"Making a Murderer" on Netflix

An Inconvenient Truth is a very interesting example. How accurate or inaccurate that documentary may be is still playing out and frankly I don't think that potential manipulation by Al Gore should somehow excuse Making a Murderer. Ultimately, there are different kinds of documentaries that take different liberties. But the supposed topic of this documentary was to expose the justice system as suffering from "tunnel vision" among other things. By that standard the documentary had an implied duty to be at least a little "just". But if anything the documentary almost comically suffered from far more tunnel vision than any police department in the history of law enforcement. It highlighted all of the defense's arguments, left copious amounts of evidence off the table, introduced evidence that wasn't actually evidence, and let the defendant explain his actions in his own words--that's merely skimming the surface. And unlike Inconvenient Truth, we actually know exactly what liberties the documentary took because it's all basically public record. Hence, if the audience wants to play jury they can at least do a little homework first. Alas, that must be asking too much of Americans (or westerners in general). They'll just take the documentary's word for it and do things like accuse the victim's own brother because "he don't like right" or some other nonsense quote you can easily find on the Internet. They'll drag the victim's family through the mud and they'll harass police departments that had nothing to do with any of this.

And you might be right about there being "no heroes" but you might be wrong and if you are wrong that's far worse, because if the allegations the documentary is making are indeed false (which is very possible) then there are heroes in this story--everyone's just too busy pointing fingers to realize it. Our country is kind of hilarious that way. Here are these guys (potentially) trying to protect us from actual murderers, and we thank them by not only instantly judging them guilty of something that was never actually proven, but taking the back of an absolute monster. After all, we "saw it in da movie". Deeeeerp.

 

Well you obviously have your mind made up about this guy, and I'm not going to waste more time arguing about the facts and legal issues here. I have no emotional investment in the case at all. What you seem to be missing is the question that is implied by the title: was Avery a murderer before he spent 18 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit? Or was he, as I suspect, just a dim bulb hick who did some small-time crime but only after his wrongful conviction became homicidal? How would we react under such circumstances? And at the risk of derailing the thread, An Inconvenient Truth doesn't "take liberties"; it contains at least a dozen blatant errors in pursuit of an agenda. Making a Murderer is Gates of Heaven by comparison.

 

And, again, the point of this thread is about Dassey, not Avery. To me, seeing video of first, his own attorney's detective clearly made the kid tell a story that would help the police find the kid guilty. "We got it," the investigator told Dassey's attorney after he got all he wanted.

Then the prosecutors office has two goons sit and tell them, not only what they wanted to hear, but they fed him the scenario that best fit the crime. There's no getting past that interview with the prosecution team. It's the smoking gun, IMO, that got Dassey out of prison. Try him again if they want. Good luck with that!

 

You haven't actually mentioned any facts in regards to the murder (at least not to me). But by all means don't waste your time with me. And definitely don't do any research aside from watching a movie--that would be asking far too much of you and everyone else.

I'm not missing that question, nor am I saying the people who put him behind bars weren't suffering from "tunnel vision" because obviously they were. But none of that excuses his actions. Furthermore the documentary definitely suggests Avery was framed (or "made" into murderer by the police) so taking that question as the sole interpretation of the title is not exactly accurate when there's a different interpretation supported by what the documentary did or did not include. Additionally, Avery was more than a "dim" hick who committed some "small time" crimes, he was arguably pretty dangerous based on previous crimes and accusations.

Well, I know I wouldn't get out and then lure an innocent victim to my home just to murder (and possibly rape) her. Is that how you would react?

I'll take your word for it because I don't personally know, nor do I use that documentary as a source when I'm reading about climate change, and I definitely wouldn't cite it if I was arguing for climate change. Making a Murderer is easily just as bad, though. Of course that would again ask that people actually look into how slanted the documentary is. A headache for most, apparently, even though they have no problem whatsoever taking a stance on things like Avery's innocence or Lenk/Colborn's guilt.

