors are held up in the media (that I'm watching, at least!) as always the ones trying to go after the truth.  They are the ones who want justice done and supposedly have righteous motives.  And yet the inconsistency of saying in SA's case that he is the one and only person responsible for her death--after the judge said they could not prosecute the charge of false imprisonment!--and then turning around and prosecuting Brendan Dassey as a murder accomplice just shows that prosecutors can be willing to say what it takes to get a conviction.  At least as much as a defense attorney is willing to approach evidence in a way that casts doubt.  ALL the lawyers are in it for the win and the people who lose, well, I think we can see.  In regards to getting a fair trial at least.

 

Also, briefly...prosecutor Kratz keeps whining about evidence left out of the documentary.  He says they left the "leg irons and handcuffs" out.  Have you see them?  Aren't they pink fuzzy sex toy restraints?  Not that this means they couldn't be used in a crime, but calling them "leg irons"?  Right.  No DNA from Halbach on those, btw.  Also, if the false imprisonment charge was thrown OUT, why do the filmmakers have to choose to include it to be fair?  

Edited January 8, 2016 by 6packofun

[Annie G]

This is where I read that the DNA found on the hood of the car was sweat:

http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

 

I haven't read any court testimony that clarifies that the DNA was sweat- from what I read it was not blood, but I haven't read anything to say whether when they test the DNA that they can determine that it's sweat...just that it's not blood.  I'm not arguing that- just that the article you linked drew their evidence from another magazine article.   My problem with that 'sweat' DNA on the trunk latch and the car key is that both items were clear of fingerprints and DNA from anyone else...so it seems pretty weird that he was able to wipe everything else off- his and TH's fingerprints and her DNA but not his sweat. 

 

See...here's the thing...I believe some of the evidence is suspect, such as the key being found when and where and by who. So that makes me suspicious of other things that don't add up, like finding DNA but no fingerprints.  The blood near the ignition switch- so he bled there but no fingerprints? 

[6packofun]

My problem with that 'sweat' DNA on the trunk latch and the car key is that both items were clear of fingerprints and DNA from anyone else...so it seems pretty weird that he was able to wipe everything else off- his and TH's fingerprints and her DNA but not his sweat. 

 

See...here's the thing...I believe some of the evidence is suspect, such as the key being found when and where and by who. So that makes me suspicious of other things that don't add up, like finding DNA but no fingerprints.  The blood near the ignition switch- so he bled there but no fingerprints? 

 

The key ONLY had SA's DNA on it, right?  How does a key that is used repeatedly by the owner not have the OWNER'S DNA/fingerprints on it?  I feel like I sound like a conspiracy theorist every time I discuss this case with people, but there are certain logical conclusions that can be made that people just seem to ignore.  I like asking tons of questions about this!  LOL  And I certainly haven't decided anything, not that my opinion matters.  :P

 

So, since I'm obsessed, does someone have a reliable link to information (preferably material closest to the source and/or legal people) about how SA was supposedly stalking T. Halbach?  What is the evidence there other than some phone calls on the day they were scheduled to meet and that he used that *67?

[Lady Marmalade]

A link to this just popped up in my news feed and I thought I'd share it for anyone who was interested.  Avery DID appeal, and this is the official "Court of Appeals of Wisconsin Published Findings.

 

http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=70129

[Murphy101]

Not reading posts yet.

 

I'm in episode 4.

 

The investigators need to rot for twisting Brendan like that. The call to his mom after they left just about made me cry. I feel so awful for her. So scared. So frustrated. So angry for her son who just doesn't get any of it.

 

These cops and investigators (inserts string of bleeps at tv screen)... Best case I can drum for them is they are grossly and maliciously incompetent. And I seriously suspect it was purposeful.

[Murphy101]

Add this judge in with the prosecutors and investigators.

 

Is the judge on the take or what?!

 

Ugh.

[Guest]

Yup.

 

Highly educated people taking advantage of a less educated family. Maddening.

