When Netflix released their series “Making a Murderer,” they asked viewers to decide whether Wisconsin inmate Steven Avery was wrongfully convicted of murder. Now more than 200,000 people have.

A “Free Steven Avery” petition on Change.org has garnered the support of those hundreds of thousands of fans following the 10-part documentary series’ release last month.

The 53-year-old is currently serving a life sentence for a 2007 murder conviction, one he and his supporters claim he was framed for by local Manitowoc County authorities. That conviction follows him serving 18 years behind bars for another crime which DNA evidence later ruled he did not commit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/par ... a688833f97

He was in prison for 18 years and cleared on DNA. After getting out and suing the Police, et al, another murder was committed and he was arrested for it. One fact in the case was they found his blood her keys (which mysteriously appeared a day after the same area was search and photographed) and in the boot (trunk) of her car.

The blood though is questionable - they had it from the previous murder trial and when examined, it had it's seal broken and a needle mark in it. It was tested for EDT ( which stops the blood coagulating ) but none was found - however, this test is unreliable and finding nothing could just mean the test failed.

Hearing more about this case it stinks to high heaven. The Jury appears to be picked, one juror said they were all pressured to give a guilty verdict (he or she was removed due to family reasons).

So he sued for 36 million but had to settle for $400k to pay the court fees.

Sick. So not only does it seem he got framed for a murder he didn't commit, there would also be a real murderer out there who got away with it with the help of corrupt officials. Isn't that being accessory to murder? Is it too much to ask for life long sentences for corruption like this?

Apparently, 2 cops from the department not allowed to have anything to do with the case "volunteered" to help and went to his 400 acre property. When getting there the first day, they declared they were "deposed" so were escorted around but the 2nd day they didn't and had free reign. This is when their "evidence" turned up in areas previously searched where nothing was found.

Jeez the case stinks to high heaven, like the cop knew what car the victim drove before he could possibly know that information. For some reason he ran the licence plate. This was recorded and played back in court. He then said the make and model of the car after being told by the dispatcher that the car belonged to a missing person. How did he know what make and model the car was before he could know the make and model of the car.

One last point, the Judge banned the defence from saying that someone else could have committed the crime.

I'm curious if people are coming to this guys defense because the show peaked an interest and they went out and thoroughly researched the case or if it's based solely on watching the show.

I've not seen the show nor do I know anything about the case so I don't have an opinion about his innocence or guilt but what I do know is that this is an entertainment program and it's incredibly easy to manipulate facts and people's perception through entertainment with little to no need to be concerned with the truth. The only goal being to get as many viewers as possible which clearly Netflix has succeeded in here.

I find it concerning that we have a society conditioned by reality TV and what not to think that what they see in entertainment is more or less the truth just because they see it on their screens.

Now maybe if Netflix is using the money they make off this to help this guy out then I'd start to buy it's a genuine effort but until then I'm assuming this is just another entertainment program.

There are opposing views report by some news resources including claims of stuff the show left out. Others complain about its To Catch a Predator style format, instead of the more detached form of investigation popularised by In Cold Blood.

I haven't watched it all yet, but I'd be wary of trial by media myself.

I haven't seen the program either - I'm getting my info from a work mate who watched the entire series over the last 2 days though I'll find a way to watch it later as I don't have netflix. I just asked him how the program was presented and the entire trial is recorded and shown from episodes 4 - 8 so you'll be able to see what happened in the trial as it went down.

Xaihe wrote:Sick. So not only does it seem he got framed for a murder he didn't commit, there would also be a real murderer out there who got away with it with the help of corrupt officials. Isn't that being accessory to murder? Is it too much to ask for life long sentences for corruption like this?

Honestly this is exactly what happened in the case of rape he was later exonerated of. They clearly targeted him from day 1 due to personal issues. They clearly ignored other leads they were getting. They clearly fabricated some evidence. And while Avery was in prison, the rapist went on committing more crimes. And after finding out that the DNA not only exonerated Avery but pointed at someone else they were getting tips about, they claimed no wrongdoing and that they believed the DNA to be wrong or fabricated.

Teague wrote:I haven't seen the program either - I'm getting my info from a work mate who watched the entire series over the last 2 days though I'll find a way to watch it later as I don't have netflix. I just asked him how the program was presented and the entire trial is recorded and shown from episodes 4 - 8 so you'll be able to see what happened in the trial as it went down.

The entire trial isn't shown, but significant portions are. Its probably one of the better aspects of the documentary in that it has no real 'narrator' in the traditional sense. Its biased in the sense that the much of the talking comes from following around Avery's family or attorneys. I think the major pieces of evidence are shown being introduced at trial and it shows the defenses rebuttal to that evidence and some back forth. Its later been brought up that there are a few pieces of evidence that were left out.

