ADVERTISEMENT

Making A Murderer

andy4theherd

Platinum Buffalo
Gold Member
Sep 1, 2007
15,652
3,018
113
10 part Netflix series (can be found elsewhere....) about a guy that gets put in jail for rape. 18 years later he is freed after DNA evidence completely exonerates him. he sues the county for $36 mil because they completely fvcked him over. he then gets charged with murder......... it is a documentary with actual footage following the trials, investigations, ect. i PROMISE you will say, "what the fvck!!!!" at least 5 times every episode............

i strongly recommend this to EVERYONE.

the first episode was uploaded on youtube:
 
I am not able to listen to this now, is this the one where the guy murdered the reporter that was interviewing him about his exoneration?
 
I am not able to listen to this now, is this the one where the guy murdered the reporter that was interviewing him about his exoneration?

no. this guy was put in jail for rape in 1985. he had a fight with a deputy sheriff's wife shortly before. many problems with the initial conviction. he maintained his innocence throughout.18 years later DNA evidence that wasn't possible to test for in '85 proves he was innocent. he gets out and sues the country for $36mil. a couple of weeks into depositions for the suit he is charged with murder by the same group of cops.

it is the most fvcked up thing i have ever seen. if it were a fictional movie i would have disregarded it for being COMPLETELY unrealistic....
 
Having finished the series (& not trying to give anything away) there is one big question the DA asks in his closing that basically all this boils down to. And I say this fully believing this guy & his cousin were unscrupulously targeted by the DA to get a conviction no matter what. But do you believe the police perpetrated the main crime in order to do everything else to frame Steven?
 
Having finished the series (& not trying to give anything away) there is one big question the DA asks in his closing that basically all this boils down to. And I say this fully believing this guy & his cousin were unscrupulously targeted by the DA to get a conviction no matter what. But do you believe the police perpetrated the main crime in order to do everything else to frame Steven?
I'm mid way through the series but to answer your question no I don't think the cops did it. And as of right now I think Steven did do the crime I just think the cops and da were/are incompetent and tried to manipulate evidence towards him
 
i don't think the police committed the crime at all, but they had $36 million reasons to try their best to make sure Avery went down for it...

some very good commentary on the show over on Reddit. several attorneys weighing in from all over the world.

the thread "Lawyer from Ohio here" is very good...

https://www.reddit.com/r/makingamurderer
 
i don't think the police committed the crime at all, but they had $36 million reasons to try their best to make sure Avery went down for it...

some very good commentary on the show over on Reddit. several attorneys weighing in from all over the world.

the thread "Lawyer from Ohio here" is very good...

https://www.reddit.com/r/makingamurderer

Disclaimer: Not a criminal attorney - at all.

For long and lengthy reasons I will go into only if someone really wants, I think the motivation to frame Avery for the Halbach murder was more rooted in the fear of criminal indictment than civil judgment. For example, the individuals named in the civil suit were likely to face criminal indictment as that case continued, which to me is a bigger fear when the likelihood is that each individual was judgment proof (e.g., none of the individuals would be able to pay any part of a large judgment). Not discounting the fear of virtual bankruptcy for the rest of their lives, but police officers serving time in places with criminals that they may have helped place in those correctional institutions: not promising (obviously).

The prosecutor's closing statement that the jury had to believe that the Man. Co. sheriff's dept. orchestrated (a) the murder of Halbach and (b) the framing of Avery (and Dassey) is a red-herring. For purposes of Avery's criminal liability -- guilty or not guilty of murdering Halbach -- WHO killed Halbach is immaterial so long as the state cannot prove that Avery killed her beyond a reasonable doubt. As a juror, I do not have to believe that the Man. Co. sheriff's dept. participated in Halbach's murder to find Avery not guilty - those are two different questions (for the most part).

