Making a Murderer Discussion Thread (Spoilers Likely)

[Silent]

Not much happening? Because the court works in slow motion.... The motion for a new trial including a load of documents with 'proof' of planted evidence has been filed months ago already. For now the only thing to do is wait for the court. Also two higher courts judged Dassey has to be released, (last one already 3 months ago) but the appeals from the state take ages. Btw I can read all her Twitter, including the links to massive pdf's which claim to tackle a lot of the 'evidence' as presented in court. She did 'expose all the stuff', there's just no way for me (and you) to really judge how solid that proof is. It's in the hand of the appeal court now, and they take and need their time to rule on the motion......

[iacas]

  On 9/7/2017 at 7:26 AM, Silent said:

Not much happening?

Expand  

No, not really.

And her Twitter account was made private. You can read it because she approved your following. The world at large cannot.

I don't suspect many people care about this much anymore.

[iacas]

Nothing's happened here lately, eh?

[Pretzel]

  On 4/6/2018 at 5:29 PM, iacas said:

Nothing's happened here lately, eh?

Expand  

The closest I saw was something the lawyer tweeted back in February: http://www.newstalk.com/Making-a-Murderers-Steven-Avery-could-face-new-trial

Beyond that there were a couple tweets claiming how innocent he was, but they're definitely grasping at straws if the evidence they found wasn't enough to event warrant a hearing (because even setting the date for such a hearing would have been all over the news).

[mchepp]

I was very late to this thread because I was a slow Netflix adopter. I am in now. About 2 weeks ago I finished the first season. After watching the first season and reading information available on the web I was 98% sure he was guilty. And was content to walk away. My wife convinced me to start the second season. I have not finished it yet, but after 2 episodes I am less sure of my position. His new lawyer, while made for TV, and probably 50% full of bullshit is at the very least a really good investigator. In the second episode she talks about dogs that were never mentioned in anything I had seen before, and they spent a great deal of time in the neighboring quarry. Where coincidentally the pelvis was found but that was a detail sort of slipped over as well. 

Much of what she has done is nonsense, like the brain testing or whatever, just really hard to know what the hell that was about, but some has drawn some questions. Like the DNA from sweat and how the amount of signal that came from his DNA more or less means he would have had to lick the hood opening. Or if his DNA was on the latch why no fingerprints. Or the introduction of the dogs. I am still in the 90% he did it camp. But I will say the new lawyer is a pretty good storyteller and therefore worth watching for her entertainment value. 

[ACJL]

  On 11/26/2018 at 6:02 PM, mchepp said:

Much of what she has done is nonsense, like the brain testing or whatever, just really hard to know what the hell that was about, but some has drawn some questions. Like the DNA from sweat and how the amount of signal that came from his DNA more or less means he would have had to lick the hood opening. Or if his DNA was on the latch why no fingerprints. Or the introduction of the dogs. I am still in the 90% he did it camp. But I will say the new lawyer is a pretty good storyteller and therefore worth watching for her entertainment value. 

Expand  

There are plausible answers to all of those questions, but the documentary just doesn't share them with you.

• The dogs: the scent dogs actually tracked Halbach's scent to Steven Avery's own garage, showing much interest, and then continued to his trailer. A scent dog also alerted inside Avery's trailer. Zellner is just focussing on tracks away from the trailer and avoids mentioning all the tracks that incriminate Avery.
  • for example the scent alert at Kuss rd. What she doesn't tell the viewer is that this trail began at Steven Avery's own trailer. 
  • she also doesn't mention the fact there is a scent trail from Steven Avery's trailer going all the way to where the RAV4 was found
• the amount of DNA on the hood latch: just look at how the test is executed. She has some well rested tidy clean guys touch the hood latch. Steven wasn't well rested, nor clean. He was unkempt and in a rush to get rid of evidence, probably perspirating. The difference between 0,09ng and 1,8ng isn't a lot according to Meakin and Jamieson, two renowned DNA scientists.

[ACJL]

There are several "rebuttal" series out there that you might want to view. The most well known one is probably Dan O'Donnel's "Rebutting a Murderer" and there's another good one on Spotify by Real Crime Profile - a podcast by a former FBI Special Agent and a Analyst on People's Behaviour.

On YouTube there's a rebuttal series called Making a Murderer: 33 times it deceived its viewers. It lists over 30 examples of where the documentary was deceptive. And another user uploaded a podcast by two forensic scientists, Eric Ray and Glenn Langenburg, who share their thoughts on Zellner's case and don't agree with her very often.

And...

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by ACJL

[Vinsk]

I’ve seen all of this and frankly the whole thing has gone from ‘The Making of a Murderer’ to ‘The Making of a Film about The Making of a Murderer.’

It’s like both sides can go endlessly back and fourth making the other side appear wrong or deceitful. 

[ACJL]

Much of Zellner's case seem to rely on misinterpretations of the original trial/police reports or leaving out evidence of the original trial/police reports though and she gets called out on that.

[ACJL]

Seems like Zellner's motion about the bones in the quarry has been denied. Apparently Zellner was misinterpreting (on purpose?) a Statute that was supposedly relevant. 

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2005CF000381&countyNo=36&index=0&mode=details

[pricejcp37]

What I can't stand about this otherwise excellent series is the unnecessary, superfluous narration. This NPR sounding woman is narrating as to what is clearly being shown on the video. What purpose does that serve? To have a needless narration is a distraction.  

[Carl3]

I thought this was a thread about that "b*%$h Carol Baskin" as Joe Exotic would say, LOL. Just got done watching the Tiger King and will have to watch this.