I agree you do have to watch more than just the TV show. They could have made it not as one sided if they added more facts and still made it a good show.


Oh and fiddy people who didn't get away with murder but people think he should have

My thoughts on watching it were exactly "What is it they are leaving out" It was clearly one sided and while I am 100% on the side of presumed innocence, if it had been exactly as they had presented it in the Documentary I dont think the jury would have convicted.

Just my 2 cents.

Guilty or innocent...neither were the point the filmmakers were after. It is the commentary on the many weaknesses in the US criminal justice system that is the documentaries strength IMO.

to sum it up:

it was the full transcript of the first interrogation where he voluntarily told the whole story in pretty routine suspect questioning. 152 pages of text. He outlines exactly what happened, no coercion whatsoever, just standard police procedure of asking questions and the police acting like your friend so feel comfortable telling what happened.

the second transcript was when the investigator was in the room with him and telling him to draw pictures. this was just re-iterating the story he told in his initial confession and at this point he is already guilty and by him filling out the "im sorry" document its a way for him to hopefully reduce his sentence as he is clearly guilty at this point. He drew pictures in the first confession as well.

They try to make the kid look so stupid that you feel sorry for him, but reading the transcripts he is just like any other guy who has committed a crime and is spilling his guts to get it off his conscience.

In summary: massey went to the house to deliver some mail, avery was in the middle of bounding the girl to the bed with handcuffs and chains, avery tells massey he raped the girl and asked him if he wanted to as well. massey says ok because he wanted to know what sex is like, when he is done, avery stabs her in the stomach, and chokes her, then asks massey to cut her throat, then they carry her to the garage and avery shoots her 10 times, they have a fire burning in the barrel when they move the body. they put a tire and wood and a car seat to accelerate the burning. then they move the car to the area where it was found. avery then cleaned up the blood in the trailer, burned the sheets and the girls clothes in the fire and then bleached the garage area where there was also blood. the bleach was also on masseys clothes. also the girls cell phone and camera were in the fire. massey also says the avery left the keys behind the dresser and cleaned the knife and kept it.

this all came from masseys volunteered confession.


ps. i had nothing to do last night so i read the whole thing

poor girl.

but america has two new low iq murderous retards to worship.

if the first transcript is from the interview where they keep telling him to "be honest" whenever he gives an answer that doesn't fit with what they want to hear then i don't know how you could say that he wasn't pushed to say what fit with what the detectives thought happened.

dude thats interrogation 101

I am just going to watch it.

I watched Dr. Drew tonight, as he discussed this topic for the second day in a row.

Dr. Drew is a moron, who has let the spotlight go to his head.

While I thin he is guilty, I do not believe that is how it happened.

Just done with it. It's 100% currupt. One thing that is funny.

In the closing statment Kratz stats that she was killed in the gaarage and not in the beedroom in the trailer.

Breandan was sented to jail for killing her in the trailer.

It makes not sence to me.

perhaps but in this case (and probably many others) the simpleton dassey just kept saying stuff until he said what they wanted to hear. like he said, he just guessed. the same way he does his homework.

something happened with her head, what happened to her head. he gave several "incorrect" answers until eventually he says they shot her in the head but he was just running through things that could of happened. its so obvious.

dude just read the transcripts and it will clear all doubt of his innocence and him being coerced.

the movie showed like minutes and snippets of footage to invoke a sympathetic reaction from a 4 hour long interrogation...

If they find EDTA in his blood thats in the car do they both get let go.

My head is all over the place something i read online said that she has been to the property before and he met her with a towel around his body and asked not to go back again.

He also used a fake name to book her when she went missing and presumably tried to fake calling her but forgot to add the caller id.

It seems people don't realize that this "mockumentary" is actually a mostly a video made by the defense for the trial, which netflix later acquired.

even a cursory review of the facts makes it pretty clear he murdered someone for a second time. just because the defense has an answer for each piece of damning evidence, doesn't mean he isn't a murderer. besides, its their job to have an answer for each piece of evidence. it's exactly what they are paid to do.

What do you mean he murdered someone for a second time?

I think if they find EDTA in the blood in the car, it's clear the police put it there. Do they let them go? No, but it's enough to open it back up and retry it I THINK the attorney said, and with that as new evidence, I think it would be enough to exonerate him.