 

No, the point of this thread is the documentary, as clearly indicated by the title of this thread. Dassey's recent triumph is probably the one good thing to come out of Making a Murderer because the case against him was so weak (even though he was quite obviously involved in some way). Nevertheless, it's hard for me to say that the investigators weren't doing their jobs--they just weren't doing them well. Dassey's original attorney on the other hand...

 

You're absolutely right about the thread. I thought there was a new thread about Dassey being set free.

First of all, there were other people in the area the same day Ms. Hallbach was killed. The prosecution didn't work on finding anyone else other than Avery as far as I know. Also, if Avery was dumb enough to kill a woman in his house or garage, as the prosecution insisted, where was all that blood?

Also, how could an investigator look over an area by a nightstand and never see a bullet? It took him to leave the bedroom to go into another room and when he came back, the only person who came after him found a bullet. That's a problem.

 

Same thing with her keys too.

 

There is so much misinformation here. The sad part is I'm pretty sure your questions and points were asked and answered in this thread months ago. And if that wasn't enough, just a smidgen of research would take you to the parts of Dassey's confessions that weren't coerced where he talks very specifically about going to Avery's garage and using gasoline, bleach and paint thinner to clean up what he thought was "car fluid" on the night Halbach went missing. Months later when the garage became the focal point of the investigation a luminol test confirmed there had been a clean up. There is your blood. You also have to keep in mind about three days passed before the investigation took police to Avery's house in the first place. But ultimately, the premise that "if Avery did A, why didn't he do B" is mind-boggling to me--such pure speculation brought about from watching the documentary. Instead of looking to the evidence that is there, people are so hung up on the evidence that isn't and refusing to get their facts right in the meantime. I've never experienced such twisted logic in my lifetime.

As for a bullet in Avery's bedroom, I don't even know what you're talking about. The only bullets I've read about were discovered in the garage months later when the garage became the focal point of the investigation. As for the keys, there were three officers in the room (IIRC) when they were discovered. People are so hung up on this "seven searches" thing because the documentary kept driving that home, but in a murder investigation a crime scene is treated with the utmost care. It wasn't seven searches, it was seven entries into a house filled with clutter, some entries just to fetch one piece of evidence or perform one task. Literally all of this is information that you would come upon if you researched the subject.

At the end of the day, you can either do your homework or just blindly wave your finger at a bunch of cops "because you saw a movie". Just don't do all that and then pass judgment on the OJ jury--at least they reached their verdict in a vacuum.

 

Confessions from a 16 year old kid with an IQ of 70 aren't exactly concrete.

 

But they shouldn't be automatically dismissed either. Without coaching he revealed some vital evidence that points to Avery's guilt. Unless a kid with a VERY vivid imagination made that stuff up (let's get real) then Dassey is testifying to things he saw and did.

For one, I think the the whole thing with him being involved in the rape and murder is crap. However, I do believe he knew or was involved in some of the cover up (whether he knew exactly what was going on is very debatable). The coaching and coaxing he received from his own defense team is ludicrous. He deserves, at least, another trial.

As to the rest, I agree with @bopdd entirely. The documentary was far too slanted and I can't help but think these new episodes are just really kind of a platform for his new attorney (who is apparently very good) and the old ones to promote themselves and their talents.

 

The prosecutor who helped prove the innocence of Making a Murderer’s Steven Avery in 2003 criticized the makers of the docu-series, saying they have manipulated and distorted the truth.

Michael Griesbach, who authored “Indefensible: The Missing Truth about Steven Avery, Teresa Halbach and ‘Making a Murderer,’” spoke with The Wrap regarding the docu-series, describing it as misleading.

Speaking with Deadline, when asked whether filmmaker Moira Demos felt unsure about Avery’s innocence, she said the “story that we were telling, that we were really following at the time, it didn’t depend on his guilt or innocence, it didn’t depend on the verdict going one way or another.” Instead, she added, “It was really to witness and ask questions and explore.”

