Making a Murderer

[fsunole025]

I was searching for a new tv series last week since I have the last two weeks of the year off from work. I saw this series on Netflix and decided to give it a watch. It documents a Wisconsin man that was wrongfully imprisoned for murder and released 18 years later. I don't want to provide any more details because it might lead to spoilers but it is worth a watch if you have time this holiday season.

 

[tenole]

Watched that last weekend. Did the last episode piss you off?

 

[fsunole025]

I'm only four episodes in because I restarted so that my wife could catch up. Now I'm really intrigued. I'll probably burn through the remaining episodes tonight and be able to answer your question.

 

[tenole]

Let me know. My wife and I power watched it last weekend. The circumstances surrounding the case are nuts.

 

[QuaZ2002]

I will be watching this weekend.

 

[divinnole]

Not meaning to make light of the subject but I clicked on just knowing this was going to be a thread about uf and the top 1%.

 

[62Nole]

How many episodes? Sounds like we should check it out.

 

[CFONole]

How many episodes? Sounds like we should check it out.

10 episodes at about 1 hour and 5 minutes each. I just finished it. It's a highly frustrating documentary but probably the best TV show of this year.

 

[QuaZ2002]

Watched first two tonight. Really good thus far and I have no clue where it's headed. So hard not to google it.

 

[fsunole025]

Watched that last weekend. Did the last episode piss you off?

Just finished. I now regret not listening to you or myself. I never realized how flawed our justice system can be. Very frustrating.

 

[dmm5157]

Just finished all 10 episodes today. I didn't get to watch each episode, but wife and sister filled me in on the parts I missed.

Kinda reminded me of Paradise Lost films, but that ending was more fulfilling.

 

[NolaNole9]

Watched first two tonight. Really good thus far and I have no clue where it's headed. So hard not to google it.

Just finished the first episode. +1 on the Google comment.

 

[RunRonnieRun]

Very hard not to google, indeed. Just finished the series tonight.

I can't remember ever being so frustrated by a television show before.

 

[dmm5157]

Very hard not to google, indeed. Just finished the series tonight.

I can't remember ever being so frustrated by a television show before.

It's not a television show, but have you seen Dear Zachary? It's on Netflix as well, I believe.

 

[RunRonnieRun]

It's not a television show, but have you seen Dear Zachary? It's on Netflix as well, I believe.

Yes. Thought I was going to have to throw my television out of the window at the end.

 

[QuaZ2002]

I knocked out 4eps last night. Multiple times I found myself yelling at the TV. I'm worried the way you guys are talking about how it's going to finish and still doing everything I can to not Google the story. Whoever made this doc should win all the awards, it's so well put together.

 

[dmm5157]

Yes. Thought I was going to have to throw my television out of the window at the end.

Yeah, that was a brutal punch to the balls at the end. One of those movies you think you're setting up for redeeming feel-good ending, but no it goes the complete opposite direction.

 

[fsunole025]

It's not a television show, but have you seen Dear Zachary? It's on Netflix as well, I believe.

What the hell is wrong with people? That was tough to watch but the director did an amazing job of telling the story. I feel connected to his parents after watching. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[seminolesfan5]

I have a lot to say about this after watching it. I don't want to spoil anything even though the actual case details and motives are something I'd be really interested in discussing, so I'll just leave a comment that the title of the show and theme was perfect for the portrayal of this story. As in, did the first wrongful accusation, police misconduct and prison stint later make a murderer out of a seemingly decent man? Or did the police misconduct then and later make the murderer out of an innocent man?

 

[Semiologist]

I have a lot to say about this after watching it. I don't want to spoil anything even though the actual case details and motives are something I'd be really interested in discussing, so I'll just leave a comment that the title of the show and theme was perfect for the portrayal of this story. As in, did the first wrongful accusation, police misconduct and prison stint later make a murderer out of a seemingly decent man? Or did the police misconduct then and later make the murderer out of an innocent man?

