Making a Murderer

TCPUKChamps

Active member
Dec 18, 2002
37,795
542
62
Yeah, I mean looking at common sense, there's no way he did it.

Much less, every other GD thing that happened at the trial.

Root of the cause - He has ZERO reason to do it. Is Common Sense that much of a novelty these days? Those jurors can all get pumped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wildcatadam6

ukfan606

New member
Oct 27, 2007
6,604
459
0
Just finished note to self stay the hell out of Wisconsin. Thanks to this thread for talking about this well worth watching.
 

anthonys735

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2004
62,535
7,065
113
I'm not saying he didn't, because I'm conflicted which makes the series great, but I don't think common sense in this case applies on either side.

The evidence was there, it just didn't make sense. Only blood was in her car. Obviously nothing happened in the trailer. Can't imagine her being shot in the garage. The whole thing is weird.

The Brennan stuff is just appalling. I'm 50% sure Avery killed her. I'm 95% Brennan had nothing to do with it.
 

DAM_rivals311714

New member
Sep 20, 2001
2,516
76
0
just started watching with the wife tonight because of this thread. 3 episodes in. I hate tv shows. She loves crime shows and whatnot, CSI and the like. This **** actually happened... making it much more appealing. Definitely will have it finished by the end of the weekend hopefully. Really hope it comes to some sort of closure. I ****in hate stories having an open ending for interpretation. I hate having to figure out my own story.
So you hate tv shows...don't watch tv. You used the word **** which should get you banned. Definitely and hopefully and kinda contradictory, don't ya think? I can see why you hate figuring out your own endings...You really are a f--king tool
 

mashburned

New member
Mar 10, 2009
40,283
18,584
0
Are some of these crooked cops in jail now? This thing all wrapped up? On ep 4 but I might start googling here soon.

Why didn't they kill Avery?

This Brendan stuff is hard to believe. How in the hell is anybody not helping him? It's unreal. I mean, everybody is fn this special needs child and nobody is saying a damn word.
 

Catfan in Tn.

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2005
22,669
1,738
97
So did you believe Brendans orginal testimony, cocerced as it was, or his denying he knew anything?
 

Ukbrassowtipin

New member
Aug 12, 2011
82,101
3,039
0
So did you believe Brendans orginal testimony, cocerced as it was, or his denying he knew anything?
Well the same thing happened with the west memphis 3 and the below avg intelligence kid. So my guess is he was coerced. Again, he may know something, but not the way he confessed....plus he was at his house with his mom at the time contrary from the confession they used.

Plus, if all police use this tactic of a confession is more important than the truth and not recognizing they aren't necessarily one in the same...that's an absolute joke.
 

mashburned

New member
Mar 10, 2009
40,283
18,584
0
He wasn't that self aware. He liked cats and wrestling. About it. Media asked Steve if Brendan was smart, and he said no, not really. Those were headlines and Brebdans mom asked if he had seen that stuff in the media yet, and if not, he would see it soon. Told him it was good for him. So, Brendan reads/sees that (yea...moms right, this is good...I'm just stupid, idk. I wanna go home), and parrots it back. He didn't come up with that on his own. Just like he didn't com up with the confession on his own. Poor kid had no idea what was happening. I still can't believe there wasn't one adult fitting for him. Not even the real good lawyers.

Also, there's so much to this we don't know, and will never know. I would love to see an actual documentary on it. This for profit drama **** is garbage. I assume/hope all profits from this are going to retrials?
 

55wildcat

Well-known member
Jan 4, 2006
33,689
14,681
113
i finished today..Hard to believe that so many things were simple black and white yet nothing could be done..Had that man not filed lawsuit ,he may have been home now. How could anybody (based on what was shown in documentary) not see this was a set up by somebody..
 
  • Like
Reactions: JasonSpear

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
Finally finished the series earlier this evening. I wanted to avoid any discussions about it until I saw how things played out. Doing what I do for a living, I'm not at all surprised by the outcome. That's just the reality of the criminal justice system at this point.

Reading through the comments in this thread, though, one thing really jumps out at me:

Lots of you are saying things like, "Thanks for the warning about Wisconsin! Place is F'd. I'll steer clear!"