Making a Murderer’ Not Objective – Michael Griesbach
In his book, Griesbach says selective editing was done in the show. For instance, the three passages of the dialogue, in comparing the transcript from the trial to the ones in the docu-series, have been omitted by the filmmakers.

“Portions of [Sgt Andrew Colborn’s] actual trial testimony were removed from the documentary to make it appear he answered a question in the affirmative that he never answered at all,” Griesbach wrote.

The testimony of Colborn led many to believe that Teresa Halbach’s Toyota RAV4 was found two days before it was officially discovered on the Avery property.

Griesbach, who was interviewed for the show, said he could tell the TV series “was not going to be an objective account of the story.” He added he had an “inkling” the show was going to be biased.

“I made it clear that I thought Avery was getting a fair trial. It became clear very quickly that [Demos and Ricciardi] didn’t look at it that way.

“By excluding facts that don’t fit their aim and manipulating others, they have distorted the truth beyond recognition,” Griesbach wrote. “‘Making a Murderer’ is part of a troubling trend — the courting of public opinion in support of a cause by the production of a propaganda piece disguised as an objective documentary.”

Making a Murderer: Series ‘Not about Taking Sides’ – Ricciardi

Menwhile, filmmaker Laura Ricciardo said that the “series was not about taking sides” and that she and Demos endeavored to “cast the widest net we could conceive of.”

“We invited the state prosecutor, we even invited the judges. We invited the jury, anybody, the Halbach family, anyone was welcome to participate as long as they had some direct connection to the story and could speak from firsthand experience,” she said.

'Making A Murderer' Propaganda: Michael Griesbach Accuses Filmmakers Of Distorting Truth »

 

I've been watching this agian. Currently finished with the first 6 episodes.
I still feel the same way thus far.

 

I think there are two important points worth mentioning (and I probably mentioned these in old posts way back in the thread).

First, documentaries are never truly "objective." There are always biases built into them, sometimes purposeful and sometimes inadvertent. Either way, they are almost always there. The closest you can get to objective is putting a stationary camera on a subject and walking away and releasing the unedited footage. And even then, you can argue biases can be built into that based on where the camera is placed, what period of time the footage covers, etc.

Some docs get *closer* to objective than others.

But this leads into the second point, and a point that indicates that those who come away from the documentary saying "guilty" or "not guilty" are missing the entire point of the series. The point is that whether one or both of the these guys are guilty, their cases were *horribly* handled and they were not given a fair shake either during the investigations or at trial.

The Netflix series did leave out some details that one could argue more strongly points to potential guilt. (Those details have been spoken to by the lawyers and filmmakers to varying degrees). What I think the series *did* do is paint a painfully clear picture of why both convictions are invalid due to the laughably bad quality of the investigation and prosecution. Unethical steps at multiple stages, conflicts of interest up the wazoo.

If anything, I think if you're inclined to think one or both of the guys are guilty, the Netflix series does a great job of pointing out why you should be upset with the police departments and other agencies involved in this case. It is their bungling of the case that has tainted and compromised the case.

I also think, given the widespread interest in the film series and the case, it's rather dismissive to just assume people dumbly watched the series and didn't do any thinking of their own. Tons of people went online for more info. I've actually seen a relatively common reaction to the series, even after further research including details left out of the film series: Both guys were subjected to compromised investigations, Dassey in particular was completely taken advantage of, and I think people are able to process how *those* things are possible even while still wondering very much whether these guys actually did it.