SPOILERS AHEAD: Based on the background of the guy I read, prison did nothing to make a killer out of this him. He was, most likely, either not up to murder yet, or hadn't been caught. His crimes were escalating and he was due.

 

[seminolesfan5]

SPOILERS AHEAD: Based on the background of the guy I read, prison did nothing to make a killer out of this him. He was, most likely, either not up to murder yet, or hadn't been caught. His crimes were escalating and he was due.

SPOILERS: The cat thing or the running his cousin off the road? Also what was the motive for raping and killing the autotrader lady? I kind of think he was guilty but I have my own theory on what actually happened that makes sense to me based on what was presented in the series.

 

[QuaZ2002]

SPOILERS: The cat thing or the running his cousin off the road? Also what was the motive for raping and killing the autotrader lady? I kind of think he was guilty but I have my own theory on what actually happened that makes sense to me based on what was presented in the series.

*Spoilers*

I don't believe he did it but I would be interested in hearing more of the prosecutions side. He had absolutely no motive and a guy like that wouldn't be able to clean up a crime scene so perfectly. At the very least he didn't kill her like the prosecution said and there is NO doubt in my mind that the nephew is innocent. I can't fathom how he was convicted. Any reasonable person should see that the kid was totally coerced into his confession and there isn't a single other shred of evidence to convict him.

 

[DanC78]

Just finished and holy shite I can't even explain how flippin pissed this makes me.

I will forever hate Wisconsin

 

[rjw615]

**SPOILERS**




Just finished it last night and honestly not sure how or what to make of it. It obviously didn't end the way I hoped but after thinking about it, this is an extremely well directed piece, should win an award but it's one sided in regards to Steven Avery. There are two sides to every story. I am just finding extremely hard to believe that a police force or someone killed the girl, then planted the mountains of evidence that was on the property. If that's the case, someone will eventually talk about what really happened, too many moving parts to keep it quiet.

I am in complete agreement that no way did Brendan have any part of it and how a jury of his peers found him guilty absolutely blows me away.

What I found extremely odd in the fact that the filmmaker didn't address is it, Brendan's confession says it occurred in the trailer, yet in Stevens case, the DA admits in his closing argument that it didn't occur in the trailer, it happened in the garage. I would think that alone would be enough to throw out his admission and find him not credible but I am in no way of lawyer.

 

[rjw615]

SPOILERS: The cat thing or the running his cousin off the road? Also what was the motive for raping and killing the autotrader lady? I kind of think he was guilty but I have my own theory on what actually happened that makes sense to me based on what was presented in the series.

Post your theory if you get a chance.

 

[Manch.]

I'm on the 4th episode and can't believe there's still 6 more. I think there was a 20/20 on this within the past couple of years because as the story gets told, I feel like I've heard it before.

 

[12Nole]

How about the cop who called in the license plate before the car was even found? Then the cop tried to claim he didn't know the tag and lawyer played back the recording with cop reading the tag number. The look on the cop's face was the biggest guilty o shit look I've ever seen.

 

[DanC78]

Post your theory if you get a chance.

Where is the blood??? What is his motive?? (other than the motive to NOT rape and kill a girl because of the 18 years he just spent in jail for no reason and the fact that he will be filthy rich very soon).

They should have investigated the brother more as well. Something doesn't seem right about his testimony.

As far as Brendan goes, no way is that kid capable of raping a girl. And again, where is the blood? There was zero DNA showing him being there whatsoever, how the jury couldn't find reasonable doubt on that alone is beyond me.

And what about the smelter and the car crusher? Steven knew how to operate both tools, and both of those tools would have more than likely kept him from being caught, especially the smelter. If I were the attorney, I would have talked to more about that, how if he had done the crime that these items (which were right there next to him) would have more than likely been used.

I dont' know man...but this doc really had me all twisted up and not happy with our legal system.

And I know documentaries are slanted, would love to know what was not shown that has the State not allowing Brendan to have another trial. There has to be more to it.

Also, to bad the documentary wasn't released before the appeal, it would have helped for sure.