[lmrich]

He might have her killed her. But no way could he have cleaned it all up and not left any blood. Did you see the state of the trailer and garage? The whole thing is so disturbing. I have lost way too much sleep about it. Just a crying shame.

[Annie G]

I'm reading the entire transcript of the Dassey trial.  (I clearly have too much time on my hands)   If I had just read the transcript I wouldn't have gotten the same feel for the slimy prosecutor.  The transcript doesn't show any of that.  And the defense lawyers are so far putting no effort into any cross examination of the prosecution's witnesses. I'm on day five and I'm not even remotely convinced by any of the evidence.  But day five is where they talk about the interview they did with Brendan so maybe that will change. I'm trying to read without adding what I saw/thought from the documentary. 

 

 

 

 

[Annie G]

Is it normal to have the original judge be the appeals judge? That seems odd to me.

 

I wondered that also.  

[catz]

I finally finished the series.  I am not willing to say Avery is innocent.  But Brandon Dassey keeps me up at night as the parent of a 15 year old boy.  I'm just horrified that a severely learning disabled teen was treated like that and was railroaded by his own lawyer.  Disgusting.  I find it painful to listen to him talk to his mom.  They seem completely powerless and like the don't really understand at all.  :(

 

And there is NO way it went down in any way like the prosecution proposed.  There should be DNA EVERYWHERE if it did.  Why were bones in 2 locations?  Why is Halbach's blood in the van?  How and why was Avery's blood tampered with?  Why did the key show up so late in the search?  I've looked at all the other evidence now too.  He may be guilty but that trial absolutely had plenty of room for reasonable doubt in my mind.  To me it seems like it could have been anyone in the savage yard - many lived there.   I'm also disgusted with the sexting scandal and I think it does show the level of pretentiousness and lack of morality of that man.  

[MistyMountain]

The way the Brendan Dassey case was handled was deplorable. Steven Avery has a borderline IQ too but Brendan is much younger and has a very different personality and way less experience in life. His biggest weakness is his verbal skills and he is just really shy, and wants to please people. I think a reason for the lower IQs could just be the environment they grew up in with isolation and poverty but he just did not have a lot of experience. His first lawyer was so slimy.

 

This really makes me think about the negative view people tend to have on defense lawyers. They are important. I like Steven Avery's attorneys. They really believe their client and did such a good job uncovering things. It made me think about what you would do when you do not believe your client. Brendan's lawyer went beyond not believing him but trying to actually work against him.

Edited January 13, 2016 by MistyMountain

[Guest]

The way the Brendan Dassey case was handled was deplorable. Steven Avery has a borderline IQ too but Brendan is much younger and has a very different personality and way less experience in life. His biggest weakness is his verbal skills and he is just really shy, and wants to please people. I think a reason for the lower IQs could just be the environment they grew up in with isolation and poverty but he just did not have a lot of experience. His first lawyer was so slimy.

 

This really makes me think about the negative view people tend to have on defense lawyers. They are important. I like Steven Avery's attorneys. They really believe their client and did such a good job uncovering things. It made me think about what you would do when you do not believe your client. Brendan's lawyer went beyond not believing him but trying to actually work against him.

Totally agree! I know a woman who is a defense attorney. She has represented some really terrible, terrible people who, according to everything I've seen on the news, were 100% guilty. I never really respected her until I watched this documentary. She has a very important part to play in our system.

[Guest]

At this point, I think their best bet is to use the money coming in from their new fame to hire a really great detective. Isn't new evidence the only thing that will get them new trials??

[SLT]

I don't think this has been mentioned here yet, but Investigation Discovery is doing a follow-up documentary on 'Making a Murderer.'

 

Can't wait to see some of the evidence that was purposefully left out. I hate that this documentary left out SO much pertinent information. I think they would be far more credible had they not done that, but looking forward to seeing it.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/making-a-murderer-investigation-discovery-keith-morrison-1201674567/

[MercyA]

Here's a very interesting interview with Jodi Stachowski, Steve's former fiancee.

