OT: Making a Murderer on Netflix AWESOME (possible spoilers)

[velomonkey]

I am on episode 8 of Making a Murderer. This is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. Increadible.

If you haven't watched it - do so now and then come back here and discuss.

[8aaron8]

I just started this last night after hearing about it over xmas dinner. 1 and 1/2 episodes in, very entertaining so far....

[CunegoFan]

Afterward you might want to read this along with the transcript that is linked.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

[Tony Edwards]

THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I have watched the entire series.

I am a 17-year attorney. While I currently practice commercial litigation, I have worked extensively as both a prosecutor (I prosecuted the most aggravated sex offender in the history of the Air Force, who received life in prison), and defense attorney (including obtaining a full acquittal in a first-degree murder case).

There is no question the investigations and prosecutions of both Avery and Dassey were flawed. The incompetent representation of Brendan Dassey by Len Kachinsky likely had a significantly deleterious effect on both cases. To me Kachinsky, in particular, came off as the most egregious "villain" in the series, and his total lack of loyalty to his client, and horrendous judgment, just blew me away.

There are a number of pieces of evidence that cause me to have real questions about whether Avery and/or Dassey were guilty. In particular, the recorded calls of Avery talking to his fiancee the day of the murder - he sounds unhurried and calm - and the recording of the Manitowoc officer calling in the license plate from Teresa Haibach's car, days before it was found.

All of that being said, the film is told with a significant pro-defense bias, and in some ways it presents the evidence in what I consider a misleading way.

I have read the transcripts of the interviews of Brendan Dassey - they are at http://www.convolutedbrian.com/dassey_confessions_links.html (I have not listened to the audio or watched the video, however). To me the questioning is not unduly suggestive as a whole, and there's no question he is the one who originates much of the relevant information. In places he has included corroborated, incriminating details that were never referenced in the series (e.g., he states that he and Avery put the RAV4 by the pit on the property, and Avery covered it with sticks and a car hood, which was in fact the way it was found, and he also states that Avery put the body in the car before deciding to burn it - this would account for the presence of bloodstains in the back of the car consistent with her bloody head touching the interior of the cargo area of the car). He also refuses to agree to certain things that are suggested by the detectives (e.g., he is adamant that he did not shoot Teresa Haibach despite being asked repeatedly whether he did). Certainly if I had conducted this interview I would be left with the impression that he was telling the truth. I was also troubled by the trial testimony by the female cousin, who told the authorities in March that Brendan had lost weight and seemed really upset for months after Halloween, and told her about the body being in the fire. I know she recanted at trial, but I thought this was still a fairly persuasive piece of prosecution evidence.

I find it hard to analyze the question of whether Avery and Dassey are guilty without having seen the entire trial, or learned more about whether there was any plausible alternative suspect. I frankly don't believe the police committed this murder, though I could certainly imagine them tampering with evidence - I do in fact believe they either planted or tampered with the RAV4 key. I know the defense was barred from naming anyone else as a potential suspect, but I gather they also really didn't have one, or the filmmakers would have referenced that. I know Teresa had received the unwelcome phone calls, but given how thorough Avery's attorneys were, and the fact that they had access to her cellular phone records, I assume they ran that lead to ground and it didn't point to a viable suspect. Based on that, we are left with the fact that the murder happened on the Avery property, and he was the last person known to have interacted with her.

Overall, I think it's likely (though far from certain) that Avery is guilty, and I would not be shocked if Dassey is as well. That being said, I think there was reasonable doubt with respect to both cases, and that they should probably not have been convicted. As I said, though, I was not privy to the trial, and certainly the information in the link provided by CunegoFan is food for thought.

[denapista]

I read on another site about Avery's prior animal cruelty arrest. I mean, I can't fathom dousing a cat it in oil and tossing it in a fire and watching it burn. People who have done things like that became monsters in real life (Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy). I'm only on episode 3 and I don't think I want to watch anymore of the series. I already know the outcome and it's painful to watch the power of the police force destroys a life with ease. The 18yr bid Avery did for that alleged rape made my stomach hurt. How many people are caught up in the prison system because of some DA abusing power, Prosecutor needing a conviction, etc?