I hope everyone understands that the same kind of gross law enforcement misconduct occurs in communities across the country. And if anyone dares to question the powers that be, be it a defendant, an attorney, a media outlet, as one of the prosecutors said in the documentary: "He does so at his own peril."

To me, it was unethical for the prosecutor to make that kind of public comment about a pending case. More troubling, though, is that it doesn't require a huge leap in logic to interpret his comment as a threat against a participant in a legal proceeding, either Avery himself or his attorneys. If so, that would be constitute a felony under Wisconsin law or the law of any other state for that matter.

Regardless, this is the world we live in. Prosecutions aren't an even playing field, and prosecutors often abandon their ethical obligation to seek justice in favor of doing whatever necessary to secure a conviction. To me, this reality is the single biggest problem we have in our system today.

At the very least, I hope the story makes people realize that it's absolutely essential for our society to ensure that everyone, rich or poor, has adequate counsel when accused of a crime. When you're dealing with people who have the full resources of the government, it's never a fair fight. That's especially true when those same people insist that they "know" exactly what happened despite the circumstances, the evidence, and everything else right there in front of them.

I'll step down off my soap box, but I do want to take this opportunity to point out just how wrong Chief was a few years back in GYERO when we were talking about the kinds of compensation available to wrongfully convicted people. I think we were talking about a Dateline episode involving a guy from St. Louis. BBdK might remember. Anyway, it doesn't matter. He was completely wrong, per usual.

/gyeroneverforgets

The point is that, as you saw in this documentary, there's very little money out there in most states to people like Avery who are eventually exonerated. There are a few exceptions, like New York, but the vast majority of our country hasn't extended those same protections for a variety of reasons. And, for those same reasons, it's almost impossible to get any legislature to take action.

Like Avery's trial attorney said at one point in the documentary, you can only ever hope to get your liberty back. The rest? It's gone forever.
 
Mar 23, 2012
23,493
1,384
0
Episode 6, damn, apparently planting bullet evidence, being told the results you have to find, contaminating the DNA evidence, then breaking protocol and not reporting it. This was the only evidence they had (at this point in the series) putting Teresa in the garage or trailer, none of the other evidence proves she was in the garage or trailer, yet the DNA lady refuses to state that they had no evidence putting her there.

If this woman was shot so many times with a shotgun in the garage or trailer, where's the blood? I've bled more from a paper cut than the amount of blood I have seen tested thus far.
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
I believe Avery killed the woman, and if it wasn't him it was one of his relatives. She never left the property that day.

Having said that, with what we saw granted it was slanted to put him in the best light, there was reasonable doubt.
 

GYERater

New member
Jul 19, 2012
2,489
531
0
I literally think there is 0% chance Avery did it, why go through all of the trouble of disposing of the body but put a few limbs on a car when you work at a salvage yard and have access to a car crusher and any other piece of equipment you need to disassemble the thing. If anything the limbs bring attention to the vehicle (what the cops wanted). Granted Avery is not the sharpest individual but if did do it and was able to get rid of all other DNA evidence other than the suspicious bullet found 4 months after the fact you would think the vehicle would have been pretty easy for him to crush and put in some pile where it would be almost impossible to find. Not parked in plain view for whatever person going a search to walk in and see within 30 minutes.
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
I literally think there is 0% chance Avery did it, why go through all of the trouble of disposing of the body but put a few limbs on a car when you work at a salvage yard and have access to a car crusher and any other piece of equipment you need to disassemble the thing. If anything the limbs bring attention to the vehicle (what the cops wanted). Granted Avery is not the sharpest individual but if did do it and was able to get rid of all other DNA evidence other than the suspicious bullet found 4 months after the fact you would think the vehicle would have been pretty easy for him to crush and put in some pile where it would be almost impossible to find. Not parked in plain view for whatever person going a search to walk in and see within 30 minutes.

So you're saying someone killed the girl after she left. Drove the car back into the junkyard, burned her in the quarry, and then knew Avery had a bonfire the night she disappeared and scattered her in that pit right behind his trailer? And no one saw these people slip in and do it?

