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

[OakLeaf]

There are a few additional things that I find troubling about the so called evidence in this case.

One of the blood smears next to the ignition in the car is on the right side of the steering wheel. The cut they showed on Avery's hand is on his left hand. Are they seriously saying that he put the key in the ignition with his left hand?

Why are there none of Avery's finger prints in the car, just his blood? For there to be no finger prints he'd have to be wearing gloves, but if that was the case then how did his blood get on the car? Why would he need the car anyway as the burn bit is just a few metres away?

The sweat on the hood evidence is misleading to say the least. Firstly you can't conclusively say it is sweat. All you can say that his DNA is present. In addition to that the technition that collected the evidence has already admitted that he used the same gloves inside the car and under the hood. Regardless of the DNA evidence in the car, how can you have all of that blood without a single finger print? 

The prosecution also claimed that the victim was shot multiple times and that she was burned in the burn pit. Firstly it is highly unlikely that a regular open fire could do that much damage to a body as it just wouldn't be hot enough. However, lets assume she was burned there for the sake of argument, then why was there no bullets found in the burn pit? Are they seriously saying that all of the bullets went through her body and none remained inside? Let's assume so bullets remained in the body, why would someone go to the trouble of picking them out of the ash but leave the bones?

I'm not saying Avery is a good person but it seems to me that in this case the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard was not even close to being met. As for Brendan Dassey's trial, that should tell you all you need to know about the Wisconsin legal system. Convicted on a coerced fantasy story that is not backed up by a single shred of physical evidence. 

[Snapchap]

I had a Retail Store in Manitowoc when this was going on

I lived 35 miles from this maggot and I know all about his past

I watched yhe thing in real time and do not need to watch something that is slanted

I lived here during this trial

everybody I know over here knows he is guilty but you sheep, 3000 mile away know better

I lived through this trial .... I have known the details of this case for a decade, as does most people from the area,

This brings up some bad memories... probably the close proximity of the thing.

I worked out of seven Retail Stores during all of this in three counties, Manitowoc County, Sheboygan County and Calumet county, I know many, many people in this area as I have spent forty percent of my life in it

I have first hand experience with the Manitowoc PD

I lived in the area.

OK Stew. You used to live in the area. We get that.

[screenexile]

To be honest I'm quite impressed with the level of common sense shown on the thread. Nearly everyone who has watched the documentary can see the obvious bias towards Avery and Dassey and while nobody can claim that Avery is innocent we can all see that he deserves a retrial... Dassey also.

From the documentary I've seen and the reading I've done afterwards it looks impossible that the prosecution have made their case beyond reasonable doubt. While he may have done it there is not anything close to enough evidence, motive, a murder weapon or a consistent cause of death or timeline of death. Add to that the impropriety of the DNA evidence on the bullet, the fact that the Manitowoc Sheriff's department were not supposed to be involved in the investigation yet were present when every 'significant' piece of evidence was found. The whole thing is a clusterfuck!

It just highlights the ridiculous imbalance in the justice system and the absolute blindness that regular Americans have in favour of their security forces and and prosecutors that they are unwilling to accept that they are human also and make mistakes and are capable of improper conduct!

One thing that the documentary shows is that innocent until proven guilty is a complete myth. The burden of proof where supposed to fall on the prosecution clearly doesn't. I actually think there was reasonable doubt in both the prosecution's and the defence's case but the jury ultimately went with the prosecution when that clearly should not happen!!

[imtommygunn]

The thing is the imbalance in the netflix show is probably the kind of imbalance that you would see on certain american news tv stations on a daily basis. Whether you become brain washed or whatever to that kind of thing I don't know.

The fella is probably no angel but that whole "beyond reasonable doubt" thing does not seem to be being adhered to. So many things seem unclear and unproven and yet still guilty. It really does not reflect well on the justice system.

[Snapchap]

Stew, above post just messing about. (But seriously, we do get it. Enough already.)

Genuine questions though (from someone who is leaning strongly towards Avery being guilty). What are you views on these issues:

1. No blood/blood splatter/DNA found in the bedroom or the garage, the two places where she was apparently killed?
2. No bullets found in the remains after the fire (and only one bullet apparently found, not until after repeated searches) despite prosecution claims that she was shot "multiple" times (and again, no blood splatter anywhere)
3. Why was the blood sample tampered with?