[skimomma]

I watched the Jodi interview yesterday and really did not buy anything she said.  She "didn't know" or "couldn't remember" far too many things that would have been impossible to forget.  Her facial expressions and manner screamed "lying" to me.  You could almost see her trying to calculate each answer to make sure it fit with other things she said.  I am not saying that SA is innocent or that everything she is now claiming is false, but I do not find her to be a reliable witness no matter what side she is playing for.

 

Was I the only one who wondered if she was only with him because he was possibly going to have a lot of money coming to him?  Otherwise, it just did not add up.  They were both in jail (at coinciding and differing times) for such a large chunk of their "relationship" that I cannot even see how he could have been as threatening towards her as she claims.

 

This whole thing is such a train wreck.  We'll probably never know what really happened.  I do not think SA or Brenden got fair trails and that alone is reason enough that they both deserve new trials.  Not because I think SA is innocent but because I think someone needs to go back and correct the ridiculously poor handling of the entire investigation.  I also believe that some of those cops should have been punished for their behavior even if SA is indeed guilty. 

[Guest]

SA is exactly the kind of guy who would win the lottery and have it scammed out of him in a year. Of course Jodi was with him for the money!! I wonder how much Nancy Grace paid her for the interview?? Nancy Grace is trying to cover her behind because she had so much on her show about his guilt.

[Annie G]

I think Jodi's recent interviews are nonsense.  She had 5 DUIs and spent a lot of time in jail- sure, they fought, and sure, there's probably a lot about their relationship that would make my eyes cross. But I think she's lying.  Her interviews in the documentary weren't forced and she seemed totally at ease and happy to hold his hand...she wasn't afraid of him. 

 

SA might be guilty. I don't know. He also might not be.  

 

I am annoyed that so many people are up in arms saying that nobody is thinking about Teresa. Of course we know she was an innocent victim. Nobody is denying that or disputing she suffered an awful fate. But incarcerate the right person using honest police/judges/prosecutors, please. That's how you honor Teresa- by getting the right guy and convicting him fairly. 

 

So...they found two pairs of handcuffs in Brendan Dassey's mom's closet. Is kinky s*x the official Manitowoc pastime?  

 

I finished reading the transcript of Brendan's trial. I wouldn't have been able to vote guilty. 

 

 

[DesertBlossom]

I saw an article that said the "smoking gun" was the bullet found with her DNA. I was boggled by that. Considering the lack of blood all over the garage and the fact that BA's "testimony" was spoon fed to him (Who shot her in the head?) The bullet just looks like another piece of planted evidence.

Edited January 15, 2016 by DesertBlossom

[Murphy101]

This, except I don't think he's ever getting out. He has appealed to several courts and none of them felt the outrage we feel. I think the overriding opinion is that he did it and they'd rather keep the public safe and keep in him jail than to let him out on a technicality.

 

I'm not sure if I even think he would get a fair trial if he won an appeal- what all evidence would be tossed? If they were allowed to present all the evidence they presented before, he'd probably be reconvicted. I think they needed to investigate other suspects but that ship has sailed.

 

And THIS is what has infuriated me.

 

They know beyond doubt this case was investigators purposely making one cluster after another and not one person cared about it. Not the judges who allowed crazy crap to be used as so called evidence. Not the FBI who decided to look the other way while those cops who had zero business on the crime scenes trotted all the heck over it.

 

And even now, the so called justice system seems to just give a nonchalant shrug and a disdainful attitude about us ignorant commoners getting our knickers in a twist over this criminal who needs to stay in jail no matter what was done wrong by the system.

 

Well yeah.

 

Because he was not a criminal at all in one case and was obviously framed in the other!

 

I don't think even half the evidence should have been allowed bc it's all so crazy questionable.

 

And there is no way they will get a conviction on the ridiculous "evidence" remaining.

 

So I sure hope he didn't kill her.

 

Because if he did, those jerks purposely screwing up the case means he SHOULD walk free.

 

I don't think that's a conspiracy issue.