After watching the series, acknowledging what was probably a slanted perspective favoring Avery (and Dassey to a lesser degree), I lean heavily toward the evidence being so compromised that convicting Avery (and later Dassey) is a travesty of justice. Some of the notable items (esp. inconsistencies) that sway my thinking:

* Avery had Halbach in his trailer, in the garage, and on the grounds, inflicting much pain through sexual assault, stabbing and throat slashing (in the trailer) and 10 or 11 gun shots (in the garage), yet the ONLY trace of DNA of Halbach is her incinerated bones (found in THREE places), a single bullet, and six "swipes" of blood in her vehicle --- obliterating DNA evidence of a victim from at least three locations would be an incredible feat of criminal evil

* yet, this same evil genius was too lazy or stupid to ditch Halbach's vehicle somewhere OTHER than within eye-shot of the crime scene

* but, maintained this level of evil genius to make sure NONE of his DNA was found in Halbach's vehicle

* yet, was again too stupid to not leave his own DNA on her vehicle key (although NONE of her DNA was found on a key that she used daily for years)


And while I am discussing the vehicle key -- although Man. Co. personnel were supposed to (initially) not be involved, but were later allowed with restrictions (that were not followed), two of the prime targets of Avery's civil litigation (Lenk and Colborn) were allowed unsupervised access when they should not have even been on the property, and THEY alone found the key to Halbach's vehicle. Another incredible coincidence.

There are other things - esp. about Dassey (and his coerced confession) that are extremely troublesome. But the final odd thing -- what was up with that video of Halbach -- what normal well adjusted individual makes a video (without being terminally ill) that talks about death and being remembered well in death? That was strange by itself.
 
The prosecutor's closing statement that the jury had to believe that the Man. Co. sheriff's dept. orchestrated (a) the murder of Halbach and (b) the framing of Avery (and Dassey) is a red-herring. For purposes of Avery's criminal liability -- guilty or not guilty of murdering Halbach -- WHO killed Halbach is immaterial so long as the state cannot prove that Avery killed her beyond a reasonable doubt. As a juror, I do not have to believe that the Man. Co. sheriff's dept. participated in Halbach's murder to find Avery not guilty - those are two different questions (for the most part).

i had a huge problem with this statement as well. the defense was barred at the beginning of the trial from implicating anyone else or even producing evidence that suggested another person murdered her. their entire defense was how tainted and poorly handled the investigation/evidence was, not that the police murdered Halback. they couldn't suggest anyone else murdered her per the judge's ruling. the person that was harassing her via phone? the deleted voice messages after she went missing? seems there was a mountain of evidence that pointed towards a disgruntled lover/acquaintance of Halback yet the defense couldn't argue this, and the police gave up any further investigation when they thought they had Avery...
 
not my words, but very well said and IMO more than enough to cast enough "reasonable doubt" to keep these guys out of prison...

"The DNA on the key is the most insightful piece of evidence IMO.

We're all aware the key itself is probably the strongest evidence of police tampering. There is no explaining it. This is a tiny trailer that has been gone over with a fine-tooth comb not once, not twice, not three times, but SIX times. And on the 7th time, the first time Lenk and Colburn are in the room without someone instructed to "keep an eye on them," the key shows up. Found by one of them. In a spot that had already been searched. And it ONLY has Steven avery's DNA on it.

The DNA is critical to me because, by it being found on an obviously planted piece of evidence, it demonstrates that cops had the ability and willingness to plant DNA. If Steven had taken this key, you would expect it to have A) both Steven and Theresa's DNA on it B) Theresa's DNA on it because Avery was careful with it or C) No DNA on it because Avery cleaned it.

The most logical explanation for there only being Avery's DNA on the key is a bizzarre scenario in which Avery takes the time to clean the key completely only to recontaminate the key and place it back in his bedroom.

If there was both Theresa's and Stevens DNA, or if there had not been DNA on the key at all, the key would still appear to be planted, but I might be more skeptical about the cops planting other DNA evidence."
 
Olen just a point of clarification but I thought they DID find his blood in her vehicle
 
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the DA's premise that Steven was so meticulous as to remove ALL traces of the victim's DNA but didn't dispose of her vehicle in the crusher which he clearly had access to. And maybe I missed it but other than to rule out the presence of EDTA, how did they explain the tampering of the blood sample in evidence?
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the DA's premise that Steven was so meticulous as to remove ALL traces of the victim's DNA but didn't dispose of her vehicle in the crusher which he clearly had access to. And maybe I missed it but other than to rule out the presence of EDTA, how did they explain the tampering of the blood sample in evidence?

there was also an incinerator on the property.... but he decided to burn her body in a barrel next to his house?

and then bury the bones in his yard.............. ok......
 
there was also an incinerator on the property.... but he decided to burn her body in a barrel next to his house?

and then bury the bones in his yard.............. ok......
The third location they found bones was probably the burn point.
 
