Author Topic: Making a Murderer (Netflix)  (Read 3293 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6461
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2016, 06:58:PM »
Yes, I read that too - thing is, it seems clear that the police planted the key but if they planted the bones too - that really is quite sinister.

I know :(

What did you think of episode 4 when Brenden is being interviewed by the investigator on behalf of his lawyer 'Len?'

And what do you make of Len? What's with the grin?  ;D ;D ;D ;D
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19969
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2016, 07:12:PM »
I know :(

What did you think of episode 4 when Brenden is being interviewed by the investigator on behalf of his lawyer 'Len?'

And what do you make of Len? What's with the grin?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

He might has well have just written down what he wanted the statement to say and have Brenden sign it - I don't imagine that Len's client list is very full at the moment  ;D ;D ;D.

100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2016, 08:35:PM »
just finished watching it. I found Brendens case so very sad as my friend has a boy very much like him and I am willing to bet if he had been interviewed like that he would have done exactly the same thing. I really think they are both innocent. They practically proved the bones had been moved and it was the blood phial that did it for me . And also the supposed crime scene - there was dust everywhere so there was no way it had been cleaned up.
every one knew they were suspects - and what was all that about the officer checking the number pates of the RAV 4 on the third Nov?

TBH I found it all very disturbing.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2016, 08:41:PM »
Interesting that the lawyers said - the police only try to frame a man they THINK is guilty
Interesting how to appeal is so very difficult.

Interesting how so many people had made up their minds before the trial even begins .

And even after the trial the constant implication that Stephen was guilty of the first offence of which he was totally innocent .

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2016, 10:10:PM »
my daughter watched the documentary first and she says there are some things missed out .I will try and find out what they are.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6461
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2016, 01:49:PM »
Did anyone see the interview with the Jury member who had to retire?  He said on the first count 7 thought he was innocent 3 thought he was guilty 2 were undecided.  He said before he had to leave that the three who voted guilty, they was the dominant members of the jury panel?  He had to retire because of family reasons and another jury member was bought in?  He was basically saying that the three dominant talked the others round?
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6461
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2016, 01:59:PM »
Did anyone see the interview with the Jury member who had to retire?  He said on the first count 7 thought he was innocent 3 thought he was guilty 2 were undecided.  He said before he had to leave that the three who voted guilty, they was the dominant members of the jury panel?  He had to retire because of family reasons and another jury member was bought in?  He was basically saying that the three dominant talked the others round?

Yes read something like that: http://www.baedaily.com/news/featured/jury-tampering-in-steven-avery-making-a-murder/
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12966
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2016, 02:05:PM »
Yes read something like that: http://www.baedaily.com/news/featured/jury-tampering-in-steven-avery-making-a-murder/
Haven't watched this yet steph but I am not surprised by what the juror said.  I imagine this happens quite often, there will always be some who dominate and others who are willing to be dominated ie. don't care/don't know etc..   

Offline sami

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2016, 02:53:PM »
Did anyone see the interview with the Jury member who had to retire?  He said on the first count 7 thought he was innocent 3 thought he was guilty 2 were undecided.  He said before he had to leave that the three who voted guilty, they was the dominant members of the jury panel?  He had to retire because of family reasons and another jury member was bought in?  He was basically saying that the three dominant talked the others round?
justice thanks very much for your message.ive tryed thanking you through pm but it keeps saying this person cannot accept messages

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2016, 07:40:PM »
Did anyone see the interview with the Jury member who had to retire?  He said on the first count 7 thought he was innocent 3 thought he was guilty 2 were undecided.  He said before he had to leave that the three who voted guilty, they was the dominant members of the jury panel?  He had to retire because of family reasons and another jury member was bought in?  He was basically saying that the three dominant talked the others round?

Yes I have watched it all - and some of the later interviews with him showed how much he had been affected by the whole thing - he was still suffering. I think there were suspicions that there was some infiltration on the jury as well.


the bits I don't understand were how was the lack  of her DNA explained on the key?
Why was the officer reporting that number plate three days after the alleged crime?
Why did they accept the place of the crime, when it was obvious both the garage and the bedroom had not been "cleaned up" at all?




Offline mat

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2016, 01:39:AM »
Okay I've watched up to episode 8 now. And will watch the other two later tonight, aswell as the Judge Janine special I Sky+'d on Fox News the other night.

I have worries on both sides.

I am alarmed that LENK, LENK, LENK appeared on all important dates. He wasn't meant to be invovled in the investigation but he was there at all the crucial times in the investigation, the key, the blood, the bullet.

Colburns call about the vehicle reg, gave me goosebumps.  A good argument can be made that he found the vehicle when he made that call. Where was he when he called? Why was he calling? MORE should have been made of it on the stand.

EDTA was a crock of shit. When you have a substance that is so notorious at not being able to be found in blood, that testing is stopped on it all together, then I don't think re-starting testing after a decade and saying "Oh our test found none" should be taken seriously.  However, the FBI agent who gave the results on the stand came across as a better and more believeable witness than the expert the defence put on the stand - that was a failure of the defence.

I think the original burn site was the quarry. The defence did a great job in changing the medical experts mind on the stand in front of the jury, she was at first adament that the burn site was behind Steven's house, she however changed her mind and said she couldn't say for sure. The defence should have followed that up with a question of "Why have you changed your mind and can no longer say for sure that you believe the original burn site?" Just anything to cement the complete 360 on the stand.

However, the documentary was made in conjunction with Steven's lawyers so I do think that is worth remembering, I am hesitant to take everything at face value and in the back of my mind I think that if the Bamber supporters made a documentary they could put their own spin on it, as we know they would, so there is a chance this has happened - although I do see it as seemingly an open and honest look at the case.

But if I was on the jury, I would NOT find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not even close.

So I am dis-heartened that he is in prison for this crime and I hope that the documentary helps to highlight his case and get it looked into properly, fairly and openly.

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2016, 06:44:AM »
Steven Avery, the convicted killer featured in Netflix's "Making a Murderer," won't be pardoned if Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has anything to do about it.

Tens of thousands of people have signed petitions for Avery to be exonerated in the October 2005 killing of Teresa Halbach after the documentary suggested that Avery might have been a stooge for a conspiracy.

Avery, 53, insists he didn't kill Halbach, a 25-year-old freelance photographer. He is serving life in prison for murder, and Brendan Dassey, his nephew, who was a teenager at the time of the killing, is serving life as an accessory.

The White House has previously pointed out that President Barack Obama can't pardon Avery because he wasn't convicted of a federal crime.  And Monday, Walker — a tough-on-crime Republican who has never issued a pardon during his five years in office — indicated in a statement posted to social media that he wouldn't start with Avery. 

The statement links to an August 2011 decision by a three-judge panel of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The judges upheld Avery's conviction, ruling that the removal of a juror from his trial and the introduction of key evidence found in his home were proper.

Kathleen Zellner, an Illinois lawyer who specializes in seeking reversals of convictions, took over last week as head of Avery's defense. She said in a statement that the defense has uncovered new evidence that will exonerate Avery — but she didn't say what it was.
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2016, 06:51:AM »
Thousands of people have signed petitions asking President Obama to pardon Steven Avery for his conviction in the murder of Teresa Halbach, the subject of the Netflix documentary Making a Murderer. While President Obama has no jurisdiction over the matter, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker does. However, it appears that he is not sympathetic to the pleas of Avery.

In spite of strong evidence suggesting corruption in the trial against Steven Avery for the murder of Teresa Halbach, the Wisconsin Governor and former candidate for the Republican nomination for President has not been persuaded. In fact, Avery’s new legal team will face an uphill battle if they seek to have Avery pardoned by the Governor, as tough-on-crime Scott Walker has never issued a pardon during his five-year tenure.

In implying that no pardon was forthcoming, Walker cites the unanimous opinion of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which admittedly gets it right from a technical, legal standpoint. In his appeal, Avery cited three reasons he deserved a new trial: 1) There were others on his property who could have committed the murder; 2) the search on his property that uncovered the key to the RAV4 was improper because it came two days after the initial search warrant; and 3) he deserves a new trial because a juror was improperly excused.

From a legal standpoint, the Appeals Court ruled properly on the only three issues in front of them. Legally, Avery was not allowed to point to any number of people who were also on his property during the time that Halbach was murdered unless he could show that one of those people had a motive to kill Halbach. Avery could show no such motive. As to the continuation of the search, the key was admissible because it is both legal to continue a search under a warrant for several days and because of the inevitable discovery doctrine (in his appeal, Avery did not contend the key was planted by police, although the Netflix documentary strongly makes that case).

Finally, Avery lost on the third point, as well, arguing that the excusal of the juror warranted a new trial. However, Avery — and his lawyers — agreed at the time of the trial to the removal of the juror, though it turns out that the “family emergency” was not as urgent as the juror made it out to be (the juror’s stepdaughter had been in a car accident). However, the appeals court reasoned, there was no reason for the lawyers on either side to know that the emergency wasn’t as urgent as the juror suggested. The juror said that he would have a difficult time focusing on the case because of the accident, and Steven Avery, lawyers for both sides, and the judge took him at his word.

All of which is to say: Unfortunately for Steven Avery, he’s not allowed to retry the facts of his case on appeal. He’s only allowed to argue legal points. His lawyers, however, have not been able to muster a legal defense to convince the courts to overturn.

Scott Walker, however, has the right as Governor to overlook the legal aspects of a case and pardon Avery based on any number of factors introduced in Making a Murderer. What the Governor does not have the ability to do — and what is the best recourse in light of the details presented in the Netflix documentary — is to grant Avery a new trial. Walker can’t do that; only an appeals court can.


Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others