She never left the Avery compound that day
 
  • Like
Reactions: wcc31

etowncatfan

New member
Jan 3, 2003
15,479
459
0
So you're saying someone killed the girl after she left. Drove the car back into the junkyard, burned her in the quarry, and then knew Avery had a bonfire the night she disappeared and scattered her in that pit right behind his trailer? And no one saw these people slip in and do it?

She never left the Avery compound that day
Yes I believe that myself
Motive for the Sheriff Dept.......They were going to be liable up to 36 million dollars possibly not covered by their insurance
Car keys and Bullet show up after the 5th search by the found by the crooked sheriff dept who were told to stay away from the search.
Car keys only had Avery's DNA shows that they had been scrubbed
You don't leave the car to be found
Where's the Blood??


The other angle is which Avery family member killed her to frame Steven. In that regard they could come and go on the property and no one would be suspicious.

I do believe there are a lot of cobwebs and stories that have never been told about the Avery Family Tree.

The one I am most haunted by is the story of Brenden.. How can you not watch this and not have pity for the poor kid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JasonSpear

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
Yes I believe that myself
Motive for the Sheriff Dept.......They were going to be liable up to 36 million dollars possibly not covered by their insurance
Car keys and Bullet show up after the 5th search by the found by the crooked sheriff dept who were told to stay away from the search.
Car keys only had Avery's DNA shows that they had been scrubbed
You don't leave the car to be found
Where's the Blood??


The other angle is which Avery family member killed her to frame Steven. In that regard they could come and go on the property and no one would be suspicious.

I do believe there are a lot of cobwebs and stories that have never been told about the Avery Family Tree.

The one I am most haunted by is the story of Brenden.. How can you not watch this and not have pity for the poor kid.

The police didn't kill her, they did botch up the investigation, and looked very unprofessional.

The girl never left the property that day, possibly another family member killed her, but they all had alibi's. We never once heard Stevens alibi, we heard the defense breakdown everyone else's, but never Stevens. That leads me to believe he didn't have one.

The show was made to make Steven look as good as possible, we've got to understand there's 2 sides to the story, and we only heard the evidence supporting Abery's point of view.

I feel awful for Brendan, he deserves a retrial.
 

anthonys735

Well-known member
Jan 29, 2004
62,535
7,065
113
I have plenty of doubt that Avery did it but I don't think it's 0%. I think I said earlier it was 50/50.

Not sure I agree on the her never leaving. Several entrances to 47 acre junkyard. Would have been easy to pull a car in during the dead of night.

The fact she was in the car after being shot leads me to think she died away from the land or somewhere other than the small are where Steven lived.
 

etowncatfan

New member
Jan 3, 2003
15,479
459
0
Both times it seems the police looked st only Steven Avery and no other possible suspects. You wonder why
 

GYERater

New member
Jul 19, 2012
2,489
531
0
So you're saying someone killed the girl after she left. Drove the car back into the junkyard, burned her in the quarry, and then knew Avery had a bonfire the night she disappeared and scattered her in that pit right behind his trailer? And no one saw these people slip in and do it?

Yup, the salvage yard is a fairly large area with at least 2 back entrances that arent close to the living areas. Not that difficult to pull off. Avery also had a burn pit, bonfires were a pretty regular occurrence. Maybe the original line of thinking was to just make the body disappear and put the Rav 4 on the property and rely on circumstantial evidence with the blood in the car. Maybe the bonfire that night made them change their plans, they had what? 4-5 days to get things sorted out and everything on the property before it was discovered. It not like they had to do everything that night, there was plenty of time.

Plus I dont know, there wasnt a single piece of DNA evidence found in the garage or house. This (planted) bullet in the garage found in March with her DNA so they jackhammer the garage and search the objects in the area and dont find another piece of her DNA anywhere, ok makes sense.
 

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
One thing that confused the hell out of me:

During his trial, the judge prohibited Avery's attorneys from mentioning any alternative suspect by name other than Brendan. That's inappropriate, and it deprived Avery of his right to present a defense.

