(Spoilers)Making a Murderer - for those who have watched all 10

[AZOffaly]

Any jury trial where the crime is covered in the media beforehand is flawed in my opinion. You are really relying on average joes like ourselves being completely ignorant of the crime until they hear the evidence in court. In a big crime, this very rarely happens and the jury *has* to have some residual opinion going into the case.

Look at Joe O'Reilly here. Now I'm sure he's guilty, but after the Late Late Show, and all the press coverage up to and including his arrest, how would you find 12 people that didn't have an opinion about the case.

And if there's one thing this board has shown me over the years, it's that people steadfastly hold onto their original opinions on stuff, even if they only have partial facts or even incorrect supposition beforehand. People become emotionally invested in not being 'wrong'.

[screenexile]

The problem is this PD seem so inept and the trail will have gone so cold that there is no chance the real killer could be found.

Don't get me wrong I don't think Avery is any Saint and if he did kill her it wouldn't surprise me a whole lot but I don't understand why he would keep the car on site and why he would burn her in an open fire when they had a crusher and an incinerator on site.

Also one of his family could have done it as they don't seem the most mentally stable group and they could easily have done it to get Steven out of the picture or even worked in cahoots with Lenk and Kolborn, also Lenk and Kolborn could have done it themselves or the ex boyfriend and brother look extra shady!!

[TF15]

Interestingly Steve Avery believes it could have been Chuck and Earl Avery. Sadly, as I said before, the police had only one target and had tunnel vision. In your opinion Stew where and how did Avery kill her? That's where there is concrete reasonable doubt.

[stew]

Interestingly Steve Avery believes it could have been Chuck and Earl Avery. Sadly, as I said before, the police had only one target and had tunnel vision. In your opinion Stew where and how did Avery kill her? That's where there is concrete reasonable doubt.

There is a ton of evidence against Avery lads, his sweat was found under the hood of her car, phone calls, blood in the vehicle, sworn testimony that he talked about setting up a prison and about raping and killing, it goes on and on.
43rd

[TF15]

But the timeline and events of the murder are what the case is built on as her DNA could not be found on his property, or rope fibres. There is not one trace that she was ever in the trailer or garage.

[stew]

A pure sham
Jury presumed Guilty  from the off instead of the other way around As for Dassey's Lawyer Len, he should never be allowed to defend anybody ever again
Unbelievable  that that would happen in  the Us in 2007 

http://uproxx.com/tv/megyn-kelly-making-a-murderer-lawyers/

Really, I recall 3 of the jury said they thought him guilty initially, the jury looked at the evidence and convicted him.

[gallsman]

Any jury trial where the crime is covered in the media beforehand is flawed in my opinion. You are really relying on average joes like ourselves being completely ignorant of the crime until they hear the evidence in court. In a big crime, this very rarely happens and the jury *has* to have some residual opinion going into the case.

Look at Joe O'Reilly here. Now I'm sure he's guilty, but after the Late Late Show, and all the press coverage up to and including his arrest, how would you find 12 people that didn't have an opinion about the case.

And if there's one thing this board has shown me over the years, it's that people steadfastly hold onto their original opinions on stuff, even if they only have partial facts or even incorrect supposition beforehand. People become emotionally invested in not being 'wrong'.

Look at the murder of Joanna Yeates in the UK and the trial by media of her landlord Christopher Jeffries because he was a bit odd? There were lads on here declaring him guilty ffs.

[fearbrags]

  """Really, I recall 3 of the jury said they thought him guilty initially, the jury looked at the evidence and convicted him.""

A jury convicted   ""Dassey""  too

A jury also Convicted  Avery  in the first  trial too

[shezam]

A pure sham
Jury presumed Guilty  from the off instead of the other way around As for Dassey's Lawyer Len, he should never be allowed to defend anybody ever again
Unbelievable  that that would happen in  the Us in 2007 

http://uproxx.com/tv/megyn-kelly-making-a-murderer-lawyers/

Really, I recall 3 of the jury said they thought him guilty initially, the jury looked at the evidence and convicted him.

Or they were forced a few strong minded people

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/former-steven-avery-case-juror-on-making-a-154605397.html

[omaghjoe]

Just finished this and thought it was very one sided so it is now difficult to be objective about it after seeing Avery portrayed in a friendly light and much of the evidence undermined with the framing theory. In a way us being introduced to this case by this documentary series is like the Wisconsin public being introduced to the State prosecutors theory during the press conference after Deasey's "confession". So once that was in their head it was very hard to get it out again even tho they didnt even use that story during Avery's trail.

Anyway everything else aside I was more than a little bemused at the scientific evidence used during that trail by supposed scientific experts. The DNA lady with the big hair was using "common sense" according to the prosecution to arrive at her conclusions. What the feck does common sense have to do with scientific conclusions? Nothing that's what, it either is, or it is not. If according to procedure a contaminated test piece is void, then it is void. I dare say she did not write the procedure or had anything to do with it so she is in no position to alter it. Common sense opinions are irrelevant if the procedure is not followed.

Then there was the man who done the FBI blood test to prove whether or not there was traces of the blood preservative he concluded that the three blood samples that he did not test did not contain the preservative even tho he hadnt tested them....WTF....! Nothing only idle speculation based on his opinion, not scientific in the slightest.

Not to mention the fact that there wasn't a shred of scientific or direct evidence incriminating Dassey. The kid should be let out tomorrow. Avery... well its hard to know a retrail would be best, certainly the evidence as presented in the documentary would not appear to be enough to convict him.

[stew]

Stew Even though You changed your tune a lot from beginning of this thread , I would not want you on ""my Jury"" Just saying 

Why? if I was on a jury I was have to consider that at the time of the start of the trial he is innocent until proven guilty. Bring on a jury is serious business, it is one thing to sit her at my desk and talk to you lot, quite another when a man's life is on the line, I would be fair.

[laoislad]

Just finished watching it.Really great show .
Not convinced he is innocent but based on what I watched can't see how he could be convicted either.
Is it Bobby who was Brendans brother?  There was something about him and his dad(step dad maybe)  that just didn't seem right.  They were the two who said they went hunting but had all their times wrong,?
Brendan obviously deserves a re trial and is most likely innocent.
It's pretty obvious the Police planted the key and blood imo, whether this was to frame Steven or just to make sure he was caught because they knew he was guilty I dunno.

[DownFanatic]

Have just finished watching it a second time. Have read quite a bit surrounding the case too. I'm less convinced of Avery's guilt now and totally convinced that Brendan Dassey is innocent.
Still think this murder was committed by a family member/s. Tadych and Bobby Dassey looked suspect but there's quite a bit of mileage in the theory that Chuck and Earle Avery were the two main protagonists. They both have a shocking criminal history of violence toward women.
Still think down the line Steven Avery will get a retrial.

[Main Street]

I have watched the first 2 episodes and  will now park it. Not that I have anytime for Stew's fanaticism on this particular issue  but I can't trust the portrayal of the facts as depicted and have plenty of other things to do.
if they decide to do one on Leonard Peltier, then I would be interested but in all probability, pigs would learn to fly before that happens.

[ONeill]

They should do one on Michael Cranney not awarding Noel McGinn a penalty in 1988.