 

I think it's the problem of the powers that be closing ranks to cover each other's butts.

[Lawana]

Just finished the series and came here to see if there was a discussion about it.

 

Having served on two juries, both cases involving charges made against vulnerable persons, I was already disillusioned about the justice system. In the first case, a woman, recently widowed and quite poor, sold a trailer to someone who subsequently stopped making payments. Upon repossessing it, she was arrested and charged with theft. The buyer shared the same last name as two former county sheriffs. Hmmm. In any case, the prosecution offered zero evidence that she did anything other than what is stated above. They didn't contest any of those facts! The sum total of the ADA's closing argument was, "She saw something she wanted and took it." What a farce. Meanwhile, the poor woman had been held in jail because she couldn't make bail!

 

I was most outraged by Len Kachinsky. Perhaps I didn't watch closely enough, but I don't understand what his thinking was about why he was so determined to have Brendan be a witness against SA. How did he think that was benefiting his client? Totally subjective, but he came across to me as trying to get the approval of the prosecutors!

[Annie G]

Kachinsky was a piece of work, wasn't he?? I wondered if he really wanted a job with the prosecutor's office and he thought that playing this game was going to get him there. I guess I have to believe something like that or else I have to accept the alternative...that he's an evil person who doesn't care about his clients, or that he's dumb as dirt. I mean,  someone has to graduate last in the class. 

[Lawana]

Have you read his bio? JAG prosecutor and municipal judge along with defense attorney.

[Annie G]

Have you read his bio? JAG prosecutor and municipal judge along with defense attorney.

 

Wow- I had no idea.  So what happened? Was he distracted, like maybe going through his own divorce or one of his parents was ill?  Wow. That's info I didn't expect to hear. Off to look it up. Thanks. 

[Lawana]

Wow- I had no idea. So what happened? Was he distracted, like maybe going through his own divorce or one of his parents was ill? Wow. That's info I didn't expect to hear. Off to look it up. Thanks.

It is completely inexplicable and inexusable behavior, whatever the reason.

[Annie G]

 

One of my kids sent this to me last night and said that this is how dh and I were for a week after watching MAM. Except she said we talked about it everywhere- in the car, at the gym, at dinner....   She was pretty happy we'd stopped talking about it but last night dh says...,"Hey, did you hear they moved Brendan Dassey to a new prison?" and dd  just groaned and rolled her eyes. And emailed me the link. 

 

 

ETA: I think there is some bad language. 

Edited January 22, 2016 by Annie G

[UCF612]

Didn't they say that Brendan's lawyer had just lost a political race? I saw him as being someone who wanted GLORY!!  He wanted to be in the media more than he wanted justice.  He wanted people praising him for putting away a killer.  He was despicable.  I definitely saw defense attorneys in a new light after this.  I used to be unable to imagine why anyone would want to defend criminals but now I see things differently.   And I'm not sure about guilt/innocence at all in this case but I think there was a boatload of reasonable doubt and a lot of unanswered questions that were vital to the case.

Edited January 22, 2016 by UCF612

[idnib]

I've been avoiding this thread until I finished watching.

 

I have no idea who killed Teresa. She seemed like a lovely woman, one I would have loved to have personally known.

 

I wonder if someone (not an Avery) killed Teresa and stashed the car there, knowing the police might suspect an Avery? And the police took advantage of that and planted some additional evidence to conveniently solve the crime, cancel the lawsuit, etc. Once the insurance said they wouldn't protect the officers, and they were personally on the hook for damages, I could see how they could become desperate. It could have been millions; people have been killed for less.

 

It was disturbing to me that the car was uncrushed. That makes me suspicious that whoever deposited the car possibly didn't know how to operate the crusher, unlike Steven Avery. And then he left for a cabin 100 miles away, knowing the car was uncrushed and his brother might give permission for a property search, which he did. It seems either Steven would crush the car and dismantle it, something he was an expert in, or if he hadn't found the time to yet, he wouldn't leave and go to the cabin.