When you sit back and think about it all, why in the world would Avery kill this woman fresh out of 18 years of prison, etc? Like how dumb do you have to be? Maybe he was a good guy prior to jail with juvenile misdemeanors, but I'm sure 18 years in prison will change any man. My best friend was paroled last year after 18 years of prison. He did so much drugs in there to escape from the environment that he'll never be the same. His brain is gone! It's sad. He was facing life with no parole for a kidnapping for ransom case (Automatic life sentence). The prison system is brutal. I would never wish that on any man or woman..

[AJM100]

Without the benefit of the full trial transcripts nobody can accurately discuss or debate the Avery case in a meaningful way. The documentary is too abridged. What happened to Dassey is a totally different matter, from the initial interrogation to the appointment of Len Katchinsky - who should be disbarred - he got the shaft. Katchinsky is a disgrace and a fool. IMO Dassey - if properly represented from the start would never have made a statement and would probably not have been charged. To me he presented more like a moronic material witness as opposed to an active participant/joint venturer.

One thing for certain, however, was the uphill battle the defense team had selling their theory without a viable suspect to pin the murder on or a way to explain the movement of her body. They knew it too. While the key investigators - Lenk and Colburn - may have had access, opportunity and motive to frame Avery by manipulating or planting evidence - there was no way plausibly to tie them to her death/killing or the movement of her remains onto the Avery property. Absent explaining who may have killed her and moved her so as to allow the police to exploit the evidence to insure a conviction (after all that was the essence of their theory), it was almost a fools errand.

The trial judge certainly tied their hands regarding the presentation of a third party culprit defense other than Dassey to perhaps overcome this problem. But again - to debate whether the judge made an error of law or committed reversible error in his ruling can't be known without knowing the defense's proffer on this issue.

A true documentary is more objective and informative, this was more docudrama to me.

[CunegoFan]

I read on another site about Avery's prior animal cruelty arrest. I mean, I can't fathom dousing a cat it in oil and tossing it in a fire and watching it burn. People who have done things like that became monsters in real life (Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy). I'm only on episode 3 and I don't think I want to watch anymore of the series. I already know the outcome and it's painful to watch the power of the police force destroys a life with ease. The 18yr bid Avery did for that alleged rape made my stomach hurt. How many people are caught up in the prison system because of some DA abusing power, Prosecutor needing a conviction, etc?

When you sit back and think about it all, why in the world would Avery kill this woman fresh out of 18 years of prison, etc? Like how dumb do you have to be? Maybe he was a good guy prior to jail with juvenile misdemeanors, but I'm sure 18 years in prison will change any man. My best friend was paroled last year after 18 years of prison. He did so much drugs in there to escape from the environment that he'll never be the same. His brain is gone! It's sad. He was facing life with no parole for a kidnapping for ransom case (Automatic life sentence). The prison system is brutal. I would never wish that on any man or woman..

With the addition of some reading, I came away with a different and more cynical view. I suspect Avery and his brothers were bad guys right from childhood. Lots of small towns and sparsely populated counties have a family that everyone knows is bad news. The police are aware of them; and for every act for which they are arrested, the cops are know there are dozens of others they got away with. By the time Avery was charged with rape, he had already served time for burning a cat alive. It is easy to imagine the authorities thinking the rape charge was the chance to put the guy away before he inevitably killed someone. Going into the case with that attitude, it would be easy to cut corners then step over the line.

As to why he would commit the murder, he reportedly told inmates he planned to commit the act he was wrongly convicted of when he got out. He apparently felt he was owed one, and that opens a wide window into his way of thinking. He told inmates he would abduct a woman, rape and torture her, and then burn the body. He drew a diagram of a torture chamber he intended to build. A few days before the murder, he purchased handcuffs. That combined with the cat makes it hard for me to be upset about where he is right now, no matter what issues there were at his trial.

Documentaries like this that manipulate the audience tick me off. It reminds me of "A Fistful of Quarters," which seems to be a great docu about a bid to break the Donkey Kong world record until you find out the makers made a conscious decision to manufacture drama with a false narrative.

[Hank Scorpio]

We just finished it last night and felt the same way as most at first blush. When you read into the case further about what was presented and what was left out it paints a very different picture of Avery, if those accounts themselves are accurate.

[velomonkey]

For me it comes down to this: I have little doubt that Avery did something to Teresa Haibach. I have no doubt that the police tampered or planted evidence to buttress their case. The ends do not justify the means. No one should ever have any patience for anything like this. It's completely tragic.

