Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'Making a Murderer' on Netflix


ploppy

Recommended Posts

I thought this might already exist here, maybe it does and I missed it.

Anyway I'm sure a few people here have heard of the Netflix series that is making the rounds in news and media - Making a Murderer. I was unaware of the entire affair and while I'm glad that it's out there now and the episodes are showing as much as they are, it is causing a feeling of bleakness and utter rage.

Now it's a given that there will be elements of the actual truth, not included in the Netflix series as it runs, but so far what I have seen that is factual is shocking. All the violations of legal protocols, be it interrogation, investigation, coercing or even the basics of forensic examination are so apparent that they don't even need someone telling you why and yet the Judge and the Jury involved in this murder case are completely and utterly blind and moronic. Bah.

I'll stop my ranting there but is anyone else watching this or have any thoughts?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched a few episodes but quickly became bored with it.

To my understanding, there are many things left out of the documentary that cast doubt on his innocence. Of the murder, not the rape.

If anything, it's a great example of sloppy and corrupt police work, though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It is a great watch. I watched it all over the last couple of days.

It is a very compelling case, and hope more folks watch it, so we can discuss it here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for all the hype its getting, it is a bit over-rated. It is good watch though, and will get ya thinking about things. I just finished the series last night and here is a quick review for you.

There are 10 episodes and the first half is really compelling and does suck you into the mystery. I found myself flip flopping between thinking the main protagonist is guilty or innocent. It gets really really interesting around episode 4.

The trial in episodes 6 and 7 start to get a bit boring. I think they were trying to induce suspense and drama, but I think they failed a bit. Episodes 8 and 9 deal with a separate trial and again it doesn't grab you like earlier in the series. Episode 10 was a kind of "where are they now" and while its interesting the show seems to have reached its climax back in episode 4.

Having said that, the real cool part about the show is that you can continue the narrative by your own water cooler at work with fellow employees, or on online forums and facebook, and discuss the evidence and the theories and keep the spirit of the show alive. Its definitely a good watch, and if you are a true crime buff, it will be interesting all the way through

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of us that might be unaware of what this is about..

Season one of Making of a Murderer is about a case that happened in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. It's about Steven Avery. At 18 in 1981 he was convicted of burglary and served a few months. In 1982 he burned a cat alive for fun and served more time. In 1985 at 23, he was convicted for assaulting his first cousin who was a sheriffs wife. He was also convicted for felony possessing firearms.. and he was also convicted for raping Penny Beerntsen in the same year. He served 18 years in consecutive sentences for various charges related to those crimes, then released as innocent of the Penny Beerntsen rape in 2003 due to DNA evidence pointing to someone else. Then in 2007 he was convicted for the rape, murder, and mutilation of Teresa Halbach in 2005, and is still in jail for it. His nephew was also found to be an accomplice to the crime, and is also serving time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have Netflix, but heard of this case some time ago. I think he is definitely guilty. I have no tolerance for police misconduct, but it would take a wild conspiracy of many to explain away the actual evidence of guilt here. but we in the forum know, a tv show about a case should just be the start of your search for the truth. I might go back and reread the articles I read several years ago...but I am pretty certain he is where he belongs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched all the episodes, and it raised some doubts, but as some already said, selective editing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing that I've seen in the documentary or tidbits I've read externally have convinced me he's guilty, but they do lean more to the side of at least possibly innocent.

I haven't seen anyone say why they think he's guilty either =/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have Netflix, but heard of this case some time ago. I think he is definitely guilty. I have no tolerance for police misconduct, but it would take a wild conspiracy of many to explain away the actual evidence of guilt here. but we in the forum know, a tv show about a case should just be the start of your search for the truth. I might go back and reread the articles I read several years ago...but I am pretty certain he is where he belongs.

I watched all the episodes. As I said before, it's very compelling to watch.

However, after I watched it all, I took to the web and looked for the counterpoints to the documentary. There were enough small facts left out of the documentary that are pretty hard to explain. Enough for me to think they definitely got the right people in jail.

I do feel, however, there was some sort of shenanigans with the local Sheriff's deputies. I do believe they may have tampered with some of the evidence to help bolster a conviction. Ultimately, I still think they got the right guys...but the police/justice of it all is suspect. Incidentally, I think the same sort of thing happened in the OJ Simpson case. He was the murderer, but some evidence may have been planted to 'ensure a conviction'.

The filmmakers goal was to make gripping television, and I think that was certainly achieved.

Just watch it with an open mind, but also open enough to realize there is another side to the narrative they are putting out.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched all the episodes. As I said before, it's very compelling to watch.

However, after I watched it all, I took to the web and looked for the counterpoints to the documentary. There were enough small facts left out of the documentary that are pretty hard to explain. Enough for me to think they definitely got the right people in jail.

I do feel, however, there was some sort of shenanigans with the local Sheriff's deputies. I do believe they may have tampered with some of the evidence to help bolster a conviction. Ultimately, I still think they got the right guys...but the police/justice of it all is suspect. Incidentally, I think the same sort of thing happened in the OJ Simpson case. He was the murderer, but some evidence may have been planted to 'ensure a conviction'.