[gallsman]

The thing is the imbalance in the netflix show is probably the kind of imbalance that you would see on certain american news tv stations on a daily basis. Whether you become brain washed or whatever to that kind of thing I don't know.

The fella is probably no angel but that whole "beyond reasonable doubt" thing does not seem to be being adhered to. So many things seem unclear and unproven and yet still guilty. It really does not reflect well on the justice system.

It doesn't at all, but I think the point plenty of people are making is that it does society no favours to have millions of people demand "justice" off the back of a clearly biased TV show. 400,000 people petitioning Obama to pardon Avery in a case where he has no jurisdiction ffs.

Serial was a much better, neutral investigation where Koenig simply put the facts out and asked the listeners to decide, and wasn't afraid to put difficult questions to the "guilty" party. As has been mentioned in the article I posted above, the show is not an investigation. The producers have decided Avery is innocent (which, based on watching it, you'd struggle to disagree with, or at least disagree with the basis of the conviction) and are determined to tell the story from that viewpoint.

[Tony Baloney]

"...one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 

[tyrone girl]

I cant decide like most of us on whether he is innocent or not. I have serious doubts over the ex boyfriend/ brother/ Bobby Dassey and the brother in law. They should all at the very least have been properly investigated.

The thing that is standing out to everyone is obviously beyond reasonable doubt and i dont think there is anyone who can question that. I know we were only shown so much etc but regardless of what was shown to counteract there was enough alone in all of that to acquit.

I agree he is probably a bit of a bad egg so to speak in terms of petty crimes etc and for the burning of the cat and god knows what else but murder i just dont know. What reason, motive etc would he have had, how did they clean up the crime scene etc. So many questions.

Someone had to do it so if not Avery who? I know the police planted the key and blood an whatever else they done but what i cant decide is whether they solely wanted to frame him regardless of who done it or if they knew he was guilty and wanted to give it a helping hand.

[gallsman]

I cant decide like most of us on whether he is innocent or not. I have serious doubts over the ex boyfriend/ brother/ Bobby Dassey and the brother in law. They should all at the very least have been properly investigated.

The thing that is standing out to everyone is obviously beyond reasonable doubt and i dont think there is anyone who can question that. I know we were only shown so much etc but regardless of what was shown to counteract there was enough alone in all of that to acquit.

I agree he is probably a bit of a bad egg so to speak in terms of petty crimes etc and for the burning of the cat and god knows what else but murder i just dont know. What reason, motive etc would he have had, how did they clean up the crime scene etc. So many questions.

Someone had to do it so if not Avery who? I know the police planted the key and blood an whatever else they done but what i cant decide is whether they solely wanted to frame him regardless of who done it or if they knew he was guilty and wanted to give it a helping hand.

Are you still a lawyer?

The bit in bold is ridiculous - how can you possibly claim more than enough to acquit whilst acknowledging that you don't have half the evidence?! The jury decides (or should decide) based on ALL the evidence presented to them.

[tyrone girl]

My point being though probably worded wrongly was that should i have been on a jury and shown stuff like this - that no matter what else they showed (obviously didnt show anything completely damming or its bound to have been known) i would have seen enough to let me think something isnt quite right here. You cant convict unless you believe beyond all doubt that the defendant is guilty. Bar them showing the jury a picture of him doing it there was enough in what we were shown to make you question things. If you question anything you have have reasonable doubt.

[heganboy]

have been itching to jump on this thread, but managed to hold out until I actually finished the series.

First up- great tv, the two ladies that put that together will be offered huge amounts of money for their next series.

second of all, it is tv, no more no less. The overall bias of the show is not to Avery or Dassey, or even anti cop, it is to make the show more compelling. That's a big part of all of the evidence not being covered and a big part of why they covered Kratz's rock and roll lifestyle on the last show.

now- more to my own opinion and to the easy one first- Dassey should be given a retrial and be out on bail almost immediately. That was a shocking abdication of responsibility from his defense to allow that interview. When the judge ruled that to be the case, he should also rule that the "confession" during that interview also be struck from the record and be inadmissible.

second - Avery- i am not convinced of his innocence, nor of his guilt. In my opinion (which may well be wrong) i didn't see enough evidence either way, so, I think that means I have reasonable doubt.

Now that means retrial, the issue there is that the cops, by tampering with evidence (not incontrovertible- but highly likely), have very likely screwed the pooch completely if there is a retrial. Would there be enough evidence to convict if you remove dassey's testimony and you remove the fiddled evidence?