As such the entire supporting evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree and there needs to be severe reprimands if not imprisonment for some of those in law enforcement.


Len Kachinsky's total disregard for his client.
The special prosecutor telling of a completely fabricated story to the media prior to the trial.
The one piece of evidence with DNA was completely and utterly tainted.
The coercion of Dassey.
The local police said they recused themselves when, in fact, no such recusal ever took place.
The key, the key - you. got. to. be. kidding.
The FBI agent really let me down - his test was, at best, inconclusive. Not the first time new science introduced as 'forensic science' and thusly fact would later be found to be totally flaccid.


Here is what we do know (and, yea, I know some items were left off - the DNA under the hood is about the only thing that matters - the whole diagram thing has never been produced. What we know - Avery is in prison - the special prosecutor was a drug addict and sent sexting messages to, get this, sexual assault victims. Stellar work. People should be ashamed.

[tuscanyswe]

Have nothing to ad thats not been said above. Nothing to say really other than it made me unbelievable angry in a way i don't think I've feelt ever from watching anything really.

Unbelievable, all of it really, regardless of Stevens guilt or innocence.

[cinema]

i couldn't watch it past the 3rd or 4th episode. whenever they showed the key they found, it was clear there was something wrong. it was just too painful to watch. i knew how the rest would unfold and seeing any more would have been torturous.

[SlackMan]

Interesting discussion of this series at link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html

[Tickdoc]

I let that crazy documentary consume me last week. I'm sure there are some major elements that were left out, because there is no way a case could be carried on that long with that outcome.

[azrider]

We struggled through the first episode........and then binged on the next 6 episodes over the course of two days.

It was impossible to watch the show without screaming at the TV. Every time that special prosecutor opened his mouth my blood would begin to boil. He just came across as a total dirtbag......not shocking he was busted for lewd behavior.

[sc53]

For me it comes down to this: I have little doubt that Avery did something to Teresa Haibach. I have no doubt that the police tampered or planted evidence to buttress their case. The ends do not justify the means. No one should ever have any patience for anything like this. It's completely tragic.

As such the entire supporting evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree and there needs to be severe reprimands if not imprisonment for some of those in law enforcement.


Len Kachinsky's total disregard for his client.
The special prosecutor telling of a completely fabricated story to the media prior to the trial.
The one piece of evidence with DNA was completely and utterly tainted.
The coercion of Dassey.
The local police said they recused themselves when, in fact, no such recusal ever took place.
The key, the key - you. got. to. be. kidding.
The FBI agent really let me down - his test was, at best, inconclusive. Not the first time new science introduced as 'forensic science' and thusly fact would later be found to be totally flaccid.


Here is what we do know (and, yea, I know some items were left off - the DNA under the hood is about the only thing that matters - the whole diagram thing has never been produced. What we know - Avery is in prison - the special prosecutor was a drug addict and sent sexting messages to, get this, sexual assault victims. Stellar work. People should be ashamed.

Excellent summary of my reactions too. Just a complete all around failure on the part of law enforcement and the judicial system in Wisconsin.

[oldpotatoe]

THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS.

I have watched the entire series.

I am a 17-year attorney. Lots snipped.

Overall, I think it's likely (though far from certain) that Avery is guilty, and I would not be shocked if Dassey is as well. That being said, I think there was reasonable doubt with respect to both cases, and that they should probably not have been convicted. As I said, though, I was not privy to the trial, and certainly the information in the link provided by CunegoFan is food for thought.

NOT a lawyer, but I'm confused. You think they are guilty but you think they should NOT have been convicted. As a result of poor prosecution? 'Reasonable doubt'? So, the prosecution should have done a better job? BUT the defense knew they were probably guilty? So the 'verdict' is more a measure of lawyer's skill and technique rather than guilt or innocence?

I know something is lost in the forum translation and I'm not pointing fingers at attorneys but if you know your client is guilty, is the goal still to have them be acquitted?

Just asking. I served on a jury where at least to me, the person was guilty but the prosecution did such a crappy job, along with the police, that she was found innocent. Much reasonable doubt.