The filmmakers goal was to make gripping television, and I think that was certainly achieved.

Just watch it with an open mind, but also open enough to realize there is another side to the narrative they are putting out.

Did they bring up his past convictions for sexual assault and animal cruelty?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing that I've seen in the documentary or tidbits I've read externally have convinced me he's guilty, but they do lean more to the side of at least possibly innocent.

I haven't seen anyone say why they think he's guilty either =/

nancy grace seems convinced. I am not a fan of hers but she makes a compelling case in her interviews on the case. It's hard to listen to the screeching witch, but what she says about it rings a bell for me. I remember some of what she says,. I mean he is hardly a boy scout. Ask the cat he burned alive or the cousin he attacked. I think past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. The other thing that bothers me about the coverage...people keep talking about the $36 million he is suing the county and state I assume for. Well you can ask for billion, but when you sue the government the laws dictate what you get. Its call sovereign immunity...the old saying, you cannot sue the king unless the king says you can. That applies to states, counties and cities. Not sure the state of Wisconsin law is, but doubt he would ever see anywhere close to $36 million even if some jury were to award it. In some states you have no right to sue at all, some have limits and in some cases the state legislature has to compensate the wrongfully imprisoned. So that is the weakest part of the argument. The police would have to have killed this woman themselves, or been the luckiest framers in the world, that the day this woman is murdered she meets with this man. Also he called her three times hiding his number *67 trying to get her back out to his place. her burned bones were found in his lot. Her car found on his lot. His DNA in her car and under the hood. I would say that is pretty convincing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they bring up his past convictions for sexual assault and animal cruelty?

Nothing about his past convictions for sexual assault. They did mention the animal cruelty, a few burglaries, and his confrontation with his cousin.

They tend to paint Avery as just a dopey guy who was a bad boy in his younger days....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nancy grace seems convinced. I am not a fan of hers but she makes a compelling case in her interviews on the case. It's hard to listen to the screeching witch, but what she says about it rings a bell for me. I remember some of what she says,. I mean he is hardly a boy scout. Ask the cat he burned alive or the cousin he attacked. I think past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. The other thing that bothers me about the coverage...people keep talking about the $36 million he is suing the county and state I assume for. Well you can ask for billion, but when you sue the government the laws dictate what you get. Its call sovereign immunity...the old saying, you cannot sue the king unless the king says you can. That applies to states, counties and cities. Not sure the state of Wisconsin law is, but doubt he would ever see anywhere close to $36 million even if some jury were to award it. In some states you have no right to sue at all, some have limits and in some cases the state legislature has to compensate the wrongfully imprisoned. So that is the weakest part of the argument. The police would have to have killed this woman themselves, or been the luckiest framers in the world, that the day this woman is murdered she meets with this man. Also he called her three times hiding his number *67 trying to get her back out to his place. her burned bones were found in his lot. Her car found on his lot. His DNA in her car and under the hood. I would say that is pretty convincing.

Other things on the show they didn't mention were the DNA under the car hood, or how Branden Dassey had said that they had put the victims car in the garage and he claims Avery lifted the hood to disconnect the battery cable. He also claimed (on the longer form of his interrogation) that they put the body in the back of the car (where her blood was definitely found) and used it to drive it to the burn pit.

Or the other anecdote of when Theresa (the photographer) had shown up at Avery's place on a previous visit, he answered the door in nothing but a towel. He would call and ask for her to come out personally.

I think Avery was ready for her visit. He may have already had plastic put down in his bedroom and in his garage, which would explain the lack of DNA evidence they found of her in those places...OR, he killed her somewhere else, but there seems to be an awful lot of weirdness that he cannot explain.

There was also some sort of 'sex dungeon' he allegedly designed during his previous jail term, again, never mentioned on the show. I suppose it could be considered irrelevant to the actual case, but it's just another in a long list of things that point to this guy's character.

I actually feel sorry for this guys' Parents. They are ornery old folks, with not a lot of grace about them, but I do believe they honestly think their son could do no wrong, and he's been playing them as fools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilty or not, he deserves a retrial (in another state or the such) ASAP.

Out of curiosity, what makes you think this? The TV series, the conversation here, or due to actual facts of the investigation and court case itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, Brendan Dassey had his civil rights violated. He should have been better protected. That being said, his should be tossed.

Judging by the program only, the defense provided enough reasonable doubt to return a not guilty verdict. I am not saying he isn't guilty, however, if things went the way Brendan described, there would have been blood everywhere in that trailer. I also do not believe a conspiracy/frame up job was done. There was a plethora of opportunities for that, however, that is absolutely unfounded. I believe portions of the investigation were tainted, but to throw said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, Brendan Dassey had his civil rights violated. He should have been better protected. That being said, his should be tossed.

