Netflix documentary: Making A Murderer

WolfeMacleod · 12-31-2015, 02:21 PM

I haven't seen this mentioned. GF and I started watching this a few days ago, and it's unbelievable.
Man railroaded by Sheriff's office in Manitowoc County, WI, for a rape/assault he didn't commit. They knew he didn't do it. His cousin was married to a deputy. They had a confrontation, and she didn't like him.

Served 18 years, gets exonerated, files $63m lawsuit.

Then is immediately framed for murder....by the same police who railroaded him to begin with.

This will blow your mind.

What they do to this guy gets worse and worse and worse.

Episode one is on Youtube...

mreid · 12-31-2015, 03:27 PM

I was so angry by the sixth episode that I couldn't watch it any more. Unbelievable!

URY914 · 12-31-2015, 05:17 PM

I've read quite a bit about it. Enough to know I don't what to watch it. You would think things like this couldn't happen in this country and in this day and age.

t-tom · 12-31-2015, 05:24 PM

There is a whole bunch of evidence that points to him as well. The documentary leaves all that out. It's sad that people are allowed to make these kind of films and that people think they are showing all the facts. It is clearly a one sided show.

pavulon · 12-31-2015, 05:58 PM

Have not seen the documentary but suspect T-tom has a good point. Among other damning evidence, the caller ID blocked phone calls from Avery to the reporter before he had killed her and the un-blocked call after he had killed her were far more than coincidental.

As an aside, I was working in Two Rivers (few miles north of Manitowoc) when the reporter went missing and was subsequently found in the burn pile. There was no other subject discussed for my week there. Amazing.

WolfeMacleod · 12-31-2015, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pavulon

Have not seen the documentary but suspect T-tom has a good point. Among other damning evidence, the caller ID blocked phone calls from Avery to the reporter ....

reporter? You meant photographer for Auto trader?

We're just finishing Ep6 right now.
Last night I decided to Google Avery and came across something by the hacktivist group Anonymous. Apparently, they've found info they're threatening to release that proves he's innocent. Or at the very least, that evidence was absolutely planted.

Making A Murderer: Anonymous claims to have evidence that Netflix documentary

pavulon · 12-31-2015, 08:19 PM

yup. dang it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfeMacleod

reporter? You meant photographer for Auto trader?

M.D. Holloway · 12-31-2015, 08:22 PM

don't piss off the wrong people...

mreid · 12-31-2015, 08:40 PM

Lenk, that's all I have to say.

Well, at least for now.

ossiblue · 01-01-2016, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t-tom

There is a whole bunch of evidence that points to him as well. The documentary leaves all that out. It's sad that people are allowed to make these kind of films and that people think they are showing all the facts. It is clearly a one sided show.

This film (which I haven't seen) is no different than a court presentation by a slick, well financed defense team, except that none of it is playing before a jury. As such, no defense is going to present any evidence that points to guilt of a client which cannot be explained away in another "reasonable" context. If it can't be explained away, it will not be part of the defense argument. The accusations of framing, collusion, and planting of evidence is an attempt to explain away damning evidence by putting it in another context. Unfortunately, the context is all speculation with no corroboration. During a trial, that might open the door to "reasonable doubt" as did the accusations against Mark Furman in the OJ trial. Now that the trial is long over, the argument (the film) is used to stir up public opinion to demand an investigation and, possibly, a new trial. It is a legitimate ploy, and is a legitimate documentary. It is not presented as an objective look into the Avery case.

There is one curious element about all of this which, IMO, could open things up. The claim of planting blood evidence. The film makes the claim that Avery's blood sample from 1996 was left unsecured and, thus, able to be used as a plant in the victim's car. The murder took place in 2005. It would be simple for the blood that was found in the vehicle to be tested for preservative that is put into blood evidence samples. If the blood in the car had preservative, then it likely came from the unsecured sample and you have hard evidence of possible planting of evidence. If no preservative, the car blood is consistent with Avery having been there. Problem is, the judge will not allow further testing of the blood.

Finally, the group Anonymous, threatened to leak hacked evidence of collusion between the two officers to frame Avery. They set a deadline for the police to release the information themselves or they would do it. The deadline passed and nothing has surfaced. So what do we have? Another area of speculation that has no basis in fact nor corroboration.

If films that present themselves as finding the real truth about a subject are required to present all sides equally, what would happen to all the "Ancient Alien" episodes or, for that matter, the entire program library of the History Channel?