[druptight]

NOT a lawyer, but I'm confused. You think they are guilty but you think they should NOT have been convicted. As a result of poor prosecution? 'Reasonable doubt'? So, the prosecution should have done a better job? BUT the defense knew they were probably guilty? So the 'verdict' is more a measure of lawyer's skill and technique rather than guilt or innocence?

I know something is lost in the forum translation and I'm not pointing fingers at attorneys but if you know your client is guilty, is the goal still to have them be acquitted?

Just asking. I served on a jury where at least to me, the person was guilty but the prosecution did such a crappy job, along with the police, that she was found innocent. Much reasonable doubt.

He didn't say he thinks they're guilty, he said:

Overall, I think it's likely (though far from certain) that Avery is guilty, and I would not be shocked if Dassey is as well

Imagine for a second that this was what someone said about a crime you allegedly committed. Only you know whether you did it or not, but if there's "reasonable doubt" or it's "far from certain" that it was you I doubt you'd want to be convicted and it's certainly not the place of a jury to decide that without proper evidence that removes that doubt.

Just look at the first 18 years he served where he was wrongfully imprisoned. What better example?

[oldpotatoe]

He didn't say he thinks they're guilty, he said:



Imagine for a second that this was what someone said about a crime you allegedly committed. Only you know whether you did it or not, but if there's "reasonable doubt" or it's "far from certain" that it was you I doubt you'd want to be convicted and it's certainly not the place of a jury to decide that without proper evidence that removes that doubt.

Just look at the first 18 years he served where he was wrongfully imprisoned. What better example?

I admit something lost/I missed in translation. "likely guilty' tho..I haven't watched the series, I may tho.

[CunegoFan]

Just look at the first 18 years he served where he was wrongfully imprisoned. What better example?

Actually many of those eighteen years were served concurrently with the sentences for crimes he did commit.

[tuscanyswe]

Actually many of those eighteen years were served concurrently with the sentences for crimes he did commit.

What? If so how many?
Only 15 or so YEARS was spend in a cell whilst innocent then? well then thats nothing then..

[CunegoFan]

What? If so how many?

Six years.

Even if you believe Avery is innocent of the murder, he would still be in prison right now because he was given ten years for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, the second time he has been convicted for that crime. Another way to look at it is, starting after his time served for burning a cat alive, he has spent twenty-five years in prison. Sixteen of those were for crimes he committed. While those extra nine years may be lamentable, this is not exactly a case of a good man walking down the street, minding his own business, being set upon by The Man then being thrown in the hooscow due to no fault of his own. He earned the attention and, perhaps, overzealousness, of the police and prosecutor with prior bad acts.

[malcolm]

NOT a lawyer, but I'm confused. You think they are guilty but you think they should NOT have been convicted. As a result of poor prosecution? 'Reasonable doubt'? So, the prosecution should have done a better job? BUT the defense knew they were probably guilty? So the 'verdict' is more a measure of lawyer's skill and technique rather than guilt or innocence?

I know something is lost in the forum translation and I'm not pointing fingers at attorneys but if you know your client is guilty, is the goal still to have them be acquitted?

Just asking. I served on a jury where at least to me, the person was guilty but the prosecution did such a crappy job, along with the police, that she was found innocent. Much reasonable doubt.

OP I feel ya, but that isn't the way it works. Our system is designed for the defendant to have a vigorous defense no matter his guilt or innocence.
I spoke with a criminal defense attorney once and he basically said he felt compelled to provide the best defense possible the let the prosecution tear it down if they could. When I asked how he could do that his response was it's necessary to keep the system as fair and honest as it can be. Seems counter intuitive but if you have to let a few guilty ones walk to keep the system honest that's better that the reverse.
That's partly what makes this story so compelling is the guy was clearly not guilty the first time and did 18 years. Same guys are after him again and it's not so clear. One really shouldn't influence the other but how could they not.

[tuscanyswe]

Six years.

Even if you believe Avery is innocent of the murder, he would still be in prison right now because he was given ten years for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon, the second time he has been convicted for that crime. Another way to look at it is, starting after his time served for burning a cat alive, he has spent twenty-five years in prison. Sixteen of those were for crimes he committed. While those extra nine years may be lamentable, this is not exactly a case of a good man walking down the street, minding his own business, being set upon by The Man then being thrown in the hooscow due to no fault of his own. He earned the attention and, perhaps, overzealousness, of the police and prosecutor with prior bad acts.

