Netflix - Making a murderer (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
thewards5579
New Member
Otis
Well-Known Member
Well yep. TV too. I got Netflix cos it was the only official place to get Breaking Bad and now in turn it has Better Call Saul. Has its own original series too.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Having a quick look for you now, Macca.
It has BB and BCS, as mentioned, 3 seasons of House of Cards, all of Prison Break.
The release of new films is rather slow and sparse, so it's not like Sky Movies with 4 or 5 releases a week, but I stick with it and cherry pick. I don't think it's something you'd keep going on every day unless you're catching up on a series. They have a large back catalogue of movies though.
I prefer Amazon Prime I would say, which I also have, but Better Call Saul season 2 is on in Feb, so I keep going with Netflix for stuff like that.
It has BB and BCS, as mentioned, 3 seasons of House of Cards, all of Prison Break.
The release of new films is rather slow and sparse, so it's not like Sky Movies with 4 or 5 releases a week, but I stick with it and cherry pick. I don't think it's something you'd keep going on every day unless you're catching up on a series. They have a large back catalogue of movies though.
I prefer Amazon Prime I would say, which I also have, but Better Call Saul season 2 is on in Feb, so I keep going with Netflix for stuff like that.
Last edited:
Otis
Well-Known Member
Finally got round to watching this now, Nick. Completely buggered up isn't it and the system totally failed the accused on so many levels.
The worst of all I have found is the people supposedly working on BEHALF of the defendants, who seem just as keen to prove their client guilty as the prosecution.
Unbelievable!
Only up to episode 5.
The treatment of the 16 year old, who only has an IQ of 68 is truly shocking. He didn't even understand the questions or the meanings of quite straight forward words like 'inconsistent.'
And there you had officers putting words into the poor lad's mouth and trying to get him to sign statements he didn't even begin to comprehend.
Shocking, but must watch TV.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep, that's where I'm up to. Unbelievable.
The defence investigator just comes across as grumpy and impatient. The poor lad has a form in front of him with two choices: 'I am sorry for what I have done' or 'I am not sorry for what I have done.'
He just stares at the form and because he is saying he is innocent he just doesn't know what to do.
The investigator then says if you don't sign it I can't help you.
Sent from my LG-D405 using Tapatalk
The defence investigator just comes across as grumpy and impatient. The poor lad has a form in front of him with two choices: 'I am sorry for what I have done' or 'I am not sorry for what I have done.'
He just stares at the form and because he is saying he is innocent he just doesn't know what to do.
The investigator then says if you don't sign it I can't help you.
Sent from my LG-D405 using Tapatalk
Otis
Well-Known Member
Documentary. 100% true story.Is it a drama or a documentary?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
More unbelievable than fiction though.
Sent from my LG-D405 using Tapatalk
Nick
Administrator
Is it a drama or a documentary?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
It is a documentary.
Nick
Administrator
Yep, it is pretty much "Sign this or you will go to jail for life". To a kid with learning difficulties.
Nick
Administrator
It has views from both sides, albeit mostly telling the story of the 2 people in prison. It is a good watch.
Otis
Well-Known Member
It is. It's absorbing and the pre-trial interviews and the trials themselves are a really good watch.
You'll just find yourself shaking your head in disbelief over it though. The level of jumping to conclusions and assumption making by police departments and court officials etc. is just ridiculous.
You'll just find yourself shaking your head in disbelief over it though. The level of jumping to conclusions and assumption making by police departments and court officials etc. is just ridiculous.
Nick
Administrator
Wait until you see the copper in the dock being asked about the victims car....
BackRoomRummermill
Well-Known Member
It's all good man
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yeah, just seen that. That's bizarre. Why on earth would he ask that?
That scenario only makes sense if he's just come across the car.
How would you know a type car just from a registration number that you haven't previously been given?
Nick
Administrator
Exactly, his face drops as well.
It's strange how they use the same police to investigate and same judges as the ones who wrongly convicted him in the first place..
Also interesting that the only person given a camera was directed pretty much to the car when they did a search, their land was huge and they found it within twenty minutes.
They also owned a car crusher that would be great at getting rid of cars, but it was hidden under a few sticks.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep, absolutely ridiculous and bordering almost on the illegal you would have thought.
Don't know how anyone could convict on such a lack of evidence and evidence that doesn't makes sense.
For that first offence that Avery had 21 witnesses saying he was elsewhere and yet he was still convicted.
Nick
Administrator
There's the interview with one of the people off the jury, he said people had their minds made up before it started based on the media.
Have you seen the bit where the copper was on the news and says it would be too much to fit him up, it would be much easier to just kill him.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep.
I am really puzzled though. I am right up to the young lad's trial and I thought the whole defence should have revolved round the police officers coercing him and putting words in his mouth and all the suggestion they kept putting across to him.
Didn't see his defence team fight for that at all. They showed in the trial his drawings he drew to his defence team investigator, but you only need to see that video of his investigator of him trying to make the lad say and sign what he wanted him to say and sign.
The sentence is ridiculous too. No DNA evidence, no blood on him, no witnesses, no blood in the bedroom, despite her supposedly having her throat slit and being stabbed and blasted with a shotgun and the body burned to bones, yet he is found guilty of sexual assault (only bones remaining? WTF) and of murder.
