Okay, here's what this guy says...
Painting a picture of a corrupt Manitowoc Sheriff’s Department willing to plant evidence in a murder case, “Making A Murderer” is a one-sided look at flaws in the nation’s legal system. Steven Avery always maintained law enforcement set him up in order to get out of a lawsuit and the documentary makes a convincing case, yet that didn’t match my personal experience working the trial in Wisconsin.
One-sided look? The doc was a completely one-sided look? The 10-hour doc had plenty of real life video and interviews from the time from prosecutors and law enforcement. So how one-sided is it?
The filmmakers got incredible behind-the-scene access to the defense and the Avery family. They were not provided the same access to the prosecution or the victim’s family.
They asked the prosecution and numerous other people fighting against Avery to be a part of the documentary but they declined. Of course, once the doc aired on Netflix people like Ken Kratz started talking in the media and flapping around on the trial. Hasn't exactly gone too well for Kratz.
Whether intentional or not, the access the filmmakers had to the defense clearly skewed their telling of events.
Again, they did ask everyone to be a part of the doc but some declined. We'll see just how 'skewed' this reporter can show us the doc was.
The filmmakers did not omit any "smoking gun" evidence, but
That's a really big "but." It's important to remember that this doc was 500+ minutes long and covered all of the big parts of the case. Nothing earth shattering in the least bit was "left out."
they did leave out several pieces of evidence that taken together clearly paint Steven Avery in an unflattering light.
Okay, here we go...
From Avery’s apparent fondness for the victim
"Apparent" fondness. Interesting wording for a reporter trying to sell how one-sided the doc was. What proof does he have for this "fondness?"
to his sweat under the hood latch of the victim’s car
Of course, one of the investigators admitted to examining Avery's car and then doing the same on Halbach's car without changing his gloves, tainting the evidence. But it's been funny to see people try to claim that the "sweat" DNA is somehow crucial to the case.
his gun linked to the murder
Technically, they never linked Avery's gun to the murder, and of course never found any evidence on said gun. What they did find was a smashed bullet, found under incredibly suspicious circumstances by a Manitowoc sheriff who never should have been working the case, with no blood on it, from a caliber gun (that would have been real tough to exit through a human) that matched Avery's and several others in the area too.
and bleach on Brendan Dassey’s jeans
Which is suggesting that both Brendan was involved in the murder and that somehow both of them were able to clean everything up without investigators finding any of this blood. Out of so many aspects to this case if you believe this I don't know what to tell you.
But of course, somehow Avery (and Brendan) did a miracle job cleaning up all that blood in the garage and then left some blood in plain sight in her car. People like this reporter get to think Avery was both a mastermind criminal and incredibly sloppy too.
there was a lot of evidence that didn’t fit the frame-up narrative and those facts were not disclosed in the series.
Clearly!
Dassey told his mom he got bleach on his jeans helped Steven clean the garage around the time of the murder.
This wasn't part of Brendan's original story, and at any rate, see above if you really think they could properly clean up a murder in the garage...
Avery repeatedly requested the victim Teresa Halbach specifically come to his property to take pictures of cars.
She had been to the Avery property before to do business. He called her several times on 10/31 because he was selling the car for his sister and there was some mix-up because he was the one actually helping with the transaction with Auto Trader. Pretty normal stuff but saying "repeatedly requested the victim" sounds awfully one-sided to me without any context, which of course he doesn't provide.
On one visit he opened the door wearing only a towel and Halbach complained to her boss that Avery had been inappropriate.
Another item that was taken out of context. She actually complained to a co-worker and she testified that Halbach laughed it off and wasn't grossed out about it. Additionally, we don't know the context about that encounter. Was he recently swimming and walking around with a towel over his shorts? I mean, I probably wouldn't answer the door like that but a bumpkin from Wisconsin probably would without evil intent.
The day of the murder Avery tried to hide his identity using *67 on his phone when calling Halbach.
"Hide his identity." We've already gone over this in the thread. Millions of people have used *67 in the past. It was completely common. We already know he was playing phone tag with her trying to clear things up wrt his sister's car. Maybe *67 was easier for a couple calls back to her when he knew he didn't make any other calls, you know just like millions of people have done before?
This is just so silly.
Even if the blood was planted in the car as the defense claimed, it would have been virtually impossible for officers to know how to plant Avery's sweat under the hood of her car.
Already brought up the "sweat" DNA under her hood.
My coworkers and I camped out for months in the courthouse logging hundreds of hours of trial testimony. Unlike Indiana, Wisconsin allows cameras in courtrooms and the case was a daily headline.
Okay, cool.
Dassey, a mentally challenged teen and the nephew of Avery, eventually confessed to the crime. The prosecutor’s reciting of that confession, which was broadcast live statewide, clearly damaged the suspect’s ability to get a fair trial. Dassey later claimed he was coerced and the interrogation methods are highly questionable.
Is he about to talk more about this coerced confessions....? No he's not!
As one of a few dozen reporters who covered the Avery and Dassey trials, I’m only in the Netflix series for a few sporadic moments, but after Avery’s verdict nine years ago, there was no public outcry.
One would argue that, besides the appalling actions within the justice system with this case, the media didn't exactly cover themselves in glory either. In fact, Kratz' poisoning of the public with his press conference after Brendan's "confession"--and the media running right along with it--is a major spotlight of the documentary. Citing "no public outcry" really isn't much of a defense in light of the legal system and how they covered the trial.
Most people in Wisconsin who repeatedly heard his claims of a frame-up still believed that justice was served.
Because the general public never wants to believe the cops would frame someone. Also, he was a poor "white trash" guy in a family a lot of people didn't like in town. Of course, most people are going to think justice was served. I can't stress enough how this guy is arguing something that makes the documentary all the more important.
The filmmakers clearly lead people to believe Avery is the victim of a setup.
And they did so because there is a mountain of evidence that they did so. And they did it once before too! You'd think guys like this reporter would be out there trying to show how the set up wasn't true but they can't. Instead, they come up with these little lame details that they can't even get half right with the real case.
I personally don’t agree, but I do encourage everyone to do their homework. You can petition the president to pardon the suspects, but I encourage everyone to do independent research to get all the facts, instead of basing your opinion solely on the documentary series.
That story with the reporter was posted on 1/6/16 and the first MaM episode streamed on Netflix on 12/18/15.
He's basically, nearly word for word, reciting the stuff from the "Evidence left out of Making a Murderer" clickbait articles that popped up right around the New Year that have been debunked. I would bet he didn't watch any of Making a Murderer with the Holidays in between making those comments. He Googled one of those articles, regurgitated it, and then says "I covered the case the public wasn't in outcry over the verdict, so believe me."
Don't you see how wrong this all is? This is one of the big points of the MaM documentary--it wasn't just about Avery's innocence or being framed but how poorly the justice system performed AND how the media and public reacted, then and now, to the case.
I mean, you haven't even watched MaM either, yet you seem to believe those clickbait articles on the "missing evidence" from the doc. Even worse, you did watch Investigation Discovery's terrible, terrible Mickey Mouse production of a documentary which looks like it was made by a 3rd grader compared to MaM and you've formed all these opinions based off of that program.
Like I said above, just watch MaM and browse through some of the trial transcripts. After you've done that, if the *67 or "sweat" DNA is among your top 500 issues with the case I'll be shocked.
Jury Trial Transcripts – Steven Avery Trial Transcripts and Documents