 

Actually, it's the people constantly labeling the investigation as being "horribly handled" who are completely missing the point. Avery's case was really not that "horribly" handled and that's why the people who actually live in Manitowoc aren't up in arms over it. Yes, there was a conflict of interest but if I remember correctly Lenk was a crime scene expert and his experience was needed so they included him in what was a massive investigation involving 100s of police officers. In spite of what the documentary wanted you to believe, he and Colborn were not named in the lawsuit and they personally didn't represent the conflict of interest people think they did. And these notions of Avery getting an unfair trial are primarily reinforced by either the documentary or the defense team. Stuff like a prosecutor talking about details of a case to the public or investigators going too far with a suspect isn't all that shocking or revealing, especially the latter. There's almost no doubt that Dassey was hiding something and investigators simply went too far in pursuing it--it's not their fault Dassey had the worst lawyers in the state selling him short. And as for a tainted jury member, it's the defense team's job to root out such problems and trust me a defense attorney is just as if not more likely to push for a jury member with a bias toward the defendant--that's how jury selection works. Ultimately the thing you and others don't understand is that millions of people decided Avery was innocent after watching a documentary. They didn't do their research. They didn't even take logic into account. They signed petitions and harassed police and dragged the victim's family through the mud based on what the movie told them. And then when they found out the documentary actually concealed a great deal of evidence and furthermore presented evidence that wasn't actually evidence, they didn't call the filmmakers to task over it because their brain was too invested in this notion that Avery was railroaded. If the point of the documentary was to expose an "unfair trial" the documentary undermined its own objective by being more imbalanced than any trial in recent history. And that is just as grave a problem as anything else. The widespread condemnation of two police officers without physical evidence proving they did something wrong is hypocritical beyond words. And that is the point you and many others don't seem to grasp.

 

So you got word a documentary was biased and then watched it again to achieve what exactly? Why don't you actually read the facts of the case? Why don't you look into allegations of sexual assault against Avery from his own family member? Or about the time police arrived to find him dragging his fiance away from the house by her neck? You know the fiance I'm talking about--they show her being all supportive in the documentary except it turns out she's convinced he did it and says she's afraid of him. Why don't you read about how the mention of "insurance not covering the lawsuit" was in regards to one officer's personal policy and that there's no record (IIRC) of the department's insurance company denying the claim? Or maybe you can read the trial transcripts to see that Colborn calling in those plate numbers is not all that suspicious?

No, wait. Don't do any of that. Just watch the movie again.

 

I'm glad you are aware of my internet searches.

When the doc first was released, I was reading plenty online.
As far as I can see, the title of the thread is "Making a Murderer on Netflix". I simply replied that I was viewing it again, and my original thoughts still stand.

OK, so Avery is guilty and he killed her in the trailer on the bed? Or was it in the garage?
WHERE'S ALL THE BLOOD? Wouldn't there be a bloody mattress? Marks on the headboard where she was tied/chained? Wouldn't there be blood on the walls ? On the floor?
How about in the garage? That's a very messy garage, so where's the blood from the gruesome murder? There's was no bleach used to clean up the floor. All that stuff all over that crowded garage and not one drop of blood? Oh yeah, they found a bullet with her "DNA" (contaminated the DNA test) 4 months later when Lenk was there for a "final search" again. No blood on the bullet just "DNA". How does her DNA get on a bullet without the blood? No blood on the walls, on the floor, or on any of the crap in that filthy garage. Nothing was cleaned up in either area.
If he killed her in the garage or trailer, why would he need to put her body in the back of her truck (her blood was in the back) when he supposedly burned her right there?

I keep reading Steven Avery was the last to see her alive, but yet Bobby Dassey says he saw her walking towards Avery's trailer. Wouldn't Bobby be the last one to see her alive?

 

Except there was evidence of a clean up job in the garage. A Luminol test reacted to a 3x3 area and they simply couldn't confirm that the source of the stain was. Furthermore, Brendan Dassey provided testimony that he helped his uncle clean up what appeared to be "car fluid" on the night of the murder using gas, paint thinner and bleach (pretty specific don't you think?). They found bleach on Brendan's pants as well.