I assume that's why Avery's defense attorneys didn't focus more on his other relatives who had access and opportunity to commit the crime on or near his property. It's also most likely the reason that there wasn't more attention paid to the ex-boyfriend and roommate.

Of course, it's pretty tough to point the finger at other suspects when the police never actually investigated anyone other than Avery. Regardless, the judge's ruling ensured that Avery's lawyers couldn't even criticize the police for failing to do their jobs in the context of suggesting that someone might be responsible for the murder. The judge shut that down before it even started. That's completely wrong, and it should've resulted in a new trial.

But, obviously, Wisconsin had no intention of ever allowing that to happen.
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
I have plenty of doubt that Avery did it but I don't think it's 0%. I think I said earlier it was 50/50.

Not sure I agree on the her never leaving. Several entrances to 47 acre junkyard. Would have been easy to pull a car in during the dead of night.

The fact she was in the car after being shot leads me to think she died away from the land or somewhere other than the small are where Steven lived.

The car was found not too far from Averys house in comparison to the rest of the junkyard.

The junkyard was the family's income, having ways in and out where people could come in and steal parts doesn't seem likely. All junkyards I've been to have the entrance right by the main office, either they pull the part for you, or you check in and go pull the part. Not to mention several families lived on the premises.

Avery has 2 sides and one is very dark by reading his letters and past actions.

I don't think she was killed in his house or garage, my guess is it was at the quarry which wasn't talked about much in the show. I'd also like to know when the pic of the cut on his hand was taken.
 

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
The junkyard was the family's income, having ways in and out where people could come in and steal parts doesn't seem likely. All junkyards I've been to have the entrance right by the main office, either they pull the part for you, or you check in and go pull the part. Not to mention several families lived on the premises.

This is a good example of why it's silly for any of us playing juror to say that we're completely convinced of Avery's guilt or innocence based only on watching the documentary. We know very little about how this particular junkyard operated because we're not privy to all of the evidence presented at trial.

Instead, you're filling in the blanks with anecdotal evidence from your own experiences and jumping to conclusions.

Besides, in my mind, your last comment about others living on the property actually makes it less reasonable to conclude that Avery did it. At the very least, I'd want to know far more about those other family members before I'd be willing to convict someone under the circumstances. But maybe that's just me.

Avery has 2 sides and one is very dark by reading his letters and past actions.

I wonder how frustrated you'd be if you'd been incarcerated for a crime you didn't commit? I wonder if you'd say and write some things that were out of character and that you regretted later?

Regardless, none of those materials should've been admissible. And based on the documentary, I don't think any of us can say for sure whether they were actually presented at trial. After all, they had absolutely nothing to do with the crime charged, so they're not relevant to the case. Far more prejudicial than probative.

So, if you want to play juror, it's probably best to imagine that you know nothing about any of Avery's letters when you're making up your mind.

I don't think she was killed in his house or garage, my guess is it was at the quarry which wasn't talked about much in the show. I'd also like to know when the pic of the cut on his hand was taken.

So you don't agree with the prosecution's theory of the case, but you'd be willing to say beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery committed the crime?

Remember--Avery has absolutely no obligation to explain anything. That burden falls entirely on the government. And you're not allowed to hold it against him that he decided not testify.

With all due respect, I just don't understand how anyone could be sure of his guilt based only on what we saw in the documentary. Can we speculate? Sure. That's the fun of it. But to be willing to convict? No way, and it actually frightens me that someone would go that far knowing only what we do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wildcatadam6

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
I clearly stated I believed he did, but his defense provided enough reasonable doubt. If I were a juror that's the way I would've voted that it wasn't proven without reasonable doubt based on what we saw, but we didn't see or hear it all.

I also said there's 2 sides to every story, and we were shown a side with heavy sympathies to Avery. That was in reply to those saying he was framed and obviously innocent.

I also said it could've been someone else on the property that day, but everyone else had alibi's and Steven either didn't have one or it was so weak the show producers chose not to use it.

My point about the letters or dousing a cat in oil and watching it burn has nothing to do with the trial. It was about his personality that was shown to be jovial and happy, he had an extremely dark side too.