You are so missing the point of the entire show imo.

[velomonkey]

I know something is lost in the forum translation and I'm not pointing fingers at attorneys but if you know your client is guilty, is the goal still to have them be acquitted?

Just asking. I served on a jury where at least to me, the person was guilty but the prosecution did such a crappy job, along with the police, that she was found innocent. Much reasonable doubt.

Don't want to speak for Tony, but I think you are saying the same thing. I think he is saying that Avery was guilty of a crime, but given the court case he should have been found not guilty. Preponderance of the evidence (civil) - guilty. Beyond a shadow of a doubt (which is criminal) - not guilty.

FYI, I was on a jury once too and they did such a horrible job I would only convict of possession of drugs - the big charge was intent to distribute and while the guy probably was going to deal their only proof was that he had the drugs wrapped up in individual bags - and thus he was going to deal - they saw nothing to indicate he was dealing - so my thought was that if I looked at this rationally he totally could have just purchased some drugs, but not in bulk packaging.

Like I said was he gonna deal, probably - did they prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, no. When the cop was asked how he knew he said, "because that's how it's done" - ummmmmmmmmmm need way, way more proof than that.

[Matthew]

I hope the POS dies in prison for burning the cat alone. Pathetic piece of S#@%.

[velomonkey]

You are so missing the point of the entire show imo.

Totally agree. Avery was a 'somewhat' likable person, but it was clear there was more there. This wasn't so much an instance of lamenting him, but rather be fearful of what the cops did and just how pitifully bad and dangerous the court-appointed lawyer for his nephew was. To say that resembled any sense of justice was downright scary.

Avery's defense lawyers and the retired cop investigator were the only people with any sense of justice. The lab tech was an idiot, the state agents victimized the poor kid, the FBI agent threw his hat in with the cops and the local PD was downright horrible. The judge hardly got a pass, too. The prosecutor, as we now know for a fact, was/is a total tool scumbag (even watching it you knew there was something icky about the guy).

[rugbysecondrow]

I have tried twice to sit down and watch the series, both times I opted for reruns of Sienfeld as it was prior to bedtime and just didn't seem like a "wind down the evening" type of show. I need a documentary of the documentary, then I might watch it. :)

[Tony Edwards]

NOT a lawyer, but I'm confused. You think they are guilty but you think they should NOT have been convicted. As a result of poor prosecution? 'Reasonable doubt'? So, the prosecution should have done a better job? BUT the defense knew they were probably guilty? So the 'verdict' is more a measure of lawyer's skill and technique rather than guilt or innocence?

I know something is lost in the forum translation and I'm not pointing fingers at attorneys but if you know your client is guilty, is the goal still to have them be acquitted?

Just asking. I served on a jury where at least to me, the person was guilty but the prosecution did such a crappy job, along with the police, that she was found innocent. Much reasonable doubt.

Sorry if I sound lawyerly - it's an occupational hazard!

A criminal case cannot adjudge whether or not someone is innocent - it can only conclude whether or not the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor bears 100% of the burden of establishing guilt, whereas the defense's job is just to create doubt in the minds of jurors. (I use the word "just" not to diminish the role of the defense, but because the defense is, unlike the prosecution, not tasked with proving anything.) I have, by way of illustration, overseen the prosecution at least one case in which I was firmly convinced the defendant was guilty, but I knew he would likely be acquitted (this was an acquaintance rape in which the victim was blackout drunk). Another example with which you may be familiar is OJ Simpson - most people consider him guilty of murdering Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty of murder (based, presumably, on reasonable doubt), but was later held to be responsible for Brown and Goldman's deaths in a wrongful death action adjudicated under a lower, preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Here, my sense is that it's very likely Steven Avery is guilty of murder (since I did not sit through the entire trial, and there is some ambiguity in the evidence, I really can't be any more confident than that). There is a significant amount of evidence of Avery's guilt, and little evidence of any other plausible explanation for what became of Teresa Halbach. That being said, the investigation was conducted in a manner that, to my mind, might create reasonable doubt as to his guilt. I am less confident that Brendan Dassey is guilty (though he may well be), and feel more strongly that there very likely was a reasonable basis to doubt his guilt.