But I don't think its particularly relevant because its hard to say for certain whether Avery is innocent. To me the outrage isn't so much the verdict but process in which the verdict was achieved. There is significant outrage in the way Brendan's case was handled. I think its hard to argue against the notion that Brendan is in prison because of his poverty and his low intellectual capacity.

In studies on jury behavior, they've found some jurists that explained their decision was somewhat based on how there wasn't evidence like there should be based on what they've seen on CSI. I don't know anything about this case, but some prosecutors moved to destroy evidence when DNA tests started exonerating some convicted murderers, lest they'd have any of their cases thrown out, while others did everything they could to reexamine all their cases to see if they could clear any of their prior convictions with the new DNA tests. In the latter camp, there was one DA from I think Ft Worth that was really exemplary in this. Sadly, I think most DAs fall in the latter camp, I've heard of many many cases where DAs will fight tooth and nail to keep innocent people in prison, and few like the Ft Worth DA. The law is such that it's extremely difficult to go against anyone convicted by a jury.

There is the recent case of a guy convicted based on a dream, the only evidence against him. When someone else confessed years later, 28 fucking years later, the conviction was overturned. The confessor was the person the woman pointed to first, before she had her dream, and he raped another woman shortly afterwards. This DA said he was going to try the guy again. How insane is that?

See Colo. man imprisoned for 28 years after woman dreamed he raped her expected to be freed after convicted rapist admits to crime, DA claims confession is a lie

crank wrote:In studies on jury behavior, they've found some jurists that explained their decision was somewhat based on how there wasn't evidence like there should be based on what they've seen on CSI. I don't know anything about this case, but some prosecutors moved to destroy evidence when DNA tests started exonerating some convicted murderers, lest they'd have any of their cases thrown out, while others did everything they could to reexamine all their cases to see if they could clear any of their prior convictions with the new DNA tests. In the latter camp, there was one DA from I think Ft Worth that was really exemplary in this. Sadly, I think most DAs fall in the latter camp, I've heard of many many cases where DAs will fight tooth and nail to keep innocent people in prison, and few like the Ft Worth DA. The law is such that it's extremely difficult to go against anyone convicted by a jury.

There is the recent case of a guy convicted based on a dream, the only evidence against him. When someone else confessed years later, 28 fucking years later, the conviction was overturned. The confessor was the person the woman pointed to first, before she had her dream, and he raped another woman shortly afterwards. This DA said he was going to try the guy again. How insane is that?

See Colo. man imprisoned for 28 years after woman dreamed he raped her expected to be freed after convicted rapist admits to crime, DA claims confession is a lie

That people on a jury will come to such important decisions based on such is all the more reason to be wary of the conclusions people come to from watching an entertainment program.

Does anybody know what evidence was left out? It'll be interesting to see what comes of this as the internet seems to be blowing up over it.

Teague wrote:Does anybody know what evidence was left out? It'll be interesting to see what comes of this as the internet seems to be blowing up over it.

I'm not sure much else can happen tbh. Unless new evidence comes up, it seems most issues have been litigated already and avenues of relief exhausted.

Here is a list of omitted evidence. Though I think a few of those things were covered in the video(the animal cruelty for instance I believe came up multiple times). Another big one (Avery's gun matching the bullet, I don't recall ever being disputed that the casing or even bullet could've came from Avery's gun, but Avery's defense questioned the admission of the DNA evidence when they acknowledged the test got contaminated and that company protocol would be for that result to be thrown out but they introduced it as evidence anyway because they couldn't retest the bullet)
http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/ ... avery.html

There was also a pretty alarming omission left out in support of Avery

A juror who was ultimately dismissed from the murder trial of Making a Murderer subject Steven Avery tells PEOPLE that two jurors who convicted Avery were related to Manitowoc County employees.

"After the trial, I found out...[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy," the dismissed juror, Richard Mahler, says. "Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office."

He adds: "I thought to myself, they shouldn't have been on the jury. That was a conflict of interest."

Mahler was ultimately excused from the trial after his daughter got into a car accident, but not before he spent more than four hours deliberating with the jury. Early on, the jurors took a vote: seven innocent, three guilty and two undecided.

http://www.people.com/article/steven-av ... -employees

So I watched the first two episodes tonight and it's very well done (typically these types of shows aren't my thing) and what they've shown so far makes the police and prosecutors look really bad.