Those 2 defense lawyers of Avery's could name their price based on charm and empathy (maybe for a tv show now).

Kratz may have come across as slimy in the show, but was he in on the fix? That Dassey lawyer - I think his days in the profession are numbered- he's unusable now.

a couple of other points on the thread- first up- not only in America as some have said, there are bent cops everywhere there are cops. And even if these guys aren't bent- they certainly short-cutted the crap out of things to make it look like they are.

Stew, fair play- it must have been a bombardment of press during the initial events, and there was only one story being printed. I found the press interviews with Counsel after each days proceedings to be very interesting. They had more than an healthy dose of skepticism of the prosecutions efforts.

the other point that galled me in particular is the scientific evidence presented (though really only the evidence we saw), of all of the issues with the prosecution's case - the defense could and should have been able to drive a 'reasonable doubt" sized bus through the gaps and inconsistencies- no matter the profile of the jury. That to me was a significant failing on their behalf. The FBI agent's testimony was shameful, an absolute disgrace.

[gallsman]

The FBI agent stating that he believed he could comfortably express his professional opinion as to the presence of Avery's DNA in samples he didn't test was absolutely scandalous.

When you day Dassey's lawyer, do you mean the first one, Kachynsky or the trial lawyer? Kachynsky was appalling.

[Puckoon]

have been itching to jump on this thread, but managed to hold out until I actually finished the series.

First up- great tv, the two ladies that put that together will be offered huge amounts of money for their next series.

second of all, it is tv, no more no less. The overall bias of the show is not to Avery or Dassey, or even anti cop, it is to make the show more compelling. That's a big part of all of the evidence not being covered and a big part of why they covered Kratz's rock and roll lifestyle on the last show.

now- more to my own opinion and to the easy one first- Dassey should be given a retrial and be out on bail almost immediately. That was a shocking abdication of responsibility from his defense to allow that interview. When the judge ruled that to be the case, he should also rule that the "confession" during that interview also be struck from the record and be inadmissible.

second - Avery- i am not convinced of his innocence, nor of his guilt. In my opinion (which may well be wrong) i didn't see enough evidence either way, so, I think that means I have reasonable doubt.

Now that means retrial, the issue there is that the cops, by tampering with evidence (not incontrovertible- but highly likely), have very likely screwed the pooch completely if there is a retrial. Would there be enough evidence to convict if you remove dassey's testimony and you remove the fiddled evidence?

Those 2 defense lawyers of Avery's could name their price based on charm and empathy (maybe for a tv show now).

Kratz may have come across as slimy in the show, but was he in on the fix? That Dassey lawyer - I think his days in the profession are numbered- he's unusable now.

a couple of other points on the thread- first up- not only in America as some have said, there are bent cops everywhere there are cops. And even if these guys aren't bent- they certainly short-cutted the crap out of things to make it look like they are.

Stew, fair play- it must have been a bombardment of press during the initial events, and there was only one story being printed. I found the press interviews with Counsel after each days proceedings to be very interesting. They had more than an healthy dose of skepticism of the prosecutions efforts.

the other point that galled me in particular is the scientific evidence presented (though really only the evidence we saw), of all of the issues with the prosecution's case - the defense could and should have been able to drive a 'reasonable doubt" sized bus through the gaps and inconsistencies- no matter the profile of the jury. That to me was a significant failing on their behalf. The FBI agent's testimony was shameful, an absolute disgrace.

I think that's the key to the flaw in the documentary. There was additional evidence that we the viewer didn't get to see. The documentary didn't tell the whole truth either.

[gallsman]

In fairness, was it not a two or three week court case? I imagine there was a mountain of stuff that didn't make it into the show.

[Puckoon]

Right. But they really showed nothing damning of Avery, which in my mind made the Judge's sentencing remarks all the more strange.

In terms of assessing your danger to society, the evidence forces me to conclude that you are probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this courtroom. Your attorney has argued eloquently that the court should make you eligible for release at some point in the future. But from what I see, nothing in your life suggests that society would ever be safe from your behavior. One of the things that strikes me the most is that as you've grown older, your crimes have increased in severity. This crime was committed at a time when you were 43 years old. Given the trend of your crimes, uh... society has a legitimate right to be concerned that there is a serious risk you would reoffend and commit serious offenses if you're ever permitted to be released from prison."

I saw nothing in the documentary that warrants such commentary, which leads me to believe that there was some picking and choosing to tell the story.