Steven Avery: Making of a Murderer

[Matthew Best]

It was produced by Avery's defense

Citation needed.

 

[SomedayGirl]

I'd be interested in that answer as well. In an interview with the filmmakers that I'd read they said it was a combination of grants and personal money that paid for it.

 

[lionking]

The treatment of Dassey by the police was child abuse. Disgusting.

 

[lionking]

As an aside, I asked a number of family members and friends if they were planning to watch Making of a Murderer. Most had already started, and the remainder were planning to. All said "don't tell me anything". The documentary has certainly captured the imagination here.

 

[Samson]

As an aside, I asked a number of family members and friends if they were planning to watch Making of a Murderer. Most had already started, and the remainder were planning to. All said "don't tell me anything". The documentary has certainly captured the imagination here.

Which should be a message to all students of film making. People love crime mysteries, so get ahead of the curve. This is the modern world of crime solving. No longer can the machinery of state and judiciary foist provably corrupt practice. The searchlight is on. Film and documentary making is for seekers of truth, not just professionals.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Citation needed.

I withdraw it until I can find the proof. I read it somewhere and I should know better than to assert something for which I have no proof. Sorry.

I did also read they were "embedded with the defense" and I found that quote, but there is no proof offered for that statement either. I will say that the fact that they left out some important aspects of the case make it obvious the series was slanted toward the defense. There are 2 sides to every story and I think the series was quite adept at conveying the one side.

I do not think there is any defense for what the authorities did to Brendan. That is certainly a travesty and I hope someone can right that situation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just done a google search. The guy is innocent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Avery.

Did you not read past the first few lines?

Avery and another man pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after pouring gasoline and oil on Avery's cat and throwing it, alive, into a fire; Avery was sentenced to prison again for that crime.

And from a link in the link:

Halbach, 25, a photographer from St. John in Calumet County, had gone to the Avery family's auto salvage yard near Mishicot on an assignment to take pictures of a vehicle for sale. Relatives searching for her later found her vehicle partially concealed in the salvage yard, and investigators found her charred bone fragments in a burn pit near Avery's home.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You guys need to understand it is not a documentary. It was produced by Avery's defense and many facts from the trial were left out. Avery called Halbach's phone multiple times during that day. He used *67 so she could not tell who was calling her. Then he called her late in the afternoon, presumably to make it look like he was looking for her when she didn't show up. That is the one time he did not block his number. The implication is it was because he knew she wasn't going to see it anyway.

I was surprised to read about the prosecution's evidence which was never mentioned in the series. That said, I think what they did to Brendan was a travesty.

I don't know about the defense being involved in making the documentary but I found a source for your other claims.

Steven Avery prosecutor Ken Kratz claims Netflix documentary Making a Murderer 'left out key evidence'

And such is the problem with evidence by documentary. It may not be fair and balanced.

Phone records showed he called her twice ahead of her scheduled visit on 31 October 2005, the day she disappeared, using a feature to disguise his number – and then again hours later.

Mr Katz told People the victim’s bones, teeth, camera and phone were found in a fire pit behind Avery’s house and a bullet fired by his rifle was found with traces of her DNA.

Defence lawyers suggested police may have planted the bullet and claimed the bones had been moved from another location.

Moved the bones? That's far fetched. I take it the bullet wasn't in the fire pit. Where did the cops get the victim's DNA to contaminate the bullet with? How many coconspirators would that have involved?

 

[sloinker]

I've only seen the first episode and while it looks like he was railroaded on the rape charge, he deserved the 14 years in prison for the torture of the cat. It appears that maybe a posse needs to be formed and extermination squads sent to that county to clean up the gene pool of low functioning citizens and worthless cops/prosecutors.

 

[lionking]

I've only seen the first episode and while it looks like he was railroaded on the rape charge, he deserved the 14 years in prison for the torture of the cat. It appears that maybe a posse needs to be formed and extermination squads sent to that county to clean up the gene pool of low functioning citizens and worthless cops/prosecutors.

0.22 of a post a day and you waste a full one like this?

Eugenics has been tried before, interestingly in the US before Nazi Germany. How did that go?

 

[sloinker]

0.22 of a post a day and you waste a full one like this?

Eugenics has been tried before, interestingly in the US before Nazi Germany. How did that go?

Not a waste at all, you replied. The posse portion was actually said in jest but some things don't translate well over the net.

 

[Elagabalus]

I've only seen the first episode and while it looks like he was railroaded on the rape charge, he deserved the 14 years in prison for the torture of the cat. It appears that maybe a posse needs to be formed and extermination squads sent to that county to clean up the gene pool of low functioning citizens and worthless cops/prosecutors.

My thoughts as well (at least, the first part). The cat incident shows some disturbing traits.

 

[johnny karate]

Moved the bones? That's far fetched.

Why? The police had the run of that salvage yard for eight days. How hard would it have been to simply move the remains to a spot closer to Avery?

Other things to remember regarding this particular point:

- Other people lived on site at that salvage yard. Including Brendan Massey's stepfather and older brother. Who not only alibied each other (and whose alibis were contradicted by a third party), but also offered testimony against Avery. The police never treated either of them as a suspect.

- There was an incinerator on the premises at the salvage yard. But Avery - for some inexplicable reason - chose to burn Halbach's body five feet from his trailer.

I take it the bullet wasn't in the fire pit. Where did the cops get the victim's DNA to contaminate the bullet with?

As mentioned upthread, that particular DNA evidence was tainted due to a violation of protocol, so I'm not sure how much stock we can place in its veracity. It should have never been allowed into evidence.