I want to reiterate, though, that none of us (as far as I know) were jurors in these cases. I still have yet to see a thorough, detailed summary of the trials by a neutral source, and something like that would make me considerably more confident about whether or not the convictions were just. I actually hope someone makes a 2-hour documentary program that isn't taking a side, and goes through all of the evidence. I can see that people without experience in the law are reacting to MAM emotionally, and getting whipped up over what is most definitely a very biased and selective presentation of these cases. They may well be calling for something (i.e., the pardon of Avery and Dassey) that would be contrary to the public interest, and the safety of the community. My feeling is that Avery, in particular, is a danger to society, and based on what I know I feel strongly that an Avery pardon would be a bad idea (though a new trial might not be).

[CunegoFan]

You are so missing the point of the entire show imo.

The point of the show was to rile people up by selective presentation of the facts.

It didn't argue that a scumbag, who had been in an out of trouble with the law, murdered a woman and the police cut corners to convict him so if it could happen to him then it could happen to the you. It took the point of view that this was an innocent man railroaded by a police conspiracy. You know, the O.J. defense; any inconvenient evidence must have been planted by "them." Now they have social media alleging all sorts of crackpot theories, like the police murdered the woman to frame Avery.

[marciero]

On episode 3. Is indeed painful to watch. Could not keep from looking here for spoilers. Still dont know exactly how it ends, having mostly just skimmed posts but appears that there is no clean resolution. Unsettling regardless of extent of guilt on both/all sides. Yes it's TV, yes facts selectively presented. Still unsettling.

[ptourkin]

The point of the show was to rile people up by selective presentation of the facts.

It didn't argue that a scumbag, who had been in an out of trouble with the law, murdered a woman and the police cut corners to convict him so if it could happen to him then it could happen to the you. It took the point of view that this was an innocent man railroaded by a police conspiracy. You know, the O.J. defense; any inconvenient evidence must have been planted by "them." Now they have social media alleging all sorts of crackpot theories, like the police murdered the woman to frame Avery.

A more nuanced view is that everyone is constitutionally entitled to a fair trial and viewing these cases over the years, it's clear that in many circumstances, you only get that when you pay for it. Kachinsky, Kratz, the trial judges and others are all part of a system that is common in the criminal justice system, where the elements are focused on moving the system along while getting along with little regard for the zealous representation of defendants allegedly guaranteed by the constitution.

It's interesting how some people will complain that a "scumbag" got "off" on "technicality" while purporting to worship the constitution when it falls within their political world view. AFAIK 4 and 5 are in the same document as the misinterpreted 2nd.

[Mikej]

A more nuanced view is that everyone is constitutionally entitled to a fair trial and viewing these cases over the years, it's clear that in many circumstances, you only get that when you pay for it. Kachinsky, Kratz, the trial judges and others are all part of a system that is common in the criminal justice system, where the elements are focused on moving the system along while getting along with little regard for the zealous representation of defendants allegedly guaranteed by the constitution.

It's interesting how some people will complain that a "scumbag" got "off" on "technicality" while purporting to worship the constitution when it falls within their political world view. AFAIK 4 and 5 are in the same document as the misinterpreted 2nd.

I agree-without a proper trial at some point we could just pick people we didn't like and railroad them - it could even be a cop you had a run in with in the past who had it out for you because your biking on the road or something. I am generally on the side of the officer, but this just did not seem like a fair trial.

[MattTuck]

Ok, so I watched the series. Didn't look here until afterward, as I don't like spoilers. There really are no spoilers... it isn't a neat narrative that can be tied up in the final chapter.

For me, it gets back to this idea that something very shady happened -- regardless if Avery was guilty, you can't have the police doing shady stuff, and expect the system to to be perceived as fair. Fairness (justice is blind) is the bedrock on which much of society sits, and so it is examples like this that have the potential to do great harm to the institutions that are supposed to safeguard our liberty.

Clearly, it had an angle that it was trying to convince the audience of. That being said, there were enough items that made you think "wow, that seems egregious".

For me, they were the following:
The D.A. going on local tv and telling the whole story about rape, murder, etc. based just on Dassey's dubious statement. To a lay person, that seems like it is poisoning the jury pool, it's highly prejudicial and really compromises the presumption of innocence. Then, in the trial, (from what the show said), they presented zero evidence of any of that narrative that they had voiced publicly on TV. That was very shady.

