Making a Murderer

I might have to watch this sooner or later. How many total episodes are there?

In reply to 92dxman:

Ten episodes, just a tick over an hour each.

Haven't watched a bit of it, but have seen and read quite a few articles about both the case and the show that have popped up in my newsfeed since the show started airing, including articles on all of the evidence against Avery that the jury saw that was purposefully left out of the "documentary" by the producers. As biased as this show seems to be based on everything I've seen, I have no interest in watching.

Steven Avery could be as guilty of this murder as Hitler was of genocide. The difference is that the cops in this case were so clearly guilty of tampering with/planting evidence, and the prosecution and courts so eager and willing to follow suit, that it sickens a person who stops to think about what happens when the system points a finger wrongfully at them.

Then, think about the young, bordeline mentally retarded, clearly innocent and set up nephew, who is going to be in prison until he's 58. The system failed him from the first moment his name came up. And half of those failures were direct result of misconduct (or likely criminal activity) of the police, his council, and the court.

4cylndrfury wrote: Steven Avery could be as guilty of this murder as Hitler was of genocide. The difference is that the cops in this case were so clearly guilty of tampering with/planting evidence, and the prosecution and courts so eager and willing to follow suit, that it sickens a person who stops to think about what happens when the system points a finger wrongfully at them.

IF the accusations of such made in this documentary are correct, then yes. But folks so willing to lie by omission with respect to the evidence left out of the documentary that didn't support their bias don't gain my trust.

Like I said, I haven't watched any of this, but with the producers apparently caught in a lie, I'd take any accusation they make concerning the police... tampering, framing, otherwise... with a grain of salt, so to speak.

In reply to RFloyd:

"Lying by omission" is certainly an interesting phenomenon, and whether it is 'lying' or not probably depends more on the listener than the person talking.

For example - in any situation there are thousands of facts, most of which are not relevant. To go through all of those irrelevant facts would be dumb and boring (and impossible). Therefore, anyone explaining any situation will be forced to prioritize and chose which facts they believe are relevant and need to be discussed, and those which are not, and therefore can be left out.

If there is a fact left out, it is simply "irrelevant" in the beliefs of the storyteller, but if the listener believes it is relevant, then it could be considered "lying by omission".

Because of the giant volume of facts presented to us all day every day, the "lying by omission" phenomenon happens 100% of the time all day. It even happens in fact, between your subconscious brain and your conscious brain.

No doubt, Robbie. But some omissions are more relevant than others, especially when they're concerning pretty damning evidence presenting during a trial that is omitted because it doesn't fit a narrative.

In this case, I guess if you're not trying to be impartial and look at all of the facts, there's no foul..... but that's not exactly in the spirit of "documentary." That's my impression, anyway.

I found this:

http://www.makingamurderer.org/wiki/index.php?title=List_of_physical_evidence

and this:

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/jurytrialtranscripts/

https://www.reddit.com/r/makingamurderer

Well yes, I agree. The other thing that I would point out though is that the documentary might have been making a different point than you assume.

if, the documentary was to point out steven's innocence, then yes, leaving out some prosecution arguments would not be great

but, if the documentary was to point out the government's misconduct, regardless of steven's innocence or non-innocence, then many of the prosecution arguments probably do not matter

if the documentary was to point out how nice a place manitowoc county is to live for low income children, then I see many many facts it blatantly left out.

Agreed, and truthfully (again, not having seen it but based on what I've read) your first possibility (prove his innocence) was my assumption.

Concerning your second point, I think the willful omissions do taint the producers credibility with respect to accusations of wrongdoing on the authorities' part, unless they can provide proof of such alleged misdeeds. I tend not to trust a person I have already learned that I cannot trust.

Regardless, I've already spent more time on this show on this board, mostly due to slow work day, than I likely will in front of the TV.... too many things to do at home other than be outraged.

In reply to RFloyd:

I will say that the misconduct part is quite clear, regardless of what may have been omitted.

In case you hadn't seen this posted already, the cops/prosecution in that county already found him guilty of a rape in 1985 he couldn't have committed based on aliby and physical evidence, and it took 18 years and a monumental forward leap in DNA science to prove. Meanwhile, the actual rapist was in the wild, continuing to assault women. The conviction was overturned, and Avery was released.

It's pretty clear he was railroaded in that case as well, and that is based on the history of the rape case, not on the current trial where details could be omitted.

Like you said, hard to trust someone you've already proven can't be trusted...

Finally watching, 4 episodes in. Just wow. I wonder how long they were going to prod that dumb kid into inadvertentaly blurting out he not only killed her, but every other crime in the northern USA. Come on Brendan, come on Brendan...tell the truth...what happened to her head? What happened to her head? Come on Brendan....... ....who shot her in the head?

So nearly 8 years later a rebuttal documentary called "Convicting a Murderer" has been released by the Daily Wire. I know for some the director is a controversial person and will be me with "I'll never watch that" but trust me, it's worth it. 

The way MaM was edited and presented was borderline criminal itself. They literally edited court room testimony and body language to fit the narrative that Steven Avery was framed. Again, it's unbelievable that someone "seeking the truth" would literally edit the truth. The MaM people also conveniently left out a lot of very damning evidence.

After watching the new doc I have next to zero doubts he's guilty. Watch it and see what you think. 

Scotty Con Queso said:

So nearly 8 years later a rebuttal documentary called "Convicting a Murderer" has been released by the Daily Wire. I know for some the director is a controversial person and will be me with "I'll never watch that" but trust me, it's worth it. 

The way MaM was edited and presented was borderline criminal itself. They literally edited court room testimony and body language to fit the narrative that Steven Avery was framed. Again, it's unbelievable that someone "seeking the truth" would literally edit the truth. The MaM people also conveniently left out a lot of very damning evidence.

After watching the new doc I have next to zero doubts he's guilty. Watch it and see what you think. 

My problem was never "is he guilty," my problem was did he get a fair and legal trial? Part of the infuriating part of MaM was Avery and the prosecution are bad guys, and its hard to cheer for either. I have no info on the case outside of the MaM documentary, and framing/bias is a concern, but to me it seems like there was misconduct on the end of the police/prosecution. I will give your recommendation a watch, but I care less about a guilty person being punished than our justice system sticking to the founding principles of this country. Frankslin's take on Blackstones Formulation and all that.

In reply to Opti :

I would say that after I watched the new doc, I no longer felt like he got an unfair trial. But draw your own conclusions. 

My comment adds no value to the core discussion, but I'll make it anyway.

im glad I read this whole thread again, because I haven't heard the term waterhead in a long time.

Scotty Con Queso said:

Again, it's unbelievable that someone "seeking the truth" would literally edit the truth.

This happens everyday all day now.  And if you speak out against or try to ascertain the truth, you will experience some of the worst society has to offer.  The truth is under attack.  

Keenly interested in watching this new series, as I grew up in the Manitowoc area and remember this case being part of the news.  That said, is this available on the free side, or is this a pay to watch type deal?

In reply to einy (Forum Supporter) :

It's a pay to watch all 10 episodes.  The first 2 or maybe 3 are free I believe. 

Scotty Con Queso said:

So nearly 8 years later a rebuttal documentary called "Convicting a Murderer" has been released by the Daily Wire. ...

Generally speaking, I try not to be political. I could be said to be on the fringe of Daily Wires core audience.  I do agree with SOME of the personalities they publish, and I think SOME of their independent films are really strong.

I wont support them financially. Their owner is a shill who walks a different talk than he tries to fool people into thinking he actually talks. He wont get my money, and its my money he wants.