And here's a fun fact: Sherry Culhane, the state forensic examiner who both botched the test and violated protocol, is the same forensic examiner who got it wrong in Avery's 1985 wrongful conviction:

Culhane said DNA tests of a hair taken from the 1985 assault victim — one of the same hairs that Culhane had testified nearly two decades earlier was “consistent” with Avery’s — was in fact from another man, Gregory Allen, a dangerous sexual offender who had been on the radar of local police for years.

How many coconspirators would that have involved?

Maybe two. The rest of it can be attributed to incompetence and the propensity of law enforcement to cover for each other and move in lockstep towards a predetermined conclusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why? The police had the run of that salvage yard for eight days. How hard would it have been to simply move the remains to a spot closer to Avery?

Other things to remember regarding this particular point:

- Other people lived on site at that salvage yard. Including Brendan Massey's stepfather and older brother. Who not only alibied each other (and whose alibis were contradicted by a third party), but also offered testimony against Avery. The police never treated either of them as a suspect.

- There was an incinerator on the premises at the salvage yard. But Avery - for some inexplicable reason - chose to burn Halbach's body five feet from his trailer.



As mentioned upthread, that particular DNA evidence was tainted due to a violation of protocol, so I'm not sure how much stock we can place in its veracity. It should have never been allowed into evidence.

And here's a fun fact: Sherry Culhane, the state forensic examiner who both botched the test and violated protocol, is the same forensic examiner who got it wrong in Avery's 1985 wrongful conviction:

Maybe two. The rest of it can be attributed to incompetence and the propensity of law enforcement to cover for each other and move in lockstep towards a predetermined conclusion.

Sorry, I'm not convinced.

 

[truethat]

I withdraw it until I can find the proof. I read it somewhere and I should know better than to assert something for which I have no proof. Sorry.

I did also read they were "embedded with the defense" and I found that quote, but there is no proof offered for that statement either. I will say that the fact that they left out some important aspects of the case make it obvious the series was slanted toward the defense. There are 2 sides to every story and I think the series was quite adept at conveying the one side.

I do not think there is any defense for what the authorities did to Brendan. That is certainly a travesty and I hope someone can right that situation.

I'm watching it now. I was surprised to read on the Wikipedia page that one of his crimes was dousing a cat with gasoline and throwing it into a fire.

It's got me wondering why everyone in the documentary is acting like he is this swell guy who got railroaded. He got railroaded but that is some seriously horrifying ****.

 

[johnny karate]

Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Fair enough. But what this documentary was really about wasn't the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery, but rather the dubious tactics the state used to convict him and his nephew.

Steven Avery might have killed Teresa Halbach (I would argue that no compelling evidence has been presented that he did), but your inclination to not be convinced that he didn't is exactly the problem this series is highlighting. Our criminal justice system is supposed to work the other way around.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm watching it now. I was surprised to read on the Wikipedia page that one of his crimes was dousing a cat with gasoline and throwing it into a fire.

It's got me wondering why everyone in the documentary is acting like he is this swell guy who got railroaded. He got railroaded but that is some seriously horrifying ****.

I've watched the whole series. I don't recall anyone making him out to be a "swell guy". He and his whole family came across as a bunch of skeevy ignorant hicks.

But even skeevy ignorant hicks who light cats on fire have the right to be treated fairly by our criminal justice system. Do you disagree?

 

[lionking]

I've watched the whole series. I don't recall anyone making him out to be a "swell guy". He and his whole family came across as a bunch of skeevy ignorant hicks.

But even skeevy ignorant hicks who light cats on fire have the right to be treated fairly by our criminal justice system. Do you disagree?

Not only that, but he did seem to show genuine remorse throughout the doco. I'm certain many would have done something stupid and criminal as a teenager (while not as gross as this) and would not expect that the deed be held against them for the rest of their lives.

Please note I am not defending Avery at all, and he did get punished rightly for this crime. It simply should not be used to infer any guilt for murder.

 

[Caper]

I'm watching it now. I was surprised to read on the Wikipedia page that one of his crimes was dousing a cat with gasoline and throwing it into a fire.

It's got me wondering why everyone in the documentary is acting like he is this swell guy who got railroaded. He got railroaded but that is some seriously horrifying ****.

He came off as an idiot through most of the documentary.

 

[truethat]

I've watched the whole series. I don't recall anyone making him out to be a "swell guy". He and his whole family came across as a bunch of skeevy ignorant hicks.

But even skeevy ignorant hicks who light cats on fire have the right to be treated fairly by our criminal justice system. Do you disagree?

No I don't disagree. But I don't think it's about him being "treated fairly" I couldn't care less how he was treated. I just think we need to be impartial and just in our systems.

It seems to me in watching the series that the outside investigators who came in know he did it. I do think they planted her key in his room and that the swipe of blood on the car seems suspicious. Did he have any cuts on him? Where did the blood come from?

However, her burned body was found on his property, her car was there and he was the last person to see her alive.

When they were interviewing him before she was found, I felt like he was lying (Don't start flipping out on me, I'm not saying that means he was guilty! It's just my impression after watching years of cops interviewing liars)

If they planted the evidence but he's guilty it's a situation where the cops should be punished but in doing so the conviction would be overturned. That's a problem.

There are several things left out of the documentary that make me question their objectivity.

Here's a link on Daily Mail that explains some of them. (And I know it's daily fail!)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ardon-subjects-Netflix-s-hit-documentary.html

The two calls with the number blocked and then the last one with it not blocked (because he knew she wouldn't pick up) were interesting to me.


I was directed to this video by Ryan Ferguson who was vindicated by the Innocence Project. But in the case of Ryan Ferguson it is clear he was innocent. I'm not so sure on this guy.