Posted on 12/24/2015 5:28:10 AM PST by stylecouncilor
"Making a Murderer," Netflix's new true-crime documentary, is as unnerving as it is addictive, in part because it is so addictive.
Over the course of 10 hours. writers-directors Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos tell the story of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man who served 18 years for a sexual assault he did not commit before being exonerated by DNA evidence. Then, just as he prepared to sue the county and police department that had put him in jail in the first place, Avery was accused and later convicted of a horrific kidnapping and murder that he insists he did not commit.
With painstaking, and often painful, detail, "Making a Murderer" reconstructs how all of this came to pass. What emerges, at least from the four hours Netflix made available, is a disturbing portrait of tribal politics in small-town America and a chilling reminder that the criminal justice system has many more sides than scripted television's carefully curated tales of "law and order."
(Excerpt) Read more at charlotteobserver.com ...
Sad story, looks like. Avery was not bright to begin with, comes from what we think of as white trash. He had a few petty crimes, but nothing that would make one think he could resort to rape or murder.
But then, he had to survive prison for 18 years. That will destroy anyone. Never be the same.
Interesting. Thanks.
Setting a cat on fire, which he did, tells me he was more or less guaranteed to become a rapist and a murderer.
“Prior behavior can, and should be, considered at sentencing.”
I certainly agree there...but this was more about establishing guilt.
I’ll check it out. Thanks.
DNA proved another man was the one guilty of the rape.
I have seen the documentary.
The victim was interviewed when it came to light that Avery was innocent. The victim seemed sincere when she realized he was innocent and had been charged for a crime he did not commit.
The guilty man (DNA proof) looked very much like Avery.
Avery is mildly handicapped ~ 70 IQ
The documentary portrays law enforcement as out to get the Averys; even deliberately out to get Avery. The facts (actual interviews, etc) shown in this film are convincing.
Interesting series.
I saw it and it was a kangaroo court on Steve. White man’s life mattered.
I admitted they are white trash. But the cat incident didn’t occur as a child, where you see a child progressing through levels of torture. He was an adult, drinking with some buddies, doing white trash sorts of things.
Ok, progressed through episode 3 and am now clearly on the reasonable (more than reasonable) doubt bench. If I were on the jury, and I saw two things, I would not be able to convict.
Manitowoc police said they called in another department to search the Avery property; that they did not participate in that search other than to provide tools when requested. But, during the grand jury testimony about the key to the Rav being found in Steve’s room, you find out that the room had been searched and NOTHING was found. But, suddenly after two Manitowoc police officers go into the room, this key is “discovered” in almost plain sight.
Q: Why didn’t you find it on the first search?
A: Because it wasn’t there.
And, the confession of the nephew was clearly coerced. What happened to her head? Um, he cut her hair? Finally resorting to:
Q: Who shot her?
A: I did.
Q: How come you didn’t tell us before.
A: Because I just remembered...
Seriously? No way I could convict.
And, agreed, they own a salvage yard. That vehicle would have been gone before anyone knew the girl was missing.
Your logic is so weak as to be unbelievable. Based on your very strained logic, it’s possible you committed the crime.
And, yes, it is technically possible that I committed the crime. But given the available evidence, the likelihood that I did is so vanishingly small that the reasonable doubt standard cannot be met.
In many criminal cases, the defense's argument is precisely this: that it is possible for there to be an enormous amount of other potential suspects.
I just finished watching the first episode. The local police department, a few sheriff’s deputies, and others told the sheriff and prosecutor they had the wrong guy, and Avery had an ironclad alibi with over 20 witnesses.
The guy who actually committed the crime had a history ofsexual assaults and later raped two other women. The courts refused his appeals or grant a new trial even when the DNA excluded him.
The courts are justice system is corrupt and they would rather an innocent man stay in prisonrather than admit their wrongdoing.
Just binge watched this doc and here are my observations:
1) the video was probably slanted toward the defense, but presented enough reasonable doubt that it’s difficult to see how there was a conviction for Steve or Branden.
2) I thank God I do not live in an small town. When everyone knows everyone else, it’s easy for good Ole boy syndrome to be used to convict someone of a crime they didn’t commit. It happened to Avery at his first trial and probably happened at the second one, too.
Yeah, that bothered me, too. Typically animal abusers go on to bigger crimes. But in this case, it seemed like Avery was an immature, influenced 18 year old who was at a party and threw the cat into the bonfire.. which is beyond reprehensible, but could be construed as a spur of the moment lack of judgment for a person with 70 IQ verses someone who intentionally ignites an animal on fire.
I’m NOT excusing what he did in any way or dismissing it. But watching the video you can tell he wasn’t all there. And over the 10 years of filming, he seemed childlike and meek, not aggressive and evil.
There seems to be two major opinions developing from the popularity of this documentary; first that Avery is innocent, or secondly that the prosecution did not prove it's case.
I tend to fall in the latter group. Many of the circumstances point to Avery as the killer, but the manner and scope of the evidence is so suspect that it's very difficult to get a clear picture of what truly happened. I believe that Avery was confronted by the police with so much false information, speculation, and manufactured evidence that he had a good idea that they couldn't prove their case.
The most interesting piece of evidence, that is rarely mentioned in reviews and discussions, is Ms. Halbach's blood found in the back of the SUV. Yet, the prosecution and police pretty much tried to force the story that she was killed in either Avery's trailer or garage, and neither of those scenario's appears to be true.
Here’s where it ends with me. The RAV 4 key was not found during days of searching the Avery property. The Calumet deputy says it on the stand: “The key was not there”. Then the two Montowac investigators, who’s very livelihoods are possibly on the line for the Avery civil suit, gain access to the room, and what do you know, the key is suddenly there. Give me a break.
I’m trying to understand something here. According to Brendan, all kinds of things were done to this poor woman, including slitting her throat. I’ve seen enough forensic shows to think that there should have been blood all over. Even if they tried to clean it up, there is always some blood or evidence of the crime somewhere.
Did I miss something or did this not come up in the defense’s argument at all?
I saw a show about the murder years ago and came into this thinking Avery did it. I didn’t remember anything about the nephew.
Now I’m not so sure. The car key fob just shows up in plain sight after days (days??) of searching? There’s a hole in the blood sample stopper? You’ve got a low intellect kid who is coerced into a confession by the police, apparently with the help of his own lawyer?
I wasn’t a criminal lawyer, but I was a lawyer and even in my civil law mind, all of this looks iffy on one level and absolutely unconstitutional on another. Considering the tape of Brendan’s interview with the police and the guy hired by the lawyer, I don’t know why Brendan was denied a new trial. That seems the least the judge could have done.
I went into this thinking I had it figured out and that there was going to be a lot of pro-criminal bias, now I have questions, certainly about the nephew’s culpability, if not Avery’s.
I have so many questions about this case after watching the whole documentary...the biggest issue for me is that every American should be given a fair trial and that clearly didn’t happen in this case, which taints the system for everyone!
-Time frame issues jump out all over the place - the brother-in-law and the other nephew (Bobby) who basically gave each other alibis but said the Rav4 driven by Theresa was gone by 2:45 are completely contradicted by the school bus driver who said she saw a woman taking pictures when she dropped off kids around 3:30-3:40. Was Brenden on that bus? Did anyone on his defense team ask what time he got home from school?
- Is it possible that someone else in the family (Bobby?) was involved and told Brenden some of the stuff he recounted but told him to say Steven did it? He is so incredibly confused and easily led that nothing he says should have been admissible.
- What about the deleted voice mails from her phone? Her brother was very bizarre - even in the very first press conference about her disappearance he seemed to act as if he knew she was dead. What about the roommate and the ex-boyfriend? Sounds like no one even interviewed them...and the cousin who found the Rav4 was not believable at all. Wish the defense attorneys would have pushed her harder on why she went to that specific area, especially in light of the time sheet showing Lenk was on scene hours before he admitted it.
- The phone call from Officer Coburn to the dispatcher regarding the license plate days before the car was ever found was another really odd thing. I would have expected a lot more questions regarding that whole conversation.
- Finally, the jury count was puzzling. How did it go from seven people leaning not guilty to a unanimous conviction? Were the other jurors, besides the one who was excused, ever interviewed?
I hate to think that police and prosecutors could do the things that this case implies but it does happen(read It Is Not About the Truth regarding the Duke Lacrosse rape case)...if they thought Steven was guilty, or if they were just worried about the pending lawsuit, they might have felt justified in doing whatever it took to ensure a conviction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.