 

[seminolesfan5]

Ok here's my theory and it's out there but if he's guilty that's what I think happened. (Even though I've been going back and forth since I finished the series and am actually now leaning that he didn't do it haha)

Steven for whatever reason kills the girl away from his house and transports her in the rav 4 to dump and dispose the body in the quarry. Police find the SUV and know he's the last guy to have seen her alive and they decide that he did it and they need to finally nail him because they don't like him. They convince one of his family members who also didn't like him to get the SUV and take it to the salvage yard then plant his blood. They put the key in his house and find the bones in the quarry and move them to the burn barrel unnoticed once the search of the property starts. Now they got him.

Problems with my theory: Assumes you think the police planted the evidence. Brenden admitted to seeing the remains in the burn barrel on the night she went missing (Ignoring the confession to the cops and to his niece who recanted her testimony) and if the police moved the remains he wouldn't have seen them. The family member (Or switch that with the police) had to get the SUV unknowingly on the property and hidden without the other family members seeing. The prosecution also argued that he killed her in the garage which contradicts my theory. Finally, Steven himself doesn't seem to me to be the type to commit a crime like that. Especially the cleaning up of the crime scene.

Side notes: I believe the police definitely planted the evidence. The tampered blood evidence was the thing that led me to change my viewpoint from skeptical even though they were definitely not friendly toward him at any point from 1985 onward. The cop calling in the plate was also an eye opener. He never explained why he would call in the plate except if he had found the vehicle. However, it could be possible that he saw a similar vehicle and wanted to check if it was the same car, but he didn't say that. Brenden's confession was coerced almost definitely. I do think that it did seem reasonable to suspect that if Steven had done it, Brenden had definitely seen the body or something like that. Finally, the lack of evidence of blood or anything tying Steven to the kill site at his house made me think that he killed her somewhere else.

The prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt to me regardless of if I think he was guilty or not. Their theory was thin at best and the raping and chaining to the bed had absolutely zero evidence to support it besides the coerced confession by Brenden. Those details also spoiled the jury pool. In addition to that Steven had zero motive to do this killing. He didn't really know her all that much and had already spent time in prison and hated it so much that he made sure to continue his innocence claim until he got out. Plus he, as has already been noted, was about to win a lawsuit for millions and millions.

Questions: I also agree with y'all, what else did the prosecution have that made them so confident and able to convict him? How did Steven possibly kill her in the garage and clean it without the police being able to find some trace of blood, yet they found the bullet? What other leads could they have followed as far as other suspects go? The defense suggested other leads but couldn't name names. Do the family members actually know who did it, but won't tell to protect another member of the family? Did Steven maybe not do it, but know who did and either won't give them up or even helped them commit the crime? Brenden, maybe (Another interesting possibility)? How in the hell did Brenden get convicted? Steven's case was thin but I could possibly see how he could get found guilty. But what little evidence they had against Steven was enormous compared to what they had on Brenden. Absolutely nothing besides the confession was shown.

This case has me frustrated and completely confused and mad about how the justice system worked there.

 

[QuaZ2002]

The above poster is more or less how I feel. Sure, he could have done it, but there is so much reasonable doubt. Mountains of reasonable doubt. It scares me that 12 jurors couldn't see it. That's what scares me more than anything honestly. The police had way more motive to frame him than he had to kill some innocent woman. Steven doesn't seem like a great dude by any means but he's simple and nothing about his past indicates he's a ruthless sociopath.

 

[seminolesfan5]

The above poster is more or less how I feel. Sure, he could have done it, but there is so much reasonable doubt. Mountains of reasonable doubt. It scares me that 12 jurors couldn't see it. That's what scares me more than anything honestly. The police had way more motive to frame him than he had to kill some innocent woman. Steven doesn't seem like a great dude by any means but he's simple and nothing about his past indicates he's a ruthless sociopath.

Agreed. I have to wonder if there is some kind of evidence that the show didn't say that helped convict him. The biggest thing for me is that the prosecution said she was killed in the garage and that is where as a juror I would've found the reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case regardless of possible police tampering, motives, and other circumstantial evidence. They found no blood, DNA or anything from the woman except the mashed up bullet. And that was days after they initially searched the garage and found nothing.

