Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Making A Murderer

Anyone else seen this on Netflix? Downloaded all 10 and am binge watching. Brilliant stuff.
«13

Comments

  • My missus made me watch it all last year, it does make you think....
  • Cracking documentary. I've been holed up in bed with pnumonia for the last week so have smashed the lot. When you've finished it have a read of this

    http://www.wetpaint.com/making-a-murderer-evidence-1463954/

    A load of facts that were left out of the doc
  • Bloody hell. Another letdown thread. I'll just have to keep doing it myself.
  • Very good. That Brendan kid had me raging at the screen at times though!
  • Just finished it.

    Very sad.
  • Cracking watch, another if you like hard hitting documentaries;

    Dear Zachary: A story from Father to Son. < Will tear you open and kick you right where it hurts, absolutely heart breaking stuff but somewhat similar watch in that it's based in the US and a true crime
  • Binge watched this over Christmas. Brilliant documentary. Based on what we see through our TV screen it's hard to see how justice is being served.
  • IMO justice was served in the end.
  • masicat said:

    IMO justice was served in the end.

    So you think they were both guilty of the murder?
  • Sponsored links:


  • I think the younger one might have a case. Police and prosecution also scumbags. However, I think Steve Avery is guilty.
  • Anyone seen the HBO documentary series The Jinx? Which one is better? I've seen the film All Good Things and know about the Robert Durst story but I never got around to watching the HBO series. I watched the first episode of Making A Murderer this week and saw The Jinx listed as a similar series so was wondering which one's better...
  • I've seen 8 episodes now. I don't understand the lack of blood - surely if he killed her anywhere on her property, there'd be wholesale traces of blood all over the scene?

    I'm interested to hear what the "missed out" parts are, I'm not sure whether to look now or after episode 10. He almost seems likable, rather unassuming and dopey. Obviously that's what the makers aimed for, though.
  • edited January 2016
    I reckon Steve Avery did it, but I'm not convinced beyond reasonable doubt which is the real test.

    Brandon Dassey had absolutely nothing to do with it, his story makes utterly no sense unless there's additional evidence that wasn't shown.
  • RedPanda said:

    I've seen 8 episodes now. I don't understand the lack of blood - surely if he killed her anywhere on her property, there'd be wholesale traces of blood all over the scene?

    I'm interested to hear what the "missed out" parts are, I'm not sure whether to look now or after episode 10. He almost seems likable, rather unassuming and dopey. Obviously that's what the makers aimed for, though.

    read it after episode 10 but things have been left out from either side ... still haven't got a clue but certainly think the nephew had nothing to do with it.
  • bobcafc7 said:

    RedPanda said:

    I've seen 8 episodes now. I don't understand the lack of blood - surely if he killed her anywhere on her property, there'd be wholesale traces of blood all over the scene?

    I'm interested to hear what the "missed out" parts are, I'm not sure whether to look now or after episode 10. He almost seems likable, rather unassuming and dopey. Obviously that's what the makers aimed for, though.

    read it after episode 10 but things have been left out from either side ... still haven't got a clue but certainly think the nephew had nothing to do with it.
    Why did Brandon Dassey's defence agree to stop showing the police interview tape to the jury before they got to the bit where he basically tells his mum that he fabricated the story because they "got in his head" ?
  • se9addick said:

    bobcafc7 said:

    RedPanda said:

    I've seen 8 episodes now. I don't understand the lack of blood - surely if he killed her anywhere on her property, there'd be wholesale traces of blood all over the scene?

    I'm interested to hear what the "missed out" parts are, I'm not sure whether to look now or after episode 10. He almost seems likable, rather unassuming and dopey. Obviously that's what the makers aimed for, though.

    read it after episode 10 but things have been left out from either side ... still haven't got a clue but certainly think the nephew had nothing to do with it.
    Why did Brandon Dassey's defence agree to stop showing the police interview tape to the jury before they got to the bit where he basically tells his mum that he fabricated the story because they "got in his head" ?
    I thought exactly the same. Made no sense.
  • RedPanda said:

    I've seen 8 episodes now. I don't understand the lack of blood - surely if he killed her anywhere on her property, there'd be wholesale traces of blood all over the scene?

    I'm interested to hear what the "missed out" parts are, I'm not sure whether to look now or after episode 10. He almost seems likable, rather unassuming and dopey. Obviously that's what the makers aimed for, though.

    The missed out parts are pretty minor in comparison. Don't think anyone can get to the end of it and not have serious questions about the police's conduct. Every significant piece of evidence seems to have been stumbled on by the local cops after repeated searches. Brendan's defence council is such a piece of work you'd question his plausibility if he was a fictional character. The victim's strange "brother" and creepy room mate are also bizarre. Deleted text messages being ruled inadmissible is another odd turn. Charles Avery is a proper wrong un, but the police didn't show much interest. Whether or not he did it, the evidence is a shit show. The moral of the story is don't sue the state for millions and stay living there.
  • RedPanda said:

    I've seen 8 episodes now. I don't understand the lack of blood - surely if he killed her anywhere on her property, there'd be wholesale traces of blood all over the scene?