I still have to go read the transcripts. I started to, but was discouraged right from the start. The kid still had the bleached pants on his kitchen floor 4 months later? Why wouldn't they burn them? A 16 year old can give police permission to enter his house to get evidence? To be interrogated alone? Those are police logs and reports. It can not be slanted to fit the defense's documentary. That shit really happened.

Sorry, i meant the previous charges, rape/attempted murder etc.

i only heard two attorneys debating the case and when the facts are all laid out, its pure insanity to think there is any chance he didn't do it.

furthermore, he's a psychopathic parasite and career criminal.

The fake documentary is Netflix buying the rights to a defense video and adding drama. It's not some objective body of work. Its a thing to cause debate and sell subscriptions.


"Background
At age 18, Avery pleaded guilty to burglary of a bar and was sentenced to 10 months in prison. When he was 20, Avery and another man pleaded guilty to animal cruelty after pouring gasoline and oil on Avery's cat and throwing it, alive, into a fire; Avery was again sentenced to prison. In 1985, Avery was charged with assaulting his cousin, the wife of a part-time Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy, and possessing a firearm as a felon. The same year, he was also convicted of raping a Manitowoc woman, Penny Beerntsen, of which he was later proven innocent. He served six years for assaulting his cousin and illegally possessing firearms, and 18 years for the assault, sexual assault, and attempted rape he did not commit.[4][5]

The Wisconsin Innocence Project took Avery's case and he was eventually exonerated of the rape charge through DNA testing. After his release from prison in 2003, Avery filed a $36 million federal lawsuit against Manitowoc County, its former sheriff, Thomas Kocourek, and its former district attorney, Denis Vogel. On October 31, 2005, the same day that Teresa Halbach went missing, state legislators passed the Avery Bill to prevent wrongful convictions. The bill has since been renamed the "criminal justice reforms bill""

I have no idea any more, I had no idea that they found his sweat DNA.

Well since you put it that way lol.

You bring up a lot of great points, as you usually do.

Kratz....well he's just a skeevy human being. I still have to just indulge in the transcripts one night when I have a great attention span.

I do think he did it, but again, a lot of that is because of him being in jail for 18 years already, being low intelligence, and dirty looking. With the police being so obviously corrupt, that you can't deny, they really make it hard.

I won't watch the show. I just happened to catch a long interview on Sirius where it started with "this guy is innocent...." and then an attorney came on very familiar with the case and broke down the entire fact pattern, along with the nature of the series itself (originally produced by the defense and not used, rights later bought by Netflix and then stretched out into a mini series). Anyway, after hearing the "here's a little about this guy and his history" followed by "these are the facts of the case" and then "this is what the documentary leaves out"... you can't possibly think "oh, this guy was set up"

Hearing about a police interview and seeing it are totally different. Manipulated or not it's one of the best "true crime" series I've ever seen.

How about the tampered blood vial?
How about the FBI blood test?
Bullet DNA test was contaminated and couldn't be retested.

Those are just some of many off the top of my head. I think he's guilty but there are some serious questions.. He wouldn't have been the first person to have ever been framed by the cops.

I think more than one thing can be true. I think he is guilty. I also think some of the evidence was either planted or tampered with.

There are some dumb motherfuckers in Wisconsin.

You're a moron, but I guess that's no surprise around here.

I'm not that far into it...but I could go either way at this point. I will say I'm leaning toward police conspiracy. Where is all the blood from the throat slit? It just seems too convenient for this murder to pop up right when the Manitowac Sherriff department is about to get blown up for being corrupt.

On the other hand, it's also possible to believe that Steven Avery felt emboldened after being exonerated and made a local hero, and decided he could get away with murder.

I don't know how this will turn out at the end, but I've been getting so pissed watching this classic railroad job by the judicial system...from the kid's coerced confession (twice), to the appointed defense attorney who assumes guilt -- all the way to the judge who denies any motion in that may help the defense. It just looks bad, and I don't think it's the filmmaker doing it with clever editing.

The whole story really hit home for me because I know a chick that works for Auto Trader.

The easily herded are running to the defense of Avery. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

My favorite part was when the Prosecutor got busted for "sexting". That dude was a real charmer.

His boasts about his "$350,000 house" took the cake.

Plus he sounded like the high pitched guy on Seinfeld.

The fuck does knowing a chick from auto trader have anything to do with your capacity to know if he did it or not? :uhoh rofl

I agree with what a lot of people are saying here, and am somewhere in the middle. I'd like to believe he's innocent and there's a ton of things in the documentary to make it seem so, but apparently the documentary is one sided.

It's easier for me to believe that the police killed her, all circumstances given, than someone would be so careless with hiding certain evidence yet totally and meticulously cleaning all blood.

That being said, the phone calls from the kid to his mom could've been staged, as they knew they were going to be recorded and part of the defense, they could've worked out what to say during in person visits and then make it sound candid on the phone (where he acts like a complete retard and is believable that he was coerced into what he confessed).

I think Scott Tadych is the older Dassy brother are hiding something. The combined alibi is suspect for sure.

See theory #1

?Making A Murderer?: 5 theories about what really happened | Fusion

Quoted for truth.
The point is not to know if he's guilty or not, and I don't think we will ever know since - apparently - the police never looked in anything not connected to Avery.
It's just pointing out the fact that evidence was planted and that the police purposefully didn't check some leads.
In that matter, I think the documentary did a pretty good job.

It's also indirectly a very strong case against death penalty because this dude would have had the needle for sure. :2 cents:

As said higher, I reckon some leads pointed towards Avery (bad luck or he actually did it) and they were too happy to pin it on him.
They then made sure to plant whatever evidence was needed to back up their claims.

I've always been a good mediator and hear both sides of the story. After watching this Netflix doc, I was furious. I wanted to sign a petition just like the +300k other people. :) After digging deeper into this case with some of the missing evidence, it seems as though Avery is guilty. The *67 phone calls, specifically requesting for her, listening to Dassey's confession that was NOT in the series. I hope he is guilty. Just doesn't make any sense when he is suing for millions of dollars and has attention on him at the time. He's obviously not bright, but was he really that stupid to commit this crime?

My insane, off the wall but not too far fetched theory is that the cops paid Teresa millions of dollars to disappear because they could not afford the $36 million. Highly doubtful, but would you disappear and not tell your family if you were offered a few mil? Would make for an interesting twist in the movie remake anyway.

Oh man, oh man. Makes GFY seem like it is made up of Rhodes Scholars.

What kind of good mediator arrives at your conclusions listening to half a story? I presume that's just your impression of yourself.

I just meant that I WANTED to sign the petition like the other 300k who only saw the show and think Avery is innocent/framed because it brought out a lot of emotion. Instead, I dug deeper to hear more of the prosecutions side. My realistic conclusion is that he did it but the cops tampered with evidence to ensure a conviction. My off the wall theory in my post is just from one too many movies. :)

Watched all 10 in one day consecutively :1orglaugh

***SPOILER ALERT***

Initially thought innnocent as just too much shady shit unanswered...

A) Why announce to your family auto trader chick coming over if your gonna wack her
B) Why wack auto trader chick if your about to get fat settlement and could buy any pussy ya want
C) Why did cop call in license plate of her car days before found on his lot, did they find it elsewhere first and then plant it
D) Why did dude from search crew hand her a camera, did he know she would find car there, didn't take her long to find it on that massive lot
E) Why wouldn't he crush the car if guilty?
F) Unsupervised original cops had plenty of time to plant shit, how does car key appear in open view after place has been searched previously multiple times, they shouldn't have been on property period after original fucked up case
G) If he killed her where's the blood, splatter, nothing in bedroom/on mattress or garage 2 places they say it happened, no trail of blood from dragging
H) Tampered Blood Vial

Could probably post about 10 more things. Found it weird 2 people hacked her voicemail so easily as well. Think the things that had we sway back to could be guilty is the back and forth yes/no confession from his partner in crime and why not take the stand if your innocent. So I could swing either way but kinda shifted from innocent to possibly guilty. Would I vote Guilty probably not as enough shit to form reasonable doubt. Would have to hear 100% of it and then decide. :2 cents:

I just finished the first episode and the only thing I'm thinking is how in the fuck is this 10 episodes long!?!?! Yeah it's compelling shit, but 10 hours of it? They could have condensed it into a 2 hour documentary, or even a 4 hour 2-part series...but 10 hours? Ain't no one got time for that! I really want to watch it, but can't justify wasting 10 hours of my life watching someone wrongfully (or rightfully) accused of crimes, and wasting his life in prison.

Of course they set his ass up. Political careers and pensions were in jeopardy, possible charges and breaking the town itself financially. They HAD to take him down. As far as the argument of how would the police know about her coming? She was there often. In addition he was suing them.. There's no doubt in my mind they watched his every fucking move and tapped every phone line he had as soon as he mentioned "lawsuit" trying to get him on anything they could..