• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Netflix - Making a Murderer

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sheriff: "Mr. Avery, there seems to be a lack of hard evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were involved in the murder of Teresa Halbach."
"So due the Principles of Justice and Fairness, we will be setting you free today."

Avery: "Thank you sir!"

Sheriff: "Also due to the Principles of Justice and Fairness, you will also be immediately and fairly punished for the crimes you are known to have committed."

Avery: "Uhhhh, ok."

Sheriiff: "Immediately upon your release, you will be beaten to a bloody pulp, covered in oil and set on fire until death."
 
Last edited:
He didn't. Avery's message was still there. I would not expect they would delete any messages from Avery.....which makes the whole thing suspicious...
 
I think the big takeaway from the series, regardless of the guilt of Avery and Dassey, is that the justice system seems heavily weighted against the accused and that it does make mistakes. The death penalty isn't an issue in this case, but it should make you leery of supporting it in your state. We can try to make up for lost years in wrongfully convicted cases, but we can't bring someone back to life if we're wrong.
 
bradly1101 said:
And why would her brother delete messages of Avery's; by all appearances Avery was in the brother's sights too.
Click to expand...

I couldn't stand the brother. Every interview they showed he was 100% convinced that both were guilty, even when the evidence showed contradicting evidence. He seemed to be very willing to talk to the media about it all too when none of the rest of her family was.
 
Here's an interview with one of the reporters covering the trial at the time. Nothing much of note except this little tidbit:

There are some things [in the documentary] that weren't included, but you can't fit everything from an eight-week trial into a 10-hour documentary. There were some things in the trail, for example, that did point to Steven Avery. There was some evidence about the garage floor lit up with luminol. [Editor's note: Forensic investigators use luminol, which reacts with the iron in hemoglobin, to detect trace amounts of blood at crime scenes.] But there was never any blood found in the garage, either. So I guess there are other substances that react with luminol and light up underneath it. [Editor's note: Luminol can also be triggered by copper, excessive cigarette smoke, horseradish sauce, fecal matter, and certain bleaches.]

I hadn't read this anywhere before. Maybe I missed it, but I thought they hadn't had any luminol hits in the garage and no trace of bleach.

http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/q-and-a/a33352/angenette-levy-making-a-murderer-reporter/
 
i finished this show last night. what a really fucked up show that makes me really angry. i feel so sorry for everyone involved in the avery family. the entire family was torn apart because of all this bs. while i know we only saw bits and pieces of the trial, i simply cannot believe how anyone could believe that steven avery was guilty of this murder when there was simply absolutely no dna evidence. there are so many blatantly obvious holes and things missing that it just baffles me one could find him guilty.

and then you have his disabled nephew who they flat out took advantage of and will never be able to live a normal life because of these assholes.

i was glad to hear kratz was found out to be a complete piece of shit after the show too. him and dassey's first attorney i could not stand seeing or hearing on screen.
 
Purbeast,

Go to reddit. The show was highly biased. Sugar coating the whole cat burning incident. (MTDEWs joke above describes what actually happened to the cat).

They also skip a lot of the evidence that makes him look guilty.

I'm not saying that there may be reasonable doubt but the show is extremely biased.
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
Purbeast,

Go to reddit. The show was highly biased. Sugar coating the whole cat burning incident. (MTDEWs joke above describes what actually happened to the cat).

They also skip a lot of the evidence that makes him look guilty.

I'm not saying that there may be reasonable doubt but the show is extremely biased.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.

I certainly believe Avery and most definitely his nephew got a screw job, but Avery is no innocent saint and the editing and story told by the documentary was painfully biased to the reality of the events and history.

That being said, even OJ got of due to a "reasonable doubt" and there were clearly some reasonable doubt for both Avery and his nephew in this case.
 
well duh it was biased, the title of the show even states that it's all made up.

whatever else they had in court doesn't dismiss all the stuff they did show, which clearly makes is to that there is 100% clearly reasonable doubt. i'd list out all of the reasons but they have all already been stated multiple times in this thread.
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
Purbeast,

Go to reddit. The show was highly biased. Sugar coating the whole cat burning incident. (MTDEWs joke above describes what actually happened to the cat).
Click to expand...
As I recall, he did his time for the cat. If we are a society that forgives, then that incident is forgiven. If we are a society that does not, then we should never let any prisoners out... ever.
 
also him killing a cat has nothing to do with him murdering a woman. yeah yeah i know that "serial killers start with torturing animals" but let's be real he's not smart enough to be a serial killer (or to do 99% of the stuff he would have had to do in order to kill this woman the way the prosecutors said he did).

and it's not like the cat thing was a secret, he admitted to it. like he said he admits when he fucks up and wll own up to the punishment.
 
I forgot about the cat thing. My first thought when I saw that was, "I don't know how much sympathy I can have for someone that threw a cat into a fire" or whatever happened.
My takeaway from the series, besides the issues with the judicial system, is what a handicap being well below average intelligence is (Brendan).
I think it's possible he did it but not in the way the prosecution presented and not without a reasonable doubt.
 
