Jump to content

Making a Murderer


HessStation

Recommended Posts

well I clearly called him a dirtbag, not a murderer 

maybe...but how can you trust the g/f.  She's a moron who is now going back on it all, 8 years later because of the Doc?  Hell no. If anything, it makes her completely lose all credibility.  Her reason for sharing now?  Because she was scared.  Scared of what?  A man trapped behind bars? lol  It reeks of someone trying to get back in the public eye.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What about the ex-boyfriend? I feel like he was overlooked. He admitted to getting into her voicemail and for some reason he was allowed on the Avery property during that 8 day search. 

This show wasn't about proving Avery innocent. It's more about how crazy the justice system is when trying to get convictions while ignoring evidence that completely contradicts their whole case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the ex-boyfriend? I feel like he was overlooked. He admitted to getting into her voicemail and for some reason he was allowed on the Avery property during that 8 day search. 

This show wasn't about proving Avery innocent. It's more about how crazy the justice system is when trying to get convictions while ignoring evidence that completely contradicts their whole case. 

you see it time and time again in these cases where law enforcement ignores evidence, ignores leads when it contradicts the story they have settled on and the person they have pined the crime on.

I recommend everyone listening to season 1 of the Serial podcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe something stinks in the manatowok county police department. 

I don't buy that for a second. Put yourself in the mindset of a cop willing to kill someone to frame a guy you hate from a family you hate. Do you kill a random innocent woman, or do you kill Avery's gf or a relative he doesn't get along with? Kill avery's GF and everyone and their mother assumes he did it right away.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy that for a second. Put yourself in the mindset of a cop willing to kill someone to frame a guy you hate from a family you hate. Do you kill a random innocent woman, or do you kill Avery's gf or a relative he doesn't get along with? Kill avery's GF and everyone and their mother assumes he did it right away.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't buy Steve Avery killed her for a second either. Guy just gets out of jail for a crime he doesn't commit for 18 years, is about to become a multi- millionaire, has a wife/finance whatever she was, and he's gonna telegraph his kill and then just leave her suv in the back yard? He's gonna burn her then leave the bones next to his house? There was no rape in the house because there was no DNA. He didn't have her car keys because they were obviously planted in the house. So was the obvious blood mark in her SUV....there was no blood found anywhere else but the car? The test tube of blood in the forensic lab just happened to be tampered with and opened? Every shred of evidence was falsified by the same county police he was suing, the same county police that didn't have the 30 something million dollars they were about to owe him.  Who just gets out of jail after 18 years of innocence, is in a new loving relationship, is about to be a millionaire goes kills a woman while telegraphing the whole thing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy Steve Avery killed her for a second either. Guy just gets out of jail for a crime he doesn't commit for 18 years, is about to become a multi- millionaire, has a wife/finance whatever she was, and he's gonna telegraph his kill and then just leave her suv in the back yard? He's gonna burn her then leave the bones next to his house? There was no rape in the house because there was no DNA. He didn't have her car keys because they were obviously planted in the house. So was the obvious blood mark in her SUV....there was no blood found anywhere else but the car? The test tube of blood in the forensic lab just happened to be tampered with and opened? Every shred of evidence was falsified by the same county police he was suing, the same county police that didn't have the 30 something million dollars they were about to owe him.  Who just gets out of jail after 18 years of innocence, is in a new loving relationship, is about to be a millionaire goes kills a woman while telegraphing the whole thing? 

He's not a very smart man, in fact he's quite stupid. He has 18 years of prison experience. And yeah, he's dumb as a rock. Literally. If he had a debate with a rock I'd seriously be conflicted as to guessing who'd win. That whole family collectively probably hasn't accumulated enough years of education to earn a HS degree. The problem is you're looking at his logical decision making through the lens of your brain. You're probably educated, smart, normal human being. To YOU, and every other half educated normal human being, those decisions don't seem logical.

Again, I believe the police committed so many unethical acts that Avery's case is so tainted that it should be tossed. I believe policemen need to be in jail for what they did. But I wholeheartedly believe Avery killed that girl.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And totally off the main subject.... They spent the whole first episode harping on how Steven owns up to his crimes, if he did it he'll tell you right? Then they ask him about the cat incident, where he stated he was drunk and fooling around and tossed the cat in the fire just messing around, he thought it'd jump right out. Right? He failed to mention he doused the cat in oil first. He had zero thought that the cat would jump out. He maliciously killed it. Again chalk it up to something the incredibly stupid and unintelligent people of the world sometimes do. But the fact of the matter is here in his own documentary he lied right to your face.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe something stinks in the manatowok county police department. 

Entirely possible, even likely, the cops are bad guys who tried to add bad evidence to prove Avery's guilt. Does not logically follow that Avery is innocent. 

As to the nephew, completely different story. Find that much more disturbing. He might very well have been dragooned by Avery into the cleanup,but  no real proof he was a murderer or a rapist other than his coerced spoonfed statements, along with his own attorney working against his interests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that you're sort of missing the point here. Focus on the broader issues because that retard is guilty as sh*t. Haven't seen the series.

yeah. I've become more open to that over time. I'm actually not too confident on either side to be honest. Although I feel the kid/nephew 100% got swindled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the kid is pretty clearly guilty too.