Judging by the program only, the defense provided enough reasonable doubt to return a not guilty verdict. I am not saying he isn't guilty, however, if things went the way Brendan described, there would have been blood everywhere in that trailer. I also do not believe a conspiracy/frame up job was done. There was a plethora of opportunities for that, however, that is absolutely unfounded. I believe portions of the investigation were tainted, but to throw said

I agree, the lack of blood evidence is a tough one. However, the fact that Dassey admitted to 'cleaning the garage' and then 'having a bonfire', on the very same night the gal was murdered, in the very place where it's claimed she was murdered (the garage) and finding her remains in the very spot they were having a bonfire are two huge red flags.

In addition, his mom asked what had happened to his jeans that night after he returned, as they had bleach stains....His reply "they were cleaning the garage'.

With bleach?

The more I look into the case, the more I'm convinced of their guilt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the lack of blood evidence is a tough one. However, the fact that Dassey admitted to 'cleaning the garage' and then 'having a bonfire', on the very same night the gal was murdered, in the very place where it's claimed she was murdered (the garage) and finding her remains in the very spot they were having a bonfire are two huge red flags.

In addition, his mom asked what had happened to his jeans that night after he returned, as they had bleach stains....His reply "they were cleaning the garage'.

With bleach?

The more I look into the case, the more I'm convinced of their guilt.

The young man just was in a situation that he couldn't get out of. I do not, for one minute, feel as though cleaning the garage with bleach, which could not have been done without evidence of such, would clean up that amount of blood. I think he was an unwitting accomplice who was an attempt at an alibi by Avery. I still remain staunch in my opinion that the boy was confused and just said what he thought they wanted to hear. His rights were violated, not only by the police but by his own attorney.

If the incident occurred as the state theorized, there would be blood evidence everywhere. Not to find any blood in that junk pile wood be impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The young man just was in a situation that he couldn't get out of. I do not, for one minute, feel as though cleaning the garage with bleach, which could not have been done without evidence of such, would clean up that amount of blood. I think he was an unwitting accomplice who was an attempt at an alibi by Avery. I still remain staunch in my opinion that the boy was confused and just said what he thought they wanted to hear. His rights were violated, not only by the police but by his own attorney.

Basically, I agree with you and by agreeing I don't mean that it's a factor in Avery's innocence. It's just that they should have known by then that they had a strong case against Avery and they should have wanted to protect that case. It was beyond stupid to interrogate him, a juvenile and on top of that intellectually challenged, without his attorney present. But that's on the Sherriff's office. I have another question and it's to the Prosecutor's, why on earth would they present that testimony at trial ? It's not as if they didn't have other strong evidence, really more than enough to make their case. So they get so excited about nailing him, they hand him a matter for appeal on a platter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, I agree with you and by agreeing I don't mean that it's a factor in Avery's innocence. It's just that they should have known by then that they had a strong case against Avery and they should have wanted to protect that case. It was beyond stupid to interrogate him, a juvenile and on top of that intellectually challenged, without his attorney present. But that's on the Sherriff's office. I have another question and it's to the Prosecutor's, why on earth would they present that testimony at trial ? It's not as if they didn't have other strong evidence, really more than enough to make their case. So they get so excited about nailing him, they hand him a matter for appeal on a platter.

I am unsure of Avery's innocence. I do not think he had the intelligence to commit, coverup, and destroy the evidence. That being said, once the "monster" inside, takes over, anything is plausible. Everyone from the investigators all the way up played a very dangerous and risky game with two people's lives.

I am an advocate of the Constitution and in Brandon's case, he truly was manipulated. Even he is guilty of the crime, or any parts of it, he was prosecuted with malice and they did not play by the rules. Brandon needs to be in a hospital and treated for the trauma he has experienced. He then needs to be reevaluated to see if he truly was capable, at the time, of being a willing participant in the commission of this or any related crime, Brandon is going to have severe trust issues and that is because the state and his own lawyer have violated that blind trust.

My heart goes out to the Dassey family who have, because of ignorance, been violated and stripped of their son based on the ignorance of the family. The justice system works most of the time, however, this case is a glaring example of the ineptitude and dirty game of prosecutions with agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think he's totally innocent. There was just way to many coincidences with the timing of his law suit ect. Ive heard the counter arguments not in the documentary, and also the evidence that would have helped him, also not in the documentary. He was about to bury a lot of high profile, powerful people in that community. I think she either killed herself, and the cops set it up after that, or the cops killed her and set it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, the lack of blood evidence is a tough one. However, the fact that Dassey admitted to 'cleaning the garage' and then 'having a bonfire', on the very same night the gal was murdered, in the very place where it's claimed she was murdered (the garage) and finding her remains in the very spot they were having a bonfire are two huge red flags.

In addition, his mom asked what had happened to his jeans that night after he returned, as they had bleach stains....His reply "they were cleaning the garage'.

With bleach?

The more I look into the case, the more I'm convinced of their guilt.

Where did you see that? That garage clearly wasn't cleaned, ever. No way these guys could remove all her DNA from that scene after shooting her in the head. That would have made an amazing mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final thing that did it for me was the recording of that cop calling in her plate number 2 days before they found the vehicle. That gave me chills.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final thing that did it for me was the recording of that cop calling in her plate number 2 days before they found the vehicle. That gave me chills.

Agreed. That was never explained.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.