Binged it. Incredible. Need to stew on this a bit.

So everyone agrees he didn't do it in the way theorized by the cops. For those that think he did it, what are your theories as to how he where and how he actually committed the murder?

The thing I can't figure out is, how was the jury convinced that he did it, especially when the initial vote was not guilty.

What's also interesting is comparing the styles and methods of the defense attorneys here to The Jinx. Durst's attorneys all but admit they coached him right up to the point of perjury, and they scapegoated the NY DA. It was pretty shady.

These attorneys are just pulling every string of the prosecution's case and unraveling it. They've also effectively discredited many of the witnesses with their own statements. Effective use of discovery and laying the evidence out in an easy to understand way.

quote:

---

Hah!

---

Omg

quote:

---

Hah!

---

They have a motive and a murder weapon....motive was that he was obsessed with her....called her out specifically to his place and greeted her wearing only a towel... told other prisoners his ideas for a torture chamber to kill women. That along with animal torture...he has the same motive as these other random serial killers out there.

Murder weapon....the bullet that matched his gun. That may or may not have been planted but there ya go...motive and weapon.

There is his motive.

Thanks. Figured the documentary may have been a bit one sided. Did they match the bullet to his gun at the trial?

Not a lot to prove the obsession motive

Is it unusual to get the same judge for an appeal?

But how do they explain the lack of any of her blood or DNA on the entire property?

The bullet (I believe it was just the casing, right?) alone proves nothing.

And I still can't wrap my head around Brendan being found guilty without a single shred of DNA evidence placing him in the trailer or garage.

quote:

---

But how do they explain the lack of any of her blood or DNA on the entire property?

The bullet (I believe it was just the casing, right?) alone proves nothing.

---

They didn't. And if they had slit her throat or shot her in the garage like they said her blood would have been there.

It was just the casing (which isn't that unusual. Hell there are probably .22 casings in my garage that would obviously match my rifle) it was shaky at best.

I'm with whoever was saying that he could have done it but it wasn't proven within a shadow of a doubt

They built the story around the physical evidence, but the problem is there would have been much easier physical evidence to find if the story happened like they told it. They threw a story to the public that she was raped and throat slit in the bedroom. They also threw out she was shot in the head because there was a bullet fragment with her DNA on it in the garage. A man with an IQ of 70 scrubbed his house and garage of any sign of her blood, but was too careless to scrub his own blood from her car. Too stupid to dispose of the key. Too stupid to crush the vehicle or dispose of it somewhere other than his own property.

Dude should have called Winston Wolfe.

The standard is reasonable doubt not a shadow of a doubt, although the prosecution had neither.

quote:

---

On a fundamental level, the prosecution having two different arguments at the two trials was extremely bothersome.

---

My biggest issue for sure.

Reading other stuff about his actions that wasn't presented in the doc, I still land on the opinion that they Steve most likely did it, but there's no way I'd be able to find either of them guilty based on the evidence the prosecution presented

"What Really Makes Making a Murderer So Good? There's No Narrator."

quote:

---

But how on earth did the show's creators get mea woman and a cat loverto side with an accused murderer/rapist whose rap sheet involves mistreatment of a cat (albeit when he was very young)? Mostly by getting out of the way. There's little doubt that the show's sympathies are with Steve Avery; filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos spend time with Avery's family and have access to his brilliant attorneys Dean Strang and Jerry Buting (whose services Avery was able to afford because of the settlement he received for his years of wrongful imprisonment), while the prosecution attorneys refused to cooperate with them. But overall, they eschewed an authorial voice.

Unlike the true-crime shows that clog weekend TV cable schedules, there's no velvet-voiced narrator explaining what's going on in condescendingly basic termsonce before the commercial break, then once again when we return to the show. Unlike HBO's The Jinx, there's no interestingly facial-haired godlike figure strategizing about how best to confront his subject with the evidence he's gathered. And unlike Serial, there's no Sarah Koenig-like narrator constantly disclosing how she's feeling about the case. Viewers have to read screen textand often, in my case at least, re-read it to figure out the sometimes-complicated legal developments that the brief sentences explain.

