re: New Netflix docu-series "Making a Murderer" (Spoilers)

My wife has no interest. All I ever want is for her to watch this stuff with me so we can talk about it. But she never is... *heavy sigh*

Womp womp

quote:

---

I have to admit, the whole thing is so comprehensive and immersing. I've never really seen anything like it

---

Have you seen "The Staircase"?

It's a long docuseries that is in the same vein as "Making a Murderer". It's available streaming online. I won't give any specific details but y'all should check it out.

It covers years of a murder case from start to finish. The documentary film makers were on another project when the murder happened and they started filming something like within a week of the murder and follow it all the way through the investigation and trial. They practically lived with the people involved. It's fantastic.

quote:

---

Well, I don't know about all that. One or more Averys killed that girl - now, you want to say "reasonable doubt"? Fine. You want to say the cops had it out for this cat? Fine.

But, one cannot ignore the fact he was a bad egg from a bad nest. He had multiple charges, including burning up the family cat, violence/threatening violence, and so forth. What the documentary is - essentially - the trial package from his civil rights lawyers, edited for time and a few other tidbits thrown in.

(I haven't finished it yet, but, for the record, I think there is a good chance he killed that girl and felt the state "owed" him a crime.)

---

This is why he got convicted IMO.

Reasonable doubt, fine. Cops had it out for him, fine. But I think he did it, convict.


Reasonable doubt is the threshold. It's the only threshold. Either beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

Both need a new trial with an impartial jury. I personally believe that is necessary and will put it to rest. Too much shadiness on their initial convictions. If the state is confident in their evidence then retrial and put them away for good. It'll all go away.

From my knowledge, the state has a huge advantage in retrials, it's close to 99%. This is from hung juries, where a verdict wasn't rendered. AD can choose to refile or not. When they refile, they learn from earlier frickups and boom, done.

So why are they so scared? Is it because they "have their guys" in prison already? That's what got them in trouble to begin with imprisoning Avery on a rape another dude committed.

quote:

---

I get your thought, but this is NOT what I have to believe.

---

What's the third option? Non-Averys were all over their property doing this crime with none of them detecting the traffic or aftermath?



On the other hand, I hold a very peculiar opinion that O.J. killed Nicole, AND the LAPD planted evidence (because they "knew" he did it).


In the Avery case, though, I see the complexities that make this such an interesting discussion. Clearly he was a bad egg (completely sugarcoated by the documentary - so far). A bad egg, as opposed to this simple, rural family man as portrayed.

But, he didn't rape the woman he did the time for. Not only was he wrongfully prosecuted/convicted/incarcerated, they went out of their way to do so. So - now he's out. If he had actually committed any serious crime, the investigation would be questioned because of what happened before. That's the quandry - there was, in fact, a serious crime committed and there is a lot of evidence he was involved. And the cops were still out to get him.

So, do we give him a pass because of what happened? Or look at the evidence in this case objectively.

Not shown or dismissed in the documentary (I cribbed this from National Post):


-In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times, always specifically requesting Halbach to come out to his family’s junkyard and take photos.

-Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to visit Avery’s trailer again, because once when she did, he answered the door wearing only a towel.

-On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

-The bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, which always hung above his bed.

-Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Brendan Dassey described holding Halbach just three weeks before. Avery said he had bought them to use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he’d had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days.

-In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, Dassey said that he helped Avery move the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Although this was presented at trial, and even if you do believe that the blood in Halbach’s car was planted by the police, this suggests that there was non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch, though it was never addressed in this way.


So - again, unless I'm missing a 3rd option, the circumstances surrounding Halbach's disappearance and death mean that:

1. Avery (or his cousins/nephews/uncles, etc.) did all these things to her, or

2. The cops did it with the express intent to frame him for it.

I'm not saying that - alone - is enough to convict him, but more than enough for me to question this, "double miscarriage of justice" story line. Certainly, he didn't do the rape for which he was convicted.

The murder? I'm not so sure he is innocent.

Does anybody know if the blood in the purple tube was tested for EDTA? I didn't hear this noted in the documentary.

If the blood in the rav4 didn't have EDTA that doesn't prove anything if the original sample didn't have it either.

Is it possible they used another type of preservative? Just because someone put a purple lid on the tube doesn't necessarily mean it factually had EDTA in the sample. Some idiot could have just put the wrong top on the container.

(no message)

quote:

---

oes anybody know if the blood in the purple tube was tested for EDTA? I didn't hear this noted in the documentary.

---

It was never noted and they 100% should have done a blank with the tube blood, but with the FBI not establishing a detection limit, I don't know if I trust them to do that, or even if they did, it would mean anything

No detection limit makes everything the FBI did worthless

quote:

---

All those "facts" that the doc left out are kind of weak and can easily be defended.

---

Not to mention many are dishonest with nothing to back them up. I believe several also came straight from Kratz with nothing to substantiate them, so keep that in mind when someone tries to use those as "facts".