Making A Murderer

Watched the second episode last night.

The station interrogation of Avery was so textbook it was laughable.

"Come on, Steve. I understand why you would done it! Just admit it. We know you didn't mean to kill her. It's totally understandable why you would have done what you did."

I'm actually fairly impressed that the county has everything on video, including depositions, trial testimony, and interrogations. I guess that's standard in a lot of places now, but in Chicago, at least in the pre-Burge era, it's a joke trying to dig up any substantive information about how an investigation proceeded. It's chilling, actually.

 

I don't think hardly anyone in this thread has said they think Avery is innocent.

I just think the cops did a really crappy job of investigating.

I think they probably planted evidence just in case, although it turned out there was enough evidence that they didn't need to.

 

It was odd how the people of that area turned on Steven Avery so fast. Viewers of the documentary are far removed from the situation, completely unbiased going in, but the people who live there still must have thought little of the Avery family, even after his exoneration in the rape case.

I just don't see a motive. He had a large sum of money coming his way, and he had didn't have a single arrest (I don't believe) from the time he got out until days after the murder. Why would he pick that exact moment to all of a sudden murder someone? I find it more plausible that the police department had a bigger motive in framing Steven than Steven having a motive of killing this girl.

The *67 thing is a little weird, I suppose, but Halbach had been to the property before, where, it was reported, she felt creeped out. If that was the case, no matter who was calling, why would she go again? And, as others have mentioned, there is NO WAY her throat was slashed on the bed. Just no way. Blood would have seeped into the mattress, the cracks in the floor; there were no markings on the bedposts from her being tied down. That theory is just nonfactual.

I'm not 100 percent convinced he didn't do it, but if I was on that jury, I'd have a hard time taking away a man's liberty knowing what I know. As an aside, how did all 12 agree on this? You generally can't get 12 people to agree on pizza, let alone a convoluted case with plenty of holes. Makes me think people had their minds made up before they went in.

 

I wonder this after just about every big trial that aren't complete slam dunks. Getting 12 people to agree on something is no small task. It makes me think there are some in the jury who just go along with the group because they want to go home.

 

People saying there was "no motive," but the "motive" seems pretty basic in cases like this: Rape, followed by murder.

 

If that's the case, that's horribly sad. I'm sure cases like these are exhausting and long and arduous. But if the difference between a man living the rest of his life in jail or being free was in my hands, and I went along with the crowd because I wanted to go home, that would weigh on my conscience for a long, long, long time.

 

Jury was sequestered too (at least during deliberations), which puts a strain on them. They don't get to go home until they reach a verdict.

That they found him not guilty of mutilating a corpse is a pretty good indication that it was a compromise verdict. Not much of a compromise from Avery's point of view.

 

I also found it odd that Dassey was guilty in his charge of mutilating a corpse, which, again, wouldn't seem to add up.

 

Well, I mean, I'm sure they rationalize it to themselves. They don't consciously think, "I just want to go home. Guilty."

 

In one of the last episodes, a group of six jurors was interviewed. They said when they first convened after the closing statements, the vote was 7 "not guilty," 3 "guilty" and two undecided. They gave the impression that the 3 "guilty" voters appeared to have made up their minds and would stubbornly never have changed them. Had I been there, I would not have either, but I would have voted "not guilty. From their perspective, I guess when you sit through a long trial, then are sequestered to deliberate and have three people you know you can't sway, many people change their mind.
I'm not sure he's innocent, but there's no way I could vote to convict. Anybody who has seen the evidence (I'm talking videotaped interviews, depositions and testimony, NOT just the conjecture of guys making a documentary) and would vote to convict is somebody who, in my opinion, has an agenda or wasn't paying attention.
I'm as law-and-order as you can get. Raised to believe the police are all good guys pure as snow. I don't believe that any more, having seen this and had a friend arrested on a trumped-up charge that even the judge said from the bench was ridiculous. I also don't believe you EVER speak to the police without an expensive lawyer present - as in, if you're arrested on a felony charge, you mortgage the house - and I'll never again scream "liberal judge" when I hear of evidence getting thrown out.
When that smarmy prosecutor and sheriff held a press conference to try the case in public, revealing all the "confessions" of the nephew, they knew exactly what they were doing. The nephew, whose confession would have been revealed for what by those defense attorneys, never had to be cross examined, because the prosecutors testified on camera for him in front of all those potential jurors. They knew exactly what they were doing.
I will also never again question somebody who takes a plea bargain, thinking "if you're innocent, why do you plead?" It's obvious the entire system is massively tilted against the accused.

 

Another thing that really bothered me was the family. I have never been put in that situation before, and of course, hope I never have to. But how could the family, who should simply be thinking about mourning a loved one, be so certain Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey did the awful things. The daily interviews the brother gave likely only swayed public opinion. By the way, he came off as a dick.

 

I think it's pretty understandable for the family to easily latch onto a suspect and be fully convinced of their guilt. They are likely in constant contact with the DA who is telling them about Steven and Brendan, telling them things about the case and giving them hope that there will be justice. Families who have lost someone are looking for answers and looking to assign a reason to why their loved one is dead. You can probably find 10 cases with one Google search where grieving families do things that make you scratch your head. In this case, the brother saw answers in Steven and Brendan's guilt. I think there's a reason why we only see the brother in the documentary. The other family members probably didn't want to come within 100 miles of that court room let alone be interviewed by the TV.