Forcing the audience to read essential information was a risky decision by Ricciardi and Demos in an age where it's harder than ever for shows to capture eyeballs. But it ultimately both elevates Making a Murderer from the "let me overexplain this to you" hand-holding of basic cable true-crime shows, and forces viewers to engage more deeply with the case.

---

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/12/30/what_really_makes_making_a_murderer_so_good_unlike_serial_and_the_jinx_there.html

I noticed the same thing about halfway through. There is no narrator. Every person is speaking his own words.

That's crazy, I didn't even notice that until now.

quote:

---

Reading other stuff about his actions that wasn't presented in the doc, I still land on the opinion that they Steve most likely did it

---

Can you explain what other stuff wasn't presented that makes you think he did it? And also how he did it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Reading other stuff about his actions that wasn't presented in the doc, I still land on the opinion that they Steve most likely did it

---

Can you explain what other stuff wasn't presented that makes you think he did it? And also how he did it?

---

http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-2015-12

Hm. Still doesn't explain how he did it and managed to leave no blood anywhere.

And how can he still think Brendan was involved if there is no DNA of his anywhere?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Reading other stuff about his actions that wasn't presented in the doc, I still land on the opinion that they Steve most likely did it

---

Can you explain what other stuff wasn't presented that makes you think he did it? And also how he did it?

---

First, no idea how he did it. My best guess would he she ended up being shot by him.

http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

That pretty much sums it up. Some of the things on that list are dumb as ****, such as owning porn.

But other things such as glossing over what he really did to the cat in his past, calling and specifically requesting Halbach as she had been there before, her telling her manager she didnt want to go because he was creepy, him dialing *67 to hide his number and using a fake name when calling to have her come out there, glossing way over the actual relationship he has with his fiance, rumors that he tried to sexually assault the niece (who was the one that testified and freaked out and changed her story) etc.

Very compelling doc. I think the police planted key evidence to ensure a conviction of someone they were very confident was guilty.

I wouldn't be surprised one way or another, but gun to my head opinion, he probably did it and Brendan may or may not have helped or maybe he stumbled on the cleanup or something.

But again, no way I could find either of them guilty based on what the prosecution presented

quote:

---

Hm. Still doesn't explain how he did it and managed to leave no blood anywhere.

And how can he still think Brendan was involved if there is no DNA of his anywhere?

---

In the article I linked it talks about them both cleaning the garage floor and using bleach to clean it.

That Maxim article didn't have much from Kratz describing additional evidence.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Reading other stuff about his actions that wasn't presented in the doc, I still land on the opinion that they Steve most likely did it

---

Can you explain what other stuff wasn't presented that makes you think he did it? And also how he did it?

---

First, no idea how he did it. My best guess would he she ended up being shot by him.

http://mobile.onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery.html

That pretty much sums it up. Some of the things on that list are dumb as ****, such as owning porn.

But other things such as glossing over what he really did to the cat in his past, calling and specifically requesting Halbach as she had been there before, her telling her manager she did want to go because he was creepy, him dialing *67 to hide his number and using a fake name when calling to have her come out there, glossing way over the actual relationship he has with his fiance, rumors that he tried to sexually assault the niece (who was the one that testified and freaked out and changed her story) etc.

Very compelling doc. I think the police planted key evidence to ensure a conviction of someone they were very confident was guilty.

I wouldn't be surprised one way or another, but gun to my head opinion, he probably did it and Brendan may or may not have helped or maybe he stumbled on the cleanup or something.

But again, no way I could find either of them guilty based on what the prosecution presented

---

This guy gets it.

Calling to request her definitely looks bad. And interesting they never mention Brendan's bleach stained pants.

quote:

---

Thanks. Figured the documentary may have been a bit one sided. Did they match the bullet to his gun at the trial?

---

Yes