 

[rjw615]

One of things I found researching this was that when Steven called Auto Trader, he specifically asked for the girl that came out last time. Maybe it was because she done a good job, idk.

Also, prior to his girlfriend going to jail for a DUI, Steven and her had a domestic dispute that involved the police and was forced to have no contact for three days. Lovers quarrel? Idk, but the show made it seem like they were perfect couple so to speak.

There is no doubt in my mind that the police moved/placed evidence to secure the conviction of Steven. Just can't decide if he done or not. Like the rest, the inability to find any DNA in any of the places that the DA said it could of happened should have least made the jury find a not guilty verdict because no way that represents guilt beyond all doubt.

 

[DanC78]

One of things I found researching this was that when Steven called Auto Trader, he specifically asked for the girl that came out last time. Maybe it was because she done a good job, idk.

Also, prior to his girlfriend going to jail for a DUI, Steven and her had a domestic dispute that involved the police and was forced to have no contact for three days. Lovers quarrel? Idk, but the show made it seem like they were perfect couple so to speak.

There is no doubt in my mind that the police moved/placed evidence to secure the conviction of Steven. Just can't decide if he done or not. Like the rest, the inability to find any DNA in any of the places that the DA said it could of happened should have least made the jury find a not guilty verdict because no way that represents guilt beyond all doubt.

Yeah, let's not be mistaken to the fact that the dude is white trash (can't think of a better term even though it's harsh). DUIs and demoistic disputes are the norm for guys like that.

But murder under his circumstances, that's far ferched.

 

[HilltopperNole]

I the the ex-boyfriend of Halbach had some kind of role. What kind of ex see's his ex that much and can gues her passwords?

Also do not see anyway Brendan killed a woman and can't get a second trial, that's a shame all around.

 

[DanC78]

I the the ex-boyfriend of Halbach had some kind of role. What kind of ex see's his ex that much and can gues her passwords?

Also do not see anyway Brendan killed a woman and can't get a second trial, that's a shame all around.

Pretty sure it was her brother that guessed her password, but could be wrong.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Agreed. I have to wonder if there is some kind of evidence that the show didn't say that helped convict him. The biggest thing for me is that the prosecution said she was killed in the garage and that is where as a juror I would've found the reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case regardless of possible police tampering, motives, and other circumstantial evidence. They found no blood, DNA or anything from the woman except the mashed up bullet. And that was days after they initially searched the garage and found nothing.

There was PLENTY of evidence they didn't show, the series was as one sided as the college rape documentary because basically no one from the other side was interviewed and none of their evidence used.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

This is from the article

"— The documentary said that part of Avery’s criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn’t specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).

— Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.

— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

— The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.

— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops, there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence."

 

[seminolesfan5]

There was PLENTY of evidence they didn't show, the series was as one sided as the college rape documentary because basically no one from the other side was interviewed and none of their evidence used.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movie...-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

This is from the article

"— The documentary said that part of Avery’s criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn’t specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).

— Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.

— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

— The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.

— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he’s purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).

— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the cops, there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don’t believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence."

Interesting, thanks. They talked about the cat deal and the threatening the cousin at gunpoint in one of the early episodes. A couple things I wonder though. Dassey's confession was in March right? I get confused by the timeline. Also, why would her blood be in the car? If he transported the body, ok, but why would he do that and from where to where? Why no DNA evidence in the room or garage where this supposedly took place? What you posted certainly is a little more convincing to me that he may have done it. But I just don't know. At the very least I'd have enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty if I was on the jury. Very weird case.

 

[seminolesfan5]

Steven's guilty theory: He did it somewhere on the property, and the police planted evidence to make sure they got the charges and conviction because they couldn't prove or figure out where or how he did it.

Steven's not guilty theory: He didn't do it, someone else did, or maybe she committed suicide. Police zero in on him from the start and plant the evidence to finally get him and out of their hair.