I think the kid is guilty too, but boy was he misrepresented by that first lawyer. One thing though.....he's stupid. Right? That's his whole defense in a nutshell. Yet he took the stand and suddenly held his own no problem?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe...but how can you trust the g/f.  She's a moron who is now going back on it all, 8 years later because of the Doc?  Hell no. If anything, it makes her completely lose all credibility.  Her reason for sharing now?  Because she was scared.  Scared of what?  A man trapped behind bars? lol  It reeks of someone trying to get back in the public eye.  

 

How can i trust any of them? I can't. The filmmakers clearly had an agenda as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the kid is pretty clearly guilty too.

Pretty clearly guilty? Not that i disagree to adamantly but I'd be curious to understand why it's "pretty clear".  Seems that part of his confession that were very detailed were never shown in the documentary for obvious reasons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty clearly guilty? Not that i disagree to adamantly but I'd be curious to understand why it's "pretty clear".  Seems that part of his confession that were very detailed were never shown in the documentary for obvious reasons

Yeah, it was cut to make it seem like they fed him the story. That's really not how it works. And I don't think subjecting a moron to hard interrogation is coercion. Obviously the lawyer did a sh*t job and that's reprehensible but it really didn't make that much of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it was cut to make it seem like they fed him the story. That's really not how it works. And I don't think subjecting a moron to hard interrogation is coercion. Obviously the lawyer did a sh*t job and that's reprehensible but it really didn't make that much of a difference.

Understood, yea and when I read some of the transcript that weren't shown in the documentary it at least made sense as to why he was convicted. Watching the documentary only made it seem like the Jurors must of been corrupt or brain damaged. (I just finished watching it 2 days ago) The documentary is really more like a propaganda film, and a powerful one considering Obama commented on one of these petitions going around.

It's really like anything else, nobody takes the time to hear all sides before rushing to judgement and starting threads like this. (ha)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood, yea and when I read some of the transcript that weren't shown in the documentary it at least made sense as to why he was convicted. Watching the documentary only made it seem like the Jurors must of been corrupt or brain damaged. (I just finished watching it 2 days ago) The documentary is really more like a propaganda film, and a powerful one considering Obama commented on one of these petitions going around.

It's really like anything else, nobody takes the time to hear all sides before rushing to judgement and starting threads like this. (ha)

I like to start simple. What are the odds of the same guy getting wrongfully convicted twice like this, really? The 'frame-up to torpedo the wrongful incarceration suit' explanation is rational but it's not remotely plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to start simple. What are the odds of the same guy getting wrongfully convicted twice like this, really? The 'frame-up to torpedo the wrongful incarceration suit' explanation is rational but it's not remotely plausible.

After the first one I imagine it'd be the same as any one us. The documentary did a very good job of making the frame up seem not only plausible but likely, which was the point. Further research has definitely allowed me to distance myself from that view. Of course as a former pothead and pot seller, I do not trust police at all, so I was particularly sensitive to this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Understood, yea and when I read some of the transcript that weren't shown in the documentary it at least made sense as to why he was convicted. Watching the documentary only made it seem like the Jurors must of been corrupt or brain damaged. (I just finished watching it 2 days ago) The documentary is really more like a propaganda film, and a powerful one considering Obama commented on one of these petitions going around.

It's really like anything else, nobody takes the time to hear all sides before rushing to judgement and starting threads like this. (ha)

The point to starting the thread was to conjure up more conversation to hear all sides and perspectives but instead I've just apparently conjured up some former pot smokimg/dealing seed of Satan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

After the first one I imagine it'd be the same as any one us. The documentary did a very good job of making the frame up seem not only plausible but likely, which was the point. Further research has definitely allowed me to distance myself from that view. Of course as a former pothead and pot seller, I do not trust police at all, so I was particularly sensitive to this

I don't know what you're talking about but there's like an order of magnitude between that and this.

The point to starting the thread was to conjure up more conversation to hear all sides and perspectives but instead I've just apparently conjured up some former pot smokimg/dealing seed of Satan. 

You are a credulous goofball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point to starting the thread was to conjure up more conversation to hear all sides and perspectives but instead I've just apparently conjured up some former pot smokimg/dealing seed of Satan. 

I don't know what you're talking about but there's like an order of magnitude between that and this.

Are you ******* kidding me. I want to fight somebody right now.  

^OP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're talking about but there's like an order of magnitude between that and this.

^OP

I over-sensationalized OP to get, what I hoped would be, some passionate response/conversation around the murder. And tbh, I was somewhat disappointed that more people didn't partake, I thought more people would have watched it. But listening to two (more well informed) sides argue over a topic is usually a pretty good way to help form a more credible opinion of your own...imo. Yeah.  For example Bugg was able to shed more light on the case which prompted me to look further into it.  As opposed to ML, who's too busy admiring his own intelligence, TOm, who should be put to sleep or evil incarnate such as yourself. ***High5z JiF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...