Then there's MORE blood in the back of Teresa's car--that blood was confirmed to be hers. Is it really that hard to imagine a scenario where Avery shot Teresa twice in the head in the garage and a small pool of blood formed before he threw her in the back of her jeep and later cleaned up the mess?

As for the "last to see Teresa" alive. You can subscribe to a million theories or you can work with the obvious. If someone claimed they saw the victim walking toward Avery's trailer then that still makes Avery the last person to see her alive (presumably Avery was in the trailer). But ultimately who gives a crap? Avery's blood was in her jeep. Her bones were found on his property and he had a fire going for hours on the night of the murder. His own nephew said he was cleaning something in the garage on the night of the murder. The bullet found months later in the garage didn't just have Teresa's DNA on it, it matched up with a gun hanging over Avery's bed. There's an obsessive need to look everywhere but the most obvious place because the defense team and vicariously the documentary used some next-level misdirection to twist everyone's brains, just like in the OJ case.

Go through the evidence, think about how difficult it would be to plant all that evidence without getting caught. Think of the fact that not one shred of hard proof has emerged to show that anything was planted. Think of the fact that if the police did frame Avery they either had to kill Teresa themselves or find all the evidence pointing directly to another murderer and meticulously transfer all that evidence onto Avery's property without getting caught in a matter of days. Then think of things like the fact that Avery specifically requested Teresa that day, and that he blocked his number when calling her (two things the documentary left out if I remember correctly), or that the police were only suspicious of Brendan after his cousin reported that he'd been talking about "body parts in the fire".

 

The authorities would have no problem planting evidence.... Does the salvage yard still exist?

 

Brendan is not very bright. His story changes every time he is interrogated. How can he possibly be a trustworthy source.

So he shot her in the garage? Where's all the blood spatter in the garage? None on "the gun" either.
You believe Brendan's story about the garage? But what, he lied about the trailer and her being tied up, stabbed, and choked? How do you know what's true?

Who are you worried about catching the cops plant evidence? Other cops? The Manitowoc County was in that area the whole time during the searches. You say they planted it in a matter of days? How about more like weeks and months.
The first search was 10 days if I remember right. Then, 4 MONTHS later they came back and found more "evidence".
It's not Steven Avery's property either.

 

I simply disagree. Objectively, even if you're a thousand percent certain one or both of the guys in question were guilty, it's obvious the investigators and the police department did a horrible job and jeopardized the case in numerous ways. Not the least of which was the conflict of interest that could have easily (and may one day) cost them all of their hard work.

So again, I say it's those who are convinced of Avery's guilt that should be as up in arms if not moreso about the police's poor handling of the case. The police and investigators and many on the prosecution team and their work ended up reflecting negatively on all of their respective professions more than those professions deserve I'd say.

"Yes, there was a conflict of interest, but....." means, to me, that there was a conflict of interest.

One of the reasons, and I would argue perhaps the main reason, that "Making a Murderer" was so compelling was that so much *wasn't* clear cut. There was a conflict of interest. But did they act on it? I'm not sure. They *could* have, and had more motive than your average police department. But it doesn't mean they did for sure. Evidence pointed to Avery's guilt? Enough to overcome reasonable doubt? Not sure.

Was the investigation compromised enough that Avery should go free even if you think he probably did it? It's not an easy question for many to answer.

I think the Dassey side of the case is even more clear cut purely in terms of whether he was afforded the appropriate amount of due process and fairness. Strong evidence there that, at the very least, he wasn't capable of understanding what was going on (e.g. asking if he was going to be out in time to watch Wrestlemania or whatever it was).

 

The planted keys. You forgot that part.

 

The "conflict of interest" was reviewed and they moved past it. The defense played it up as a motive because that's what defense teams do, and now here you are talking about how poorly the police handled the case based on literally nothing but a highlight reel of the defense team's arguments.

