Making a Murderer

[The_Real_TCIII]

Ok I finally gave in to the pressure and I'm watching it. Anyone else? I'm only through two episodes so no spoilers please

[Red]

I finished it 2 days ago it was worth watching

[chiefbkt]

Watched it with the wife, I'll just say it wasn't a waste of time.

[The_Real_TCIII]

I'm through three episodes and so far I don't see how people are so moved to think he's innocent, there must be a lot more to come

[wildcat junkie]

We started watching it one evening & spentthe whole next day watching the rest of it.  Riveting!

[chrisw]

Its a very good documentary. You won't regret watching it. I too watched it in 2 days, it is hard to turn off the further you get into it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[The_Field_Ager]

I have read that key trial evidence was left out of the making of this show.

 

Info here: http://time.com/4167699/netflix-making-a-murderer-evidence-left-out/

Edited January 7, 2016 by Papist

[chrisw]

I have read that key trial evidence was left out of the making of this show.

Info here: http://time.com/4167699/netflix-making-a-murderer-evidence-left-out/

Yea I heard something about that too. I'm going to look further into it. Obviously the documentary is one sided but the whole thing reaks of corruption if you ask me... Certainly a controversial case.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[Marion]

Yes but let's not miss the fact that this guy was a bit of a scumbag to begin with. It's not like he was some saintly kid they pulled out of Church to arrest him and charge him with murder. He had done some bad stuff in his time let alone setting his damn cat on fire. That to me reaks of not the best guy in the world

You Can't Beat My Meat!

[The_Real_TCIII]

I made myself go to bed at 1 last night after episode four

[The_Real_TCIII]

Yes but let's not miss the fact that this guy was a bit of a scumbag to begin with. It's not like he was some saintly kid they pulled out of Church to arrest him and charge him with murder. He had done some bad stuff in his time let alone setting his damn cat on fire. That to me reaks of not the best guy in the world

You Can't Beat My Meat!

That's true but the rape conviction was by any account some serious corruption. That poor woman that got raped later by the actual rapist is the one who should be suing that county back to the Stone Age

[growalot]

I've been avoiding that...and this thread had me thinking...until the last post. To that a true Thank You

OK slow typist...to Jerkmans post...lol

Edited January 7, 2016 by growalot

[The_Real_TCIII]

I can't get over Dassey's attorney with that goofy Jerry Lundergaard smile

Edited January 7, 2016 by The_Real_TCIII

[The_Real_TCIII]

Aaaaannndddd...fired.

[chrisw]

Yes but let's not miss the fact that this guy was a bit of a scumbag to begin with. It's not like he was some saintly kid they pulled out of Church to arrest him and charge him with murder. He had done some bad stuff in his time let alone setting his damn cat on fire. That to me reaks of not the best guy in the world

You Can't Beat My Meat!

Granted he wouldn't win citizen of the year, but that's no reason to look past the 18 yrs the guy did for lazy, tunnel visioned law enforcement, Or the fact that he may very well be innocent on the latest charges also. One can certainly see motive on behalf of the sheriffs department. I hope its not the case but let's face it... Police officers, judges etc... Are all humans and subject to the same emotions we all have and I know a few that were/are certainly no citizen of the year material either.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[The_Field_Ager]

Steven Avery's ex brands him a 'monster' and says 'he's guilty'

 

 

Jodi Stachowski, the ex-fiance of Making A Murderer's Steven Avery has said 'he's guilty' of Teresa Halbach and alleged that he was violent and abusive throughout their relationship.

 

• SHARE
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
• GO TO
  •  

Stachowski appeared on American legal commentarty show Nancy Grace on Wednesday night to speak about her ex, branding him a "monster" who used to "beat her all the time".

“He told me once, all b*tches owe him, because the one that sent him to prison the first time,” she says, referring to Avery’s wrongful conviction for sexual assault in 1985.

“We all owed him. And he could do whatever he wanted”

 

 

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-ex-brands-him-a-monster-and-says-hes-guilty-34363911.html

[WNYBuckHunter]

I have read that key trial evidence was left out of the making of this show.

 

Info here: http://time.com/4167699/netflix-making-a-murderer-evidence-left-out/

 

The only things they left out that were on that list were the DNA on the car and the people on the jury with relatives in the Sheriffs department. The rest was in there.

 

I dont know all the facts surrounding the case, but from what I saw in the documentary, there was enough to make it reek of the county doing anything it could to get retribution against the guy for the lawsuit and embarrassment of their sloppy work being brought to public light. It was an interesting show to watch in any case.

 

Granted, the guy was no saint, but just making some mistakes and being kind of an a-hole doesnt mean you deserve to be convicted of a crime you didnt commit.

 

If the allegations from his ex were true, it wouldnt be hard for her to prove via police reports, and threats from a phone call from jail would have been recorded. Im sure those will come out if they are in fact true.

[The_Real_TCIII]

I have to keep posting this

[BigGuyNY]

Show is very one sided.  After you finish watching it do some of your own research.  

 

[The_Real_TCIII]

The thing I can't get past is how those morons could clean up the blood. I butcher deer in my garage and if a crime lab wanted to prove that I doubt there's any way on earth I could fool them. If they shot her in that garage or tortured her and cut her throat on a bed how the heck could they cover that up? The other thing is Lenk messing around the crime scene when he wasn't supposed to go anywhere near it. Weeks later he finds a bullet in the middle of the garage in plain sight.

[wildcat junkie]

The thing I can't get past is how those morons could clean up the blood. I butcher deer in my garage and if a crime lab wanted to prove that I doubt there's any way on earth I could fool them. If they shot her in that garage or tortured her and cut her throat on a bed how the heck could they cover that up? The other thing is Lenk messing around the crime scene when he wasn't supposed to go anywhere near it. Weeks later he finds a bullet in the middle of the garage in plain sight.

 

And after all that miraculous clean up in the garage & the bedroom, (they even jack hammered a crack in the floor of the garage & found zilch) he managed to wipe every fingerprint off her car but left some small spots of blood. And why wasn't her DNA found on the car keys? Only Steve Avery's DNA was present. How is that even be possible?

 

As for the bullet" A shot through the skull & there was no bone embedded in the bullet. They had to do a "wash" to find DNA?

 

Whether he did it or not, one thing seems certain. The cops planted evidence. Reminds me of the near perfectly symmetrical blood spots at the O J Simpson murder scene. Supposedly from O J as he "fled" the scene. Ever see a symmetrical blood spot in a blood trail unless the deer was standing?

Edited January 15, 2016 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

The only things they left out that were on that list were the DNA on the car and the people on the jury with relatives in the Sheriffs department. The rest was in there.

 

 

The 1st pol of the jury was 7 not guilty, 3 guilty & 2 undecided. How in the hell did they ever convince the majority of change their minds?