Two things from the first two episodes that I would like to touch on. First, at the very end of the first episode they use an audio clip from a 911 call that makes it absolutely clear that the police are setting up Mr. Avery. But then in the second episode when they play other parts of that call in context it's hardly as damning. For entertainment value how that clip is used at the end of ep#1 is great but it also is a prime example of how such can distort the truth and easily manipulate how viewers feel about the case.

The second thing which jumped out to me, because it's a point that's been discussed here recently, is in the second episode where Mr. Avery has no reservations about cooperating with the police, talking to them without a lawyer and letting them search his home during the 2005 investigation.

The show doesn't even really hit on this (at least not in this episode). Obviously Mr. Avery is a man of limited intelligence and doesn't think twice about trying to help out the police even after being burned for 18 years of his life by them. But this is a prime example of why nobody should ever talk to the cops or let them search their homes without first making sure they are fully protected. Made me think of another thread were somebody was going on about "why wouldn't an innocent person cooperate with the police if they aren't guilty" and what not. Well right here is the fuck why you wouldn't want to do that (assuming Avery is innocent).

GT2211 wrote:

Teague wrote:Does anybody know what evidence was left out? It'll be interesting to see what comes of this as the internet seems to be blowing up over it.

I'm not sure much else can happen tbh. Unless new evidence comes up, it seems most issues have been litigated already and avenues of relief exhausted.

Here is a list of omitted evidence. Though I think a few of those things were covered in the video(the animal cruelty for instance I believe came up multiple times). Another big one (Avery's gun matching the bullet, I don't recall ever being disputed that the casing or even bullet could've came from Avery's gun, but Avery's defense questioned the admission of the DNA evidence when they acknowledged the test got contaminated and that company protocol would be for that result to be thrown out but they introduced it as evidence anyway because they couldn't retest the bullet)
http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/ ... avery.html

Seems like they are really scrapping for any omissions there.

5. Pornography was recovered in Avery's residence

fuck I hope I'm never suspected of murder.

I haven't seen the docu nor gone through the available evidence but the case presented by prosecution does seem sketch.

From the way evidence was collected and stored to how personal it all 'feel'.

The bullet does seem damning though.

Meanwhile, a murderer alledgedly confesses on camera...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Jinx.html

Has anyone seen this documentary too?

Yeah, The Jinx is worth watching. Way more interesting than Making a Murderer. No judgment on the guilt of innocence of Avery or the content of the series. I just found it boring, which is pretty surprising given the story being told.

GT2211 wrote:

Teague wrote:Does anybody know what evidence was left out? It'll be interesting to see what comes of this as the internet seems to be blowing up over it.

I'm not sure much else can happen tbh. Unless new evidence comes up, it seems most issues have been litigated already and avenues of relief exhausted.

Here is a list of omitted evidence. Though I think a few of those things were covered in the video(the animal cruelty for instance I believe came up multiple times). Another big one (Avery's gun matching the bullet, I don't recall ever being disputed that the casing or even bullet could've came from Avery's gun, but Avery's defense questioned the admission of the DNA evidence when they acknowledged the test got contaminated and that company protocol would be for that result to be thrown out but they introduced it as evidence anyway because they couldn't retest the bullet)
http://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/ ... avery.html

There was also a pretty alarming omission left out in support of Avery

A juror who was ultimately dismissed from the murder trial of Making a Murderer subject Steven Avery tells PEOPLE that two jurors who convicted Avery were related to Manitowoc County employees.

"After the trial, I found out...[one juror] was the father of a Manitowoc County Sheriff's deputy," the dismissed juror, Richard Mahler, says. "Another juror, his wife works for the Manitowoc County Clerk's Office."

He adds: "I thought to myself, they shouldn't have been on the jury. That was a conflict of interest."

Mahler was ultimately excused from the trial after his daughter got into a car accident, but not before he spent more than four hours deliberating with the jury. Early on, the jurors took a vote: seven innocent, three guilty and two undecided.

http://www.people.com/article/steven-av ... -employees

Apparently, from that list, they went over point 6 in the trial.

Also, point 4, so I'm told, their garage is full of crap and apparently the victim was shot in this garage 11 times (how do they know this?). The garage was apparently cleaned though not one single piece of dna of the victim was found. How do you clean a garage full of crap that thoroughly after shooting someone 11 times?

I'll get a chance to watch this tonight.

Acetone wrote:I haven't seen the docu nor gone through the available evidence but the case presented by prosecution does seem sketch.

From the way evidence was collected and stored to how personal it all 'feel'.

The bullet does seem damning though.

The thing about the bullet and pretty much all of the evidence against him in the second case is that the police were in Avery's home days before they came in with the search warrant and found all of that evidence. So they had clear opportunity to take/plant things that would be damning against him.