You always hear that crimes need motive and opportunity. Certainly the opportunity is there for Steven, but an unclear, if not reversed motive not to kill someone. I just can't shake the fact that the motive and opportunity are clear in the police tampering with the case regardless of Steven's guilt. So that's why I definitely think that the police got involved with this case and did some dirty work. However I still can't rule out that Steven didn't actually kill the woman. Which is a shame for everybody involved because Steven may be innocent, or at the very least he could be guilty and the police almost (And maybe in the future, will have) interfered enough to where he wouldn't have been charged.

My fascination and experience with the criminal justice system began with watching My Cousin Vinny so take my posts with a grain of salt haha.

 

[FSUTribe76]

Interesting, thanks. They talked about the cat deal and the threatening the cousin at gunpoint in one of the early episodes. A couple things I wonder though. Dassey's confession was in March right? I get confused by the timeline. Also, why would her blood be in the car? If he transported the body, ok, but why would he do that and from where to where? Why no DNA evidence in the room or garage where this supposedly took place? What you posted certainly is a little more convincing to me that he may have done it. But I just don't know. At the very least I'd have enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty if I was on the jury. Very weird case.

As to why no DNA evidence in the garage, he could have just cleaned it thoroughly with an oxidising bleach. Regular chlorine bleach and other cleaners leaves enough blood and skin behind that dna would likely still be found, but oxidising bleach was specifically designed to eliminate blood and tissue and leaves not enough to discover. It would leave some evidence of stains but no DNA so it could just as easily be ketchup.

Really if you go in with the assumption that he's guilty rather than the assumption that he's innocent then there's plenty of evidence for his guilt even if the bullet fragment and his blood was planted. And I realize juries are "supposed" to work from innocent until proven guilty but I've seen too many trials even ones I've worked on where the judge or jury assumes the state actor is correct and will overlook suspicious evidence if they're convinced that the person actually did it.

So in his case, do I believe he actually did it? Yes, absolutely. I'm firmly convinced he did it.

Would I vote for his conviction? No because as a lawyer I understand reasonable doubt and there's pretty clear evidence of tampering by the police and therefore while I firmly believe he did it I think there is reasonable doubt because of the police activity.

Do I think that juries always vote the way I would even though they're supposed to and find him not guilty even when they're convinced he very likely did it? No. Like I said, juries screw this up all the time.

 

[QuaZ2002]

As to why no DNA evidence in the garage, he could have just cleaned it thoroughly with an oxidising bleach. Regular chlorine bleach and other cleaners leaves enough blood and skin behind that dna would likely still be found, but oxidising bleach was specifically designed to eliminate blood and tissue and leaves not enough to discover. It would leave some evidence of stains but no DNA so it could just as easily be ketchup.

Really if you go in with the assumption that he's guilty rather than the assumption that he's innocent then there's plenty of evidence for his guilt even if the bullet fragment and his blood was planted. And I realize juries are "supposed" to work from innocent until proven guilty but I've seen too many trials even ones I've worked on where the judge or jury assumes the state actor is correct and will overlook suspicious evidence if they're convinced that the person actually did it.

So in his case, do I believe he actually did it? Yes, absolutely. I'm firmly convinced he did it.

Would I vote for his conviction? No because as a lawyer I understand reasonable doubt and there's pretty clear evidence of tampering by the police and therefore while I firmly believe he did it I think there is reasonable doubt because of the police activity.

Do I think that juries always vote the way I would even though they're supposed to and find him not guilty even when they're convinced he very likely dos it? No. Like I said, juries screw this up all the time.

Sure he could have cleaned it, but did you see that garage? Unless he was somehow able to contain all the blood splatters to a small area (possible) it would be nearly impossible to clean it completely so that there was no evidence whatsoever. There was also her own blood in the trunk of the RAV4 which wouldn't make sense if he killed her in the garage. He definitely could have done it somewhere else on the property but I don't know. It is interesting that he had an obsession of sorts with her.