Gunslinger08 said:
I think the big takeaway from the series, regardless of the guilt of Avery and Dassey, is that the justice system seems heavily weighted against the accused and that it does make mistakes.
Click to expand...

How could it not, really?

It's the nature of imperfect information. You are either going to HAVE to let nearly all the guilty people go to prevent innocents convicted, or to imprison a lot of innocent people.

There's just no way around that choice.

It's why I've advocated for decades things to improve the available information, to increase things like police body cameras and cameras recording places likely to have crimes.

I think the fact that everyone hates the idea of either of those choices so much, that it really prevents people being honest about the issue and discussing it constructively.
 
Slightly on topic..but what are your thoughts on the government trying to force Apple to give them the backdoor to their encryption by using terrorism and fear as angles to get into that shooters phone that is going around right now?
 
ImpulsE69 said:
Slightly on topic..but what are your thoughts on the government trying to force Apple to give them the backdoor to their encryption by using terrorism and fear as angles to get into that shooters phone that is going around right now?
Click to expand...

Flat out idiotic. Once a company circumnavigates their own security, I am done with them. If a 3rd party hack can circumnavigate it, I expect a company to close that security hole or stop calling the device secure.
 
Homerboy said:
Pretty much this.

I certainly believe Avery and most definitely his nephew got a screw job, but Avery is no innocent saint and the editing and story told by the documentary was painfully biased to the reality of the events and history.

That being said, even OJ got of due to a "reasonable doubt" and there were clearly some reasonable doubt for both Avery and his nephew in this case.
Click to expand...

I think Avery may have done it. But the kid in no way should be in jail. His confession doesn't even line up with the evidence. It was a totally made up story the kid was coerced into telling.

I am blown away that the kid is in jail.
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
Purbeast,

Go to reddit. The show was highly biased. Sugar coating the whole cat burning incident. (MTDEWs joke above describes what actually happened to the cat).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you think that is remotely relevant. Innocence should be based on facts and evidence, not whether or not you think the guy is a good person.

He already paid the price for his younger crimes, when he was younger.
 
Chiropteran said:
I'm not sure how you think that is remotely relevant. Innocence should be based on facts and evidence, not whether or not you think the guy is a good person.

He already paid the price for his younger crimes, when he was younger.
Click to expand...

Character witnesses exist to attack one's character. That did happen. I don't know if it was part of the trial though. I just don't know.

And it is 100% relevant. repeat offenders are repeat offenders for a reason.
 
Chiropteran said:
Really?

So a sheriff's department that wrongly convicts an innocent man once is likely to repeat that offence, is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

lol that is like how when the judge read the verdict he told steven avery his crimes kept getting more and more serious. did he completely forget that the previous crime he was in jail for 18 years for WAS IN FACT A WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND THAT HE DIDNT DO IT???
 
ImpulsE69 said:
Here's an interview with one of the reporters covering the trial at the time. Nothing much of note except this little tidbit:

There are some things [in the documentary] that weren't included, but you can't fit everything from an eight-week trial into a 10-hour documentary. There were some things in the trail, for example, that did point to Steven Avery. There was some evidence about the garage floor lit up with luminol. [Editor's note: Forensic investigators use luminol, which reacts with the iron in hemoglobin, to detect trace amounts of blood at crime scenes.] But there was never any blood found in the garage, either. So I guess there are other substances that react with luminol and light up underneath it. [Editor's note: Luminol can also be triggered by copper, excessive cigarette smoke, horseradish sauce, fecal matter, and certain bleaches.]

I hadn't read this anywhere before. Maybe I missed it, but I thought they hadn't had any luminol hits in the garage and no trace of bleach.

http://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/q-and-a/a33352/angenette-levy-making-a-murderer-reporter/
Click to expand...

Why is that anything of note? The very passage you quoted explained why it means nothing. Police could probably go into your garage and something would light up with luminol.
 
Chiropteran said:
Really?

So a sheriff's department that wrongly convicts an innocent man once is likely to repeat that offence, is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

I think he means burning a cat alive, running his cousin off the road and threatening her with a gun, etc.

idk how common that sort of thing is in poor areas, though.
 
IHateMyJob2004 said:
Im saying that you are a troll that cant stay on topic of what you first asked.

Slayer summed it up for me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not everyone you disagree with is a troll.

So are you now saying you are a hypocrite? You believe Steve Avery is likely to be a repeat offender, but you don't believe the sheriff's department could possibly repeat the offence of putting an innocent man in prison?

Why is it that you think some people are likely to repeat offences and others are not? Does having a badge make you immune to repeating a mistake?


edit: Also, I would like to point out a key difference:

With the cat incident, Steve Avery admitted to it in court. He admitted to it on video. If he was repeating that offence, then he would logically repeat the admission of guilt as well, but he didn't. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top