The involvement of the Manitowoc authorities, the fact they were on the scene at all, that they found some of the key evidence, the dispatch call checking on the victim's vehicle before it was found, etc.

The lack of the victim's DNA on the key. To me, that is so strange, and unbelievable, that if I had been on the jury, I might have bought the defense arguments of framing just on that item alone.

The lack of blood on the Avery property, after they had publicly hyped this sensational and horrific theory of the crime. I mean, this is not a guy with sophisticated forensic training. Was the theory that he had cleaned up all the blood? Have you ever tried to clean up a garage? It is near impossible. I mean, they jack hammered the garage floor and (if the show is right) found no sign of the victim's blood, there or in the house, on the bed, anywhere.

Finally, there was a lot of "We knew what kind of person he was" from the DA and Judge after the trial and during sentencing. Meaning, what? we knew he was guilty before the trial? Because he burned a cat when he was younger? It's a terrible thing, but that doesn't prove murder. I just found that phrase, "we knew what kind of person he was" to be troubling at a very deep level.


Now, I am not saying he didn't do it. I just saw a lot of red flags. And, if I were in that position (or a family member or a friend), I'd hope to be treated better than Steven Avery was. If I were suing a municipal agency for wrong-doing, I'd hope that people from that agency were not going through my house during searches. I'd hope that they would have done a better job with jury selection, with not accusing me in local media of details of a crime that they did not present evidence of during the trial.

My favorite part of the show was in the last episode, when the reporter was talking to the DA about making the text messages public, and he says something to the extent of "I've got a reputation, if you put those texts out, you'll ruin my reputation." Frankly, he got what he had coming.

[doomridesout]

I'm a first year law student. I watched the whole thing with my Criminal Law class fresh in mind. I agree that it is obviously ideological filmmaking-- there's no way to condense the whole process to ten hours of documentary and feel that you had a good handle on the trial. Add in a clear defense-oriented bias, and there's no way to access "the truth" through this thing. However, it's pretty clear that there was some really serious prosecutorial misconduct the whole way through this thing. I looked at the Wisconsin State Bar list of attorney sanctions-- Len Kachinsky and Ken Kratz are both members in good standing with no sanctions on their record. Either the documentary fabricated everything about their misconduct (which is clearly not true), or they were protected from sanction.

Avery could be the devil incarnate. The film portrays him as a gentle, simple man so we'll never really know. IMO, it doesn't really matter-- the constitutional protections everyone should get at trial weren't there. Because the law runs on precedent, you have to get the procedure right every time, for the guilty and the innocent alike.

[AngryScientist]

OK, i just got through this trainwreck of a documentary.

beyond what has been said in this thread, two things stand out to me.

-Jody. it seemed un-necessarily tragic that they more or less drove this woman out of Avery's life with a no-contact order. that seemed totally unfair to me, and unjust. the woman violated her probation for alcohol consumption, and they made the leap that contact with Avery caused her to drink, violate her parole and therefor issued a no-contact order. that does not seem lawfully justifiable to me...

-the last episode - when they speak with Avery's former attorneys, and pose the question: what would it take to get Avery out of jail. their answers were simply about new physical evidence, or re-examination of current physical evidence.

it seems blatantly obvious to me that the one clear ticket out for Avery would be to find the actual killer. failure to mention that seems "odd".

actually, that fact was the most conspicuously obvious part of the whole documentary. there was never any talk about finding an alternate suspect by the defense. just because they were barred from referencing that at the trial, uncovering a different murderer would surely be an angle to play if they believed he was not guilty. after all - if they truly believed he didnt kill her, SOMEONE had to...

[bianchi10]

My wife just got me sucked into this. I jumped in on episode 5 and we just finished episode 8. So many perspectives, but the prosecuting side is incredibly inconsistent. I am tired of listening to that prosecuting attorney lead the witnesses.

Personally, I feel he is innocent.

[velomonkey]

actually, that fact was the most conspicuously obvious part of the whole documentary. there was never any talk about finding an alternate suspect by the defense. just because they were barred from referencing that at the trial, uncovering a different murderer would surely be an angle to play if they believed he was not guilty. after all - if they truly believed he didnt kill her, SOMEONE had to...