I also found that video she made to be very odd. This whole case was beyond bizarre. I know the perspective given was made in favor of Avery, but there certainly didn't appear to be anywhere close to enough evidence to convict. The absence of blood at either scene was the thing that kept coming to me. How could such a horrific crime not yield more than a few splotches of DNA evidence? Was luminol ever used to show blood evidence? It was never mentioned. A very troubling situation...
 
If (like many) you were waiting for the rest of the story, perhaps this is it: LINK

Whether any of the additional information discussed in the link is true or accurate, the information presented in the series plausibly suggests that some or much of the evidence was staged. Taking the Avery property (as a whole) as the "crime scene", all the evidence seems too perfect.

Although the linked-article provides a little more balance (the series works well as an advocacy piece), I still struggle with Avery planning and executing Halbach's murder, including a virtually bloodless property, but failed to use the crusher to get rid of the vehicle and the incinerator to get rid of the body. Doesn't. Make. Sense.
 
I know they had an agenda to push with making the documentary but I'd like to see some other court footage. I still think Avery did it but with the evidence shown he should have been acquitted
 
If (like many) you were waiting for the rest of the story, perhaps this is it: LINK

Whether any of the additional information discussed in the link is true or accurate, the information presented in the series plausibly suggests that some or much of the evidence was staged. Taking the Avery property (as a whole) as the "crime scene", all the evidence seems too perfect.

Although the linked-article provides a little more balance (the series works well as an advocacy piece), I still struggle with Avery planning and executing Halbach's murder, including a virtually bloodless property, but failed to use the crusher to get rid of the vehicle and the incinerator to get rid of the body. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

from what i've read, to respond to kratz's points on that link:

1) the *67 calls were at like 2:24 pm and 2:35 pm that day. she was late for her 2:00pm appointment. i'm not sure why he used *67 for those calls, but seeing she was late for an appointment i don't think it's incriminating that he'd be calling her, trying to figure out what's going on...

2) the complaint of not wanting to go to his trailer was based solely on this, “She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel,’’ Pliszka said while the jury was outside of the courtroom. “I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’’ this was not allowed to be used in court. that's it. there was no facts, testimony to the jury, etc that showed she didn't want to go out there, or that he specifically requested her.

3) the sexual misconduct was from this conversation brendan had with his mom on the phone:

M. Did he make you do this?
B. Ya.
M. Then why didn't you tell him that.
B. Tell him what
M. That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
B. Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
M. What do you mean touching you?
B. He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.
M. Brendan I am your mother.
B. Ya.
M. Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?
B. What do you mean?
M. All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.
B. Ya.
M. Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.
B. Ya ..
M. Yes, and you would still be here with me.
B. Yes, Well you know I did it.
M. Huh
B. You know he always touched us and that.
M. I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
B. Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.
M. What do you mean.
B. Well he would like fake pumping him
M. Goofing around
 
Last edited:
from what i've read, to respond to kratz's points on that link:

1) the *67 calls were at like 2:24 pm and 2:35 pm that day. she was late for her 2:00pm appointment. i'm not sure why he used *67 for those calls, but seeing she was late for an appointment i don't think it's incriminating that he'd be calling her, trying to figure out what's going on...

2) the complaint of not wanting to go to his trailer was based solely on this, “She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel,’’ Pliszka said while the jury was outside of the courtroom. “I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’’ this was not allowed to be used in court. that's it. there was no facts, testimony to the jury, etc that showed she didn't want to go out there, or that he specifically requested her.

3) the sexual misconduct was from this conversation brendan had with his mom on the phone:

M. Did he make you do this?
B. Ya.
M. Then why didn't you tell him that.
B. Tell him what
M. That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
B. Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
M. What do you mean touching you?
B. He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.
M. Brendan I am your mother.
B. Ya.
M. Why didn't you come to me? Why didn't you tell me? Was this all before this happened?
B. What do you mean?
M. All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.
B. Ya.
M. Why didn't you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn't have happened.
B. Ya ..
M. Yes, and you would still be here with me.
B. Yes, Well you know I did it.
M. Huh
B. You know he always touched us and that.
M. I didn't think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
B. Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.
M. What do you mean.
B. Well he would like fake pumping him
M. Goofing around
In response to the phone calls why then did he call her phone again at 4 something and not use *67?
 