And those people who you feel should be "up in arms" would be the people of Manitowoc or at most the people of Wisconsin, not a bunch of strangers who watched a movie. And guess what? All indications show that the citizens of Manitowoc and most of Wisconsin think justice was served. But by all means talk about how "poorly" the investigation was handled based on your deep knowledge of murder investigations (i.e. what I'm assuming is nothing more than what you took away from a movie).

As for Dassey, he might have been screwed but this notion that he's ill-equipped to be interrogated is laughably misguided. His own words to his cousin put him in the cross-hairs. It is an investigator's duty to squeeze every piece of information out of him as possible. This isn't Barney & Friends. A murder was committed. What exactly did you want them to do? Let the kid walk away because he was talking about Wrestlemania?

Lastly, you talk about "unfair" but in a court of law it's often unfair for a defense team to produce theories just to misdirect the jury. There are indications from the trial transcript (you know, that thing I'm nearly positive you haven't read) that the defense tricked the judge into allowing the "framed" angle into play based on the promise of evidence that never arrived. You're getting so hung up on what you think was a miscarriage of justice without realizing high powered defense attorneys are the dirtiest players in the game. Actually, scratch that. Since the documentary is involved we'll have to put defense attorneys right behind the filmmakers as far as manipulation is concerned. It would be all laugh out loud funny that so many people are willing to excuse the blatant bias of the documentary while getting "up in arms" over (what they're labeling as) the blatant bias of the investigators were there not so many dramatic repercussions that are hurting real people in the victim's family.

All this said, I'm not opposed to the overturning of Dassey's conviction, nor am I opposed toward a re-investigation into the Avery case. All I'm saying is that viewers should withhold judgment until evidence arises that Avery was actually framed, and furthermore that people should understand a little more that they got completely owned by a documentary as far as their perception of the investigation goes.

 

I think there's just too much of a dismissive tone as if anybody who agreed with the admittedly obvious underlying premise of the documentary (the "system" handling this case poorly) are only doing so because they blindly watched this documentary like an idiot and weren't able to:

A) Weigh what *is* in the documentary accordingly; I didn't blindly just buy into every defense assertion

B) Do any additional reading or research outside of what is shown in the documentary

I studied the documentary form in film classes in college; I'm well aware of the appropriate level of incredulity I should carry with me going into a film and can also judge afterwards how incredulous I should remain.

The people of that town or region are most certainly *not* the only people who should be up in arms about a potential injustice taking place in any part of the country.

I also don't think anyone's vicinity to the crimes that took place makes them particularly more qualified to judge either the quality of the investigation or the case's eventual outcome. If anything, one of the assertions in the documentary (and in other pieces outside of the documentary) is that the local media coverage was highly prejudicial *against* the defendants well before the trial even took place (e.g. an early press conference where the DA lays out in *excruciating* detail what they believe occurred).

But again, I think it's far too easy to just assume that anyone who also viewed this series who disagrees with your opinion on it must have done so because they based their opinion on "literally nothing but a highlight reel" of defense arguments.

 

Good point.
Where is Theresa's DNA on her key? Just Steven Avery's? Does that seem a bit odd?

 

Then you're definitely not reading the comments sections of any given article about this documentary. Even now, months later, people are still citing the hole in the blood vial as evidence of tampering (in fact it might have occurred just a few days ago in this thread). Other people think Teresa's brother is a suspect because he "looked funny". Yet even more people started harassing the Manitowoc Police Department, which unlike the Sheriff's Department had nothing to do with the investigation. Literally moments after the documentary aired and long before the trial transcript was available, half a million people signed a petition to have Avery PARDONED. Just a few comments ago someone mentioned the "planting of the key" as though it were fact. I could easily go on.

When I see a little more intelligence and rational behavior coming from those who insist on Avery's innocence and/or that the real conversation is about the "poorly handled" investigation, I'll stop being so dismissive (well, I won't stop, but I certainly tone it down). Until then, this documentary has exposed the vulnerability of a misinformed jury far more than it's exposed anything else.