Angry, from what I recall they did - it was just littered throughout and not a big narrative. The whole thing in court where they asked the prosecutor who would be a person of interest and then went into the phone records and then basically pulled out - "so wait, you said a previous boyfriend would be of interest - you have proof they spoke and yet you didn't investigate this?" - the investigator fell back on Avery was the last person to see her (which was never really established). Then when they interviewed the lawyers they said "I feel for the victim's family, they hate Avery, but they should be mad at the police for not uncovering the murderer."

I 100% agree on the no-contact order with the girlfriend - that was way, way over the bounds and was just another way to penalize Avery.

[Tony T]

NYT Op-Ed on this: Making a Murderer Is About Justice, Not Truth (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/making-a-murderer-is-about-justice-not-truth.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region)

[josephr]

I have tried twice to sit down and watch the series, both times I opted for reruns of Sienfeld as it was prior to bedtime and just didn't seem like a "wind down the evening" type of show. I need a documentary of the documentary, then I might watch it. :)

I really enjoyed the first 5 or so episodes and it really rallied the side of me that says "the freakin' cops did it"....but the more I watched it, the more I became disappointed in the overall justice system and obvious lack of fairness in process. I finished it...but, yet, unfulfilled and without closure. Ignorance is bliss in this case.

You were probably better off watching re-runs---can't wait until this Baskets series comes out. Galifanakis a clown-school drop-out??? :beer:

[djg21]

Decent analysis on Dan Abram's new website:

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/making-a-murderer-and-fans-ignore-most-likely-reality-avery-absolutely-guilty-but-dassey-innocent/

[MattTuck]

Interesting. It's a tough one to parse fully through the filter of the film and the media coverage of the trial and film.

What about the former Sheriff that got on the stand and asserted that he still thought Avery was guilty of the assault for which he was exonerated? How do you see that, and then have any faith in that agency?

[djg21]

Interesting. It's a tough one to parse fully through the filter of the film and the media coverage of the trial and film.

What about the former Sheriff that got on the stand and asserted that he still thought Avery was guilty of the assault for which he was exonerated? How do you see that, and then have any faith in that agency?

I think Avery is pondscum, but I wasn't at the trial and didn't inspect the totality of the evidence. I think Avery committed the homicide, but we'll never know truly what happened. I think the prosecution was overly enthusiastic, but I also think any conspiracy theory dubious in that there would be incentive for someone with knowledge to step forward as a whistleblower. I have issues with the conduct of law enforcement, but I'm not prepared to cast judgment based solely on the documentary, which clearly was biased. Avery is where he should be.

[velomonkey]

I have issues with the conduct of law enforcement, but I'm not prepared to cast judgment based solely on the documentary, which clearly was biased. Avery is where he should be.

Boils down to "the ends justify the means" and there is zero ambiguity, that is not how the U.S. justice system is supposed to work. In some areas it does, but it without question that stuff was to be strictly forbidden.


Biased documentary or not, the cops are there, on film, in their own words saying "it would have been easier to kill him" - "hey, take those sneakers for any unsolved home burglaries" and a whole host of other transgressions. We see the cops get you a young kid to basically say whatever they want and then we see the D.A. completely spoil the potential jury pool. The cops violated their own rule recusing them from investigating. Avery, yes, probably its guilty, but the cops are guilty of something equally as tragic.

[djg21]

Boils down to "the ends justify the means" and there is zero ambiguity, that is not how the U.S. justice system is supposed to work. In some areas it does, but it without question that stuff was to be strictly forbidden.


Biased documentary or not, the cops are there, on film, in their own words saying "it would have been easier to kill him" - "hey, take those sneakers for any unsolved home burglaries" and a whole host of other transgressions. We see the cops get you a young kid to basically say whatever they want and then we see the D.A. completely spoil the potential jury pool. The cops violated their own rule recusing them from investigating. Avery, yes, probably its guilty, but the cops are guilty of something equally as tragic.

I don't disagree. I found the interrogation of Bassey appalling. I agree with Abrams that he at least should get a new trial. I also agree that Avery cannot be absolved of guilt for the conviction of Bassey. He could come clean any time and vindicate his nephew.

[AngryScientist]

to me it boils down to no matter who you are, how socially or morally disgusting, the expectation is innocent until proven guilty.