In response to the phone calls why then did he call her phone again at 4 something and not use *67?

i don't know. no one does, they can't even say if it was answered or went to voicemail. do you think those calls are incriminating?
 

given that he's an admitted scumbag, i'd take what he says with a grain of salt.

either way, i'm not willing to say steven avery is innocent, i just think with the facts provided in the documentary and these other facts (that i'm taking with a grain of salt) from kratz after the documentary aren't enough to say that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
given that he's an admitted scumbag, i'd take what he says with a grain of salt.

either way, i'm not willing to say steven avery is innocent, i just think with the facts provided in the documentary and these other facts (that i'm taking with a grain of salt) from kratz after the documentary aren't enough to say that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I do think that the phone calls if presented properly could be incriminating. Being a scumbag has nothign to do with the avery case. But im with you. With the evidence provided in the documentary I dont think there was enough there to convict him beyond reasonable doubt
 

read the first comment at the bottom of the article. it is a well written rebuttal to each point by an attorney.

the more i read/hear the more i lean towards Avery possibly being the killer. however, i also am further convinced that evidence was planted against him by LE to get a conviction. i haven't seen anything to make me believe he is guilty without reasonable doubt....
 
  • Like
Reactions: herdit44
I do think that the phone calls if presented properly could be incriminating. Being a scumbag has nothign to do with the avery case. But im with you. With the evidence provided in the documentary I dont think there was enough there to convict him beyond reasonable doubt

i disagree with the scumbag has nothing to do with the avery case. the man very obviously have no/low morals, trying to fvck women involved in cases he's working, drug (rx apparently) addiction, etc. i would say his press conference where he gave in-depth details of the alleged crime and crime scene based on a coerced confession was quite unethical. it largely tainted the entire jury pool, statewide.

i don't know if he's guilty or innocent. i'd say based on all the evidence i've seen, i would have had to acquit him if i were on the jury, there's just not enough there, i have reasonable doubt of his guilt. i do not think law enforcement were involved with her death, i do think they were involved with planting evidence to help bolster the case against him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andy4theherd
i had a huge problem with this statement as well. the defense was barred at the beginning of the trial from implicating anyone else or even producing evidence that suggested another person murdered her. their entire defense was how tainted and poorly handled the investigation/evidence was, not that the police murdered Halback. they couldn't suggest anyone else murdered her per the judge's ruling. the person that was harassing her via phone? the deleted voice messages after she went missing? seems there was a mountain of evidence that pointed towards a disgruntled lover/acquaintance of Halback yet the defense couldn't argue this, and the police gave up any further investigation when they thought they had Avery...
They didn't allow them to produce evidence, because there wasn't any real evidence. The trial court ruled that merely implying that someone else might have done it isn't sufficient evidence. The appeals court affirmed that the evidence proffered did not meet the "legitimate tendency" test. On this particular point, it appears the trial court was correct and he shouldn't have been able to present the evidence.
 
I've watched and read quite a few articles.......

I think he did it......I think the cops were sure he did it and planted evidence to improve their chances.

As far as the trial itself, I think there was enough reasonable doubt, that he probably should have gotten off. I think the nephew was involved somehow as well but he definitely got screwed. Confessions were obviously coerced and most of it made no since. She clearly wasn't shot or stabbed in that trailer.
 
I've watched and read quite a few articles.......

I think he did it......I think the cops were sure he did it and planted evidence to improve their chances.

As far as the trial itself, I think there was enough reasonable doubt, that he probably should have gotten off. I think the nephew was involved somehow as well but he definitely got screwed. Confessions were obviously coerced and most of it made no since. She clearly wasn't shot or stabbed in that trailer.

so, since you think police planted evidence, that the confessions were coerced and made no sense, why do you think the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
 
so, since you think police planted evidence, that the confessions were coerced and made no sense, why do you think the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

Read what I said........Avery should have gotten off and the nephew got screwed. They did it but neither should have been convicted.
 
Read what I said........Avery should have gotten off and the nephew got screwed. They did it but neither should have been convicted.

i read it. i'm curious as to why you feel, with at least some certainty, they are guilty?
 
The history between Avery and Halbach. He specifically requested her. His *67 calls to her phone.

The RAV4 on the property. His DNA under the hood.

Her bones in his fire pit........Her purse, camera, and cell in his burn barrel.

I don't think it happened in any way like the prosecutor and police laid it out but it certainly appears her life ended on his property.

Again, plenty of reasonable doubt and therefore should have been acquitted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andy4theherd
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT