Making A Murderer

Didn't look all that hard, but I didn't see this thread on here yet.

Anyone watched the Netflix documentary? Seems to be gaining all kinds of storm, at least on social media.

The wife and I plowed through all 10 episodes in the last two days. Riveting, I thought. So many WTF moments. I went into it not knowing what the final outcome would be. Some parts of it were vaguely familiar, but I don't really recall reading much about these cases when they happened.

Anyway, if you've seen it, what do you think?

 

I'm planning to watch it this weekend.

 

I'm about halfway through it, and have found it to be very well done. It's obviously very pro-defense, but I think the filmmakers did the best they could to present the state's side even without cooperation from the prosecutor or sheriffs.

There are so many fuck ups in the investigation, it's had me yelling at the tv a couple of times - particularly when they were interviewing the nephew. Any investigation can be picked apart afterwards, but there are some junior high level screw ups that make Keystone Cops look competent in comparison.

 

Apparently they skipped over a lot of things that don't help the defense.

14 pieces of troubling evidence Netflix' 'Making a Murderer' left out

 

Unless I missed it, no motive was given on the documentary. I guess it's come out that he requested Halbach to photograph his truck and that maybe he was horny for her or whatever, but even that seems weak.

And shouldn't there have been a boatload of blood in the bedroom if they took a butcher knife to her stomach and slit her throat, as the prosecution said? No way they cleaned up a scene like that without leaving traces.

 

I'll watch it, but I've seen enough in my line of work that I give almost zero deference by now to detectives, prosecutors, defense attorneys, or, especially, the jury system. I consider myself utterly disillusioned when it comes to our system's ability to get the right guy.

 

Wait until you get to Dassey's legal representation and "investogator." That'll mine some new sources for disillusionment.

 

Yes and no. Avery possessing porn is evidence of nothing other than having porn.

Avery is a sleaze ball, no doubt. I question his guilt.

 

Care to address the other 13? And, better yet, address why a "documentary" would omit them?

 

Haven't watched the show but read a couple articles. Sounds like a redneck version of the Amanda Knox prosecution.

 

I'm with Whitman on this. I'm sure the vast majority of officers are honest and dedicated to truth and fairness. I know a few of them who are. But "vast majority" is entirely too low a standard. Enough LEOs have behaved badly that it's easy to view all of them them with a jaundiced eye. As an institution they've earned a healthy level of distrust.

 

Sure.

No. 1 was circumstantial evidence at best, and evidence of frankly nothing once the victim's DNA wasn't found on it. The reporter in the article even concludes as much.

No. 2 is frankly less damning than the letters Avery wrote while in prison. A "less than rosy" relationship with his girlfriend makes Avery like many men who also didn't murder women. For example, DA Ken Kratz didn't murder anyone, but he likes sending ominous sex messages to people.

No. 3 is fair, but the lab was such a disaster that it's hard to be certain what was or wasn't proved.

No. 4 This would be the argument that Avery and Dassey cleaned up the murder spotlessly based on an oblique comment from Dassey's mom, then felt the need to burn Halbach's body at 3 different sites. I suppose all that's possible.

No. 6 It's my understanding, based on watching the doc, that Avery had bonfires often whether or not carcasses were involved.

No. 7 is legit. I'd have mentioned that stuff in the doc.

No. 8 is immaterial, in my book. It wasn't even allowed at trial.

No. 9 Well, OK. He wanted the same photographer.

No. 10 It's hard to know what to make of this one. The article doesn't appear to know, either.

No. 11 The author answers this one herself.

No. 12 I suppose the argument here is that Avery had the best access to these kind of tires. I can buy that. Could have been in doc.

No. 13 makes me think Avery is less guilty than more guilty. The blood evidence is completely unbelievable at this point, and that it would be in six different places is especially dubious.

No. 14 is legit, but it's worth mentioning that the bullet is covered thoroughly in the doc.


Why would a "documentary" omit them? Because you may have a poor understanding of documentaries. There is no, and there never really has been, such a thing as "cinema verite." Documentaries are not CSPAN. Only naive minds would think so. Further, if you watched the doc, there are so many red flags -- so many mishandlings of the evidence and questionable events - that you really do conclude almost anything might have happened. The story of this trial just isn't why Avery might be guilty, but the total shitshow that is the investigation.

All docs have a point of view. If that's too difficult a reality for you, stick to fiction shows.

I'm not sure Avery is guilty. I am sure that Dassey should not be in jail. He was railroaded as bad as Jesse Misskelley was in the West Memphis 3 case.