    I'm interested to hear what the "missed out" parts are, I'm not sure whether to look now or after episode 10. He almost seems likable, rather unassuming and dopey. Obviously that's what the makers aimed for, though.

    The missed out parts are pretty minor in comparison. Don't think anyone can get to the end of it and not have serious questions about the police's conduct. Every significant piece of evidence seems to have been stumbled on by the local cops after repeated searches. Brendan's defence council is such a piece of work you'd question his plausibility if he was a fictional character. The victim's strange "brother" and creepy room mate are also bizarre. Deleted text messages being ruled inadmissible is another odd turn. Charles Avery is a proper wrong un, but the police didn't show much interest. Whether or not he did it, the evidence is a shit show. The moral of the story is don't sue the state for millions and stay living there.
    Wasn't Steve Avery's sweat found under the bonnet of the Toyota too ?
  • 3 Episodes in, shocking stuff, certainly isn't the America you see in films and TV is it?!
  • Sponsored links:


  • 3 Episodes in, shocking stuff, certainly isn't the America you see in films and TV is it?!

    It is if you've seen Deliverance.
  • 3 Episodes in, shocking stuff, certainly isn't the America you see in films and TV is it?!

    It is if you've seen Deliverance.
    Not seen it mate, "your sister is your mother" springs to mind with Wisconsin though.
  • By the look of some of them I think one may conclude that the gene pool is not spread too wide in that area.
  • se9addick said:

    bobcafc7 said:

    RedPanda said:

    I've seen 8 episodes now. I don't understand the lack of blood - surely if he killed her anywhere on her property, there'd be wholesale traces of blood all over the scene?

    I'm interested to hear what the "missed out" parts are, I'm not sure whether to look now or after episode 10. He almost seems likable, rather unassuming and dopey. Obviously that's what the makers aimed for, though.

    read it after episode 10 but things have been left out from either side ... still haven't got a clue but certainly think the nephew had nothing to do with it.
    Why did Brandon Dassey's defence agree to stop showing the police interview tape to the jury before they got to the bit where he basically tells his mum that he fabricated the story because they "got in his head" ?
    I think it was just poor work from the defence team and they missed it
  • J BLOCK said:

    se9addick said:

    bobcafc7 said:

    RedPanda said:

    I've seen 8 episodes now. I don't understand the lack of blood - surely if he killed her anywhere on her property, there'd be wholesale traces of blood all over the scene?

    I'm interested to hear what the "missed out" parts are, I'm not sure whether to look now or after episode 10. He almost seems likable, rather unassuming and dopey. Obviously that's what the makers aimed for, though.

    read it after episode 10 but things have been left out from either side ... still haven't got a clue but certainly think the nephew had nothing to do with it.
    Why did Brandon Dassey's defence agree to stop showing the police interview tape to the jury before they got to the bit where he basically tells his mum that he fabricated the story because they "got in his head" ?
    I think it was just poor work from the defence team and they missed it
    Missed it ? Surely not ? That video was about the only evidence the prosecution had. There must be stuff that was left out of the documentary that explains it.
  • I think Avery did it, the kid admitted to being there as the police said he could go home. He doesn't know any better.
  • edited January 2016
    I've just binged watched this over two nights. Absolutely compelling viewing.

    I don't think he did it at all. The police were after him because of his litigation against them and they got their man.

    The court appearance where the cop calls in the car registration was damning as was the syringe hole in the blood vile yet they were never really followed up on .
    Also the first Lawyer Brandon got should have been struck off. he was a disgrace.

    Brillant TV show yet very depressing to think that that can actually happen in a civilised country.
  • It's so good, and so addictive, isn't it?

    My mum grew up in central Illinois, and she says these are the people she grew up with. Those conversations that go on with "yeah," "yeah?" "Yeah." Ugh.

    I also highly recommend the documentary "The Central Park 5" on Netflix, and listening to the podcast Serial, as well as the This American Life Podcast episode with Jim Trainum on false confessions. So much of what he talks about is present here, and it's incredibly important. Sometimes when police are fishing for a confession, they inadvertently (and in this case I think it is inadvertent, putting aside everything else) provide details to the suspect that only the perpetrator would know. There is the great example of this with the gunshot to the head.

    Also, please know that this story is in no way unique in America. You've probably heard of the increase in protests again police misconduct, but this has been going on for as long as there have been police. I would argue that one of the genuinely unique things about the Avery case is that he is white. You could go into any urban/inner city setting and find similar miscarriages of justice--not just planting of evidence, but poor public representation, trial by public, etc.

    Credit to @se9addick for pointing out what is most important: I don't think the state proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the documentary aired, Dean Strang has said in interviews it's the case that keeps him up at night. He and Buting played an absolute blinder. That should be the standard, rather than the exception for representation.
  • I find it utterly amazing and terrifying in equal measure that a jury found him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt"

    Utter madness.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!