Gogar · 01-01-2016, 08:35 AM

SPOILER ALERT

I watched the whole thing

I do believe it's possible for the cops to go to great lengths to frame somebody,

But I just can't believe the cops would have found her dead body somewhere and somehow decided to sneak into the property and use her dead body to frame Avery.

Every other bad cop angle doesn't surprise me one bit.

WolfeMacleod · 01-01-2016, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gogar

SPOILER ALERT

I watched the whole thing

I do believe it's possible for the cops to go to great lengths to frame somebody,

But I just can't believe the cops would have found her dead body somewhere and somehow decided to sneak into the property and use her dead body to frame Avery.

Every other bad cop angle doesn't surprise me one bit.

I'm still unsure of that. Why was that cop calling in the Rav4 license plate after she was reported missing, but before the Rav4 was found? That seems awfully suspect to me. Why would he call it in if he were not looking at it? And how did he know what kind of vehicle it belonged to? Unless he were looking at it...
Are there any police here who have ever randomly called in a license plate number that they were not looking at?

Let me rephrase that...
Are there any police here who have ever randomly called in a license plate for a vehicle they were not looking at, and magically had it come back to a missing, girl, murdered by someone suing you for 63m because you previously railroaded him?

What are the chances of that?

mreid · 01-01-2016, 10:17 AM

And couldn't then answer the question under oath, on the stand, recorded on film for the rest of us to watch?

notfarnow · 01-01-2016, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WolfeMacleod

I'm still unsure of that. Why was that cop calling in the Rav4 license plate after she was reported missing, but before the Rav4 was found? That seems awfully suspect to me. Why would he call it in if he were not looking at it? And how did he know what kind of vehicle it belonged to? Unless he were looking at it...
Are there any police here who have ever randomly called in a license plate number that they were not looking at?

The best theory I have read is that they were searching his land illegally, stumbled across the RAV4, called in the plate and realized it was the vehicle they were looking for. Knowing that the search wasn't legal, decided to *help* the volunteers find it... hence the cagey answers from the brother and ex-roomate, and the "coincidental" fact that the volunteer who found it was the only one who was given a camera and the phone # of the sheriff .

After having watched the documentary and then gone online and read all the other evidence that DOES point to Avery (phone calls to the victim, he had purchased shackles and restraints similar to the ones his nephew described), I think the most plausible scenario is this: The police suspected him (he *was* the last one to see her alive) and zeroed in on him. Found the Rav4, and then a couple bad cops planted evidence to ensure a conviction. I don't think there's any question that there were shenanigans and abuse, butit looks like it may have been to nail a guy who they suspected/knew was guilty.

calimedeiros · calimedeiros's Garage

ive started watching this and damm the corruption that goes on is crazy
this happens all over north america and its just sad to see anyone lose their life in jail for something they didnt do
next time your having a bad day think about the guy thats behind bars doing life for nothing

gprsh924 · 01-02-2016, 12:33 PM

After watching it and then reading everything I could, I think Avery probably did do it. There is a lot of evidence pointing toward him. However, I don't think the state remotely proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I'm still confused where her blood went? If he stabbed and/or shot her in the trailer or the garage, there should have been blood somewhere.

sc_rufctr · 01-02-2016, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notfarnow

The best theory I have read is that they were searching his land illegally, stumbled across the RAV4, called in the plate and realized it was the vehicle they were looking for. Knowing that the search wasn't legal, decided to *help* the volunteers find it... hence the cagey answers from the brother and ex-roomate, and the "coincidental" fact that the volunteer who found it was the only one who was given a camera and the phone # of the sheriff .

After having watched the documentary and then gone online and read all the other evidence that DOES point to Avery (phone calls to the victim, he had purchased shackles and restraints similar to the ones his nephew described), I think the most plausible scenario is this: The police suspected him (he *was* the last one to see her alive) and zeroed in on him. Found the Rav4, and then a couple bad cops planted evidence to ensure a conviction. I don't think there's any question that there were shenanigans and abuse, butit looks like it may have been to nail a guy who they suspected/knew was guilty.

This!

It wouldn't be the first time the cops framed someone who they "knew" was guilty.

craigster59 · craigster59's Garage

Besides the fact that there's "banjo music" going on in the Avery clan (and a few of them could use a bath), it seems the local Sheriff really had it in for them.

And the smarmy Kachinsky, he put the kid in the slammer for a long while. I still don't understand why his conviction wasn't thrown out. When the investiagator for the defense said "The family tree has one branch, and it needs to be cut down", that should have been a clear sign of "railroading".