From the time she got on that property her phone usage stopped. Maybe that's coincidence, but I doubt it.
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
I'm in the 4th episode and it seems as if Brendan's attorney is on the prosecutions side. Why the hell does he have his "investigator" harassing the kid after the judge won't throw out his confession?

What a POS attorney.

You're right, lawyer said he had finished 3rd in a judge executive race prior to that. My guess he was only wanting to get his name in the public. What his investigator did to that kid should be criminal.
 

bradyjames

New member
Feb 4, 2004
17,306
2,317
0
I was so pissed off I went downstairs to ask my wife. She is a lawyer and is the child magistrate currently. She couldn't explain why a defene "investigator" would do anything like this. She has only seen that two minutes of footage so she has told me she will watch the documentary when she gets time.

I am 99% convinced that kid didn't do a damn thing except be dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JasonSpear

mashburned

New member
Mar 10, 2009
40,283
18,584
0
They (sheriffs) had the crime scene for how long? Over a damn week.

The vial of blood in place of fingernail scrapings, and whatever else they said they had,sealed the deal for me. I just can't believe the sheriffs wee so bold, but it paid off for them, I guess.

And the other thing that still bothers me is the guy who actually raped the lady on the beach. That whole that was odd how he had a long rap sheet of sexual misconduct, the local police had surveillance on him 24/7 except for the afternoon when he raped that lady....and he looked similar to Avery actually. I must have misheard something and got confused. Why was this guy under constant surveillance? W
 

Catfan in Tn.

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2005
22,669
1,738
97
A lot of questions were never answered. Why did the brother say he was on the property at one time when it was an hour later and what he said was easily disproved by the bus driver? Both Steven and Brendan had numerous appeals that went nowhere. How is that even possible especially in Brendan's case?
 

Midway Cat

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2004
16,176
538
113
Fair enough, Bill. I missed your shorter previous post where you said that you thought there was reasonable doubt. Apologies.

If I were actually trying to solve the crime, I'd be looking at other family members, particularly Brendan's brother. The jury seemed to be thinking that way at some point, which I suspect is why they asked to review a transcript of his testimony while they were deliberating.

For whatever reason, though, the court system frowns upon the jury being able to review those kinds of materials during deliberations. Instead, they're supposed to rely only on their own recollections and impressions. I've always thought that rule made no sense given the true purpose of a trial and the stakes, but, again, that's the reality of the situation.
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
A lot of questions were never answered. Why did the brother say he was on the property at one time when it was an hour later and what he said was easily disproved by the bus driver? Both Steven and Brendan had numerous appeals that went nowhere. How is that even possible especially in Brendan's case?

Brendan's case bothers me, I don't know if he was involved or not, but his lawyer really screwed him over. It was clear that he wasn't out for the kids best interest. At the least he should get a retrial.
Hopefully out of all the publicity the Supreme Court will rule in his favor.
 

Bill Derington

Well-known member
Jan 21, 2003
17,690
2,057
113
Fair enough, Bill. I missed your shorter previous post where you said that you thought there was reasonable doubt. Apologies.

If I were actually trying to solve the crime, I'd be looking at other family members, particularly Brendan's brother. The jury seemed to be thinking that way at some point, which I suspect is why they asked to review a transcript of his testimony while they were deliberating.

For whatever reason, though, the court system frowns upon the jury being able to review those kinds of materials during deliberations. Instead, they're supposed to rely only on their own recollections and impressions. I've always thought that rule made no sense given the true purpose of a trial and the stakes, but, again, that's the reality of the situation.

I didn't understand why the judge ruled that way about other possible suspects, that may be standard procedure, I don't know.

I can get onboard with it possibly being Brendan's stepdad and brother. They'd have access to the junkyard, they may have thought Steven was about to get this money but if he was in jail the family would get it, or they may have just wanted to screw this girl.

What it showed me was that small county sheriff departments aren't really capable of working on a case of this magnitude, maybe even cases where it isn't painfully clear who did it.
 

Catfan in Tn.

Well-known member
Mar 10, 2005
22,669
1,738
97
Unfortunately the only one that could say what Brendan's role in this was or wasn't can't.