Making a Murderer (Guys, this thread will have spoilers)

HextallHextall Senior MemberPosts: 9,520 Senior Member
First, let's take a roll call so people that accidentally click on this that haven't watched it will have a moment where there can quick hit the back button (or ctrl+right arrow if you're a keyboard shortcut ninja like me).
«134

Replies

  • I'm in and have seen all 10 episodes.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Did you hear why the prosecutor had to step down from his job a few years afterwards?

    Also, there's a bit of other damning evidence that the documentary never even hinted existed.
  • Yeah I saw that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Anyone else before we start with the spoilers?
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,636 Senior Member
    What are we talking about here?
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Collectively, the people who've seen this docu-series have lats that'll block the sun. You better be careful with who you are messing with!
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 21,580 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Anyone else before we start with the spoilers?

    I have no plans to watch this, spoil away.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 5,536 Senior Member
    I don't plan on watching it either, so you and Sheb can have at it. I won't totally derail this thread, but have you seen Boardwalk Empire? I'm looking for my next to watch show and I'm undecided on this.
    For reference, my favorites are Breaking Bad (especially when Walt turned evil), The Wire and The Sopranos. I tend to like stuff that is realistic and dark. Thanks!
  • Spoiler alert: Avery is guilty as sin.

    The documentary is supposed to make me think Avery was framed. It didn't make me think that.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 21,580 Senior Member
    I have seen many of the reports disputing the documentary and I tend to agree. The DNA on the hood convinces me.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 8,734 Senior Member
    I read on the web that Bill Clinton did it, but that Obama is behind the cover-up.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Spoiler alert: Avery is guilty as sin.

    The documentary is supposed to make me think Avery was framed. It didn't make me think that.
    Apparently a juror just came out today and said he/she was coerced into convicting and they were trading votes (vote yes for murder... And I'll vote no for dismemberment).

    Outside the doc evidence seems bad (dna on hood, Avery's obsession with TH).... Excluding it downgrades the credibility of the doc.

    That being said, wouldn't surprise me the cops made sure Avery was convicted.
  • The judge apparently excluded the evidence of Avery's obsession because it was deemed too prejudicial. I never would have excluded that evidence. It's highly probative evidence of premeditation. But it's a discretionary call with the judge.
  • Courts never inquire into how jurors reach their decisions. But even if they did, it doesn't change Avery's factual guilt.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    The judge apparently excluded the evidence of Avery's obsession because it was deemed too prejudicial.

    I think it was that he showed up to the door once only wearing a towel that was excluded... his repeated requests for her were included.

    Also, showing up only in a towel is a power move reserved only for the suavest of the suave, not huckleberry's fresh off a **** exoneration.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    But even if they did, it doesn't change Avery's factual guilt.

    What's Avery's factual guilt based on though? Reality being one... but he was factually guilty for a while in the **** case, no?
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 8,734 Senior Member
    Hextall wrote: »

    ...showing up only in a towel is a power move reserved only for the suavest of the suave...

    Did this work for you?
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    Did this work for you?

    I cannot lie and say that I can resist a Wisconsin clown wearing only a towel.
  • Hextall wrote: »
    What's Avery's factual guilt based on though? Reality being one... but he was factually guilty for a while in the **** case, no?

    No, he was legally guilty in the ****. He was factually innocent.

    So regardless of what decision the jury reached, or the tactics employed by Avery's very capable defense team, or even what the police may have done, its pretty obvious to me that Avery committed the murder.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    its pretty obvious to me that Avery committed the murder.

    Did you reach this decision only after knowing stuff outside the doc?
  • no.

    Two facts really influenced me:

    1)If Avery didn't kill TH, who did?

    2) Strang (the more eloquent of the defense attorneys) was careful in his choice of words. The documentary makes it look like the defense was a frame-up, but it really wasn't. The defense was reasonable doubt. The defense had a problem, and they could never get over the hump on it. Theresa Halbach is dead. Someone killed her. If the defense couldn't provide an alternate perpetrator (and it had to be plausible) then the jury was going to resolve the case based on where the body was located.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    If the defense couldn't provide an alternate perpetrator (and it had to be plausible) then the jury was going to resolve the case based on where the body was located.

    Seems like you're suggesting Avery's best defense would have been to name someone else, but they couldn't do that explicitly per the judge. If Avery is actually innocent, then is it defense's duty to solve the case?
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Also, it amazes me when people false confess (I'll leave it open if this happened here with Brandon), but I guess it does happen. Has it ever happened to you?
  • Hextall wrote: »
    Seems like you're suggesting Avery's best defense would have been to name someone else, but they couldn't do that explicitly per the judge. If Avery is actually innocent, then is it defense's duty to solve the case?

    Because they didn't have a good faith basis to name someone else.

    Avery's not innocent. He's guilty. The problem for the defense is that in order to counteract that fact, they would have had to put forth an alternate perpetrator, and they couldn't do it. Because the simple fact remains that Avery is the most likely perpetrator any way you slice it.

    Look, the elephant in the room (and make no mistake, Avery's lawyers **** well knew it) is that this woman is dead and someone killed her and that person is most likely their client. You notice Strang never said Avery was innocent? He said instead that humility was called for, that truth was elusive, that it could never definitively be known, etc.
  • Hextall wrote: »
    Also, it amazes me when people false confess (I'll leave it open if this happened here with Brandon), but I guess it does happen. Has it ever happened to you?

    No, not that I know of. Scary thought.

    The risk factors are there in the Theresa Halbach case: low intelligence, youth, a case officers are desperate to solve. His confession is certainly an issue.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 9,636 Senior Member
    What is the difference between legally and factually innocent?
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    What is the difference between legally and factually innocent?

    A not guilty verdict?
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,685 Senior Member
    Your spoilers can't hurt me. I'm not watching anything that is not free on the internet.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    I'm with TX and waiting for the YouTube version..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • Hextall wrote: »
    Also, it amazes me when people false confess (I'll leave it open if this happened here with Brandon), but I guess it does happen. Has it ever happened to you?

    To build on this point, its really important that officers ask open-ended questions and not put words in the suspect's mouth, particularly where the suspect appears to be below-average intelligence. But I had heard that the actual confession in the case was better than the one seen in the documentary. So there's that.
«134

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file