No witnesses, no proof and only coerced confessions.
The system fell down completely.
Nick
Administrator
Just seen this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35234883
One thing I had thought is that it could be a very cleverly made documentary to get this kind of support for him worldwide.
One thing I had thought is that it could be a very cleverly made documentary to get this kind of support for him worldwide.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep, saw that. Without new evidence there is only a presidential pardon left I think.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Now also, call me thick here, but in that Avery's trial didn't the lead prosecutor say this was a crime committed by one person and one person alone?
And then did not the same prosecutor then lead the trial for the other accused, the Dassey lad to try and convict him too?
Also, in the first trial the prosecution moved away from the killed on the bed idea and decided it all happened in the garage. If the prosecution believed this then ALL of Dassey's confession should have been thrown out, because it was all based on him seeing a naked woman tied to a bed and his slitting her throat.
Seems bleeding obvious to me, but then like I say, maybe I'm a bit thick.
And then did not the same prosecutor then lead the trial for the other accused, the Dassey lad to try and convict him too?
Also, in the first trial the prosecution moved away from the killed on the bed idea and decided it all happened in the garage. If the prosecution believed this then ALL of Dassey's confession should have been thrown out, because it was all based on him seeing a naked woman tied to a bed and his slitting her throat.
Seems bleeding obvious to me, but then like I say, maybe I'm a bit thick.
Nick
Administrator
Yep, he made a point of saying "It was one person, one person alone, Steven Avery".
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Haven't watched this but all seems very far fetched reading on here and a quick google search. Might give it a watch
Firstly who are the directors of the documentary? What were the looking to gain from its creation?
Secondly as asked is it an accurate description of events, where did the writers get there information from? What were there sources? I've read on here about the investigators basically coercing confessions and statements from young people with learning disabilities, now obviously the investigator isn't going to admit this to the documentary writers so where do they ascertain this information from.
I don't know about police and law procedure but with all these allegations of corruption and misconduct was there ever any formal complaint or investigation into the conduct of people handling the case? If yes what was the outcome if no why wasn't it raised at the time?
A quick look on google shows me he was accused of murdering Teresa Halbach, if he's claiming he was framed then what exactly he is saying. The evidence linking him to the victim and the crime was a coincidence? The evidence was planted?
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213
When you read this it doesn't seem as simple as the documentary sounds, I mean burning a cat alive is the exact behaviour you would expect from a budding psychopath.
All sounds rather sensationalist for tv to me, might give it a watch to try and get a better understanding.
Firstly who are the directors of the documentary? What were the looking to gain from its creation?
Secondly as asked is it an accurate description of events, where did the writers get there information from? What were there sources? I've read on here about the investigators basically coercing confessions and statements from young people with learning disabilities, now obviously the investigator isn't going to admit this to the documentary writers so where do they ascertain this information from.
I don't know about police and law procedure but with all these allegations of corruption and misconduct was there ever any formal complaint or investigation into the conduct of people handling the case? If yes what was the outcome if no why wasn't it raised at the time?
A quick look on google shows me he was accused of murdering Teresa Halbach, if he's claiming he was framed then what exactly he is saying. The evidence linking him to the victim and the crime was a coincidence? The evidence was planted?
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/evidence-s-missing-making-murderer-article-1.2485213
When you read this it doesn't seem as simple as the documentary sounds, I mean burning a cat alive is the exact behaviour you would expect from a budding psychopath.
All sounds rather sensationalist for tv to me, might give it a watch to try and get a better understanding.
Nick
Administrator
I have seen some of the other evidence like on the link and heard about him potentially abusing the other bloke. The thing with that is the nephew is mentally unstable, you hear him have a conversation and say 3 different things. It's weird.
The family are real red neck inbreds, very weird and by no means angels.
The information is all from film,ie it's recorded the investigator and what he is doing. He also pretty much admits it in court.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yep, the whole thing is filmed by the documentary team. They follow the family round, have the newscasts, the police interviews the trials, the phone calls from custody, the lot. Very, very little is through word of mouth or just interview with the filmamkers. The filmmakers don't get involved and just film the thing as it unfolds.
That's exactly the craziness of it CCFC, it seems so far-fetched but is all true and the defences argument on the accused being framed stands up to scrutiny.
The accused was just about to win a $36m lawsuit against the police department, next thing you know he is charged with murder and then after a number of police searches (think there were 18 altogether) evidence is suddenly 'found.'
It's astonishing.
That's exactly the craziness of it CCFC, it seems so far-fetched but is all true and the defences argument on the accused being framed stands up to scrutiny.
The accused was just about to win a $36m lawsuit against the police department, next thing you know he is charged with murder and then after a number of police searches (think there were 18 altogether) evidence is suddenly 'found.'
It's astonishing.
SkyBlue_Bear83
Well-Known Member
Very interested in this now, just can't get my head around it.
Just don't see how it can be accurate, I genuinely just assumed it was a work of fiction reading the thread until someone asked the question earlier in this thread.
Just a question, when you are talking about a video of the investigator trying to force/manipulate the accused to sign a form/statement/confession. Surely what the documentary is showing here is a recreation of events based on the information they have gathered? The film crew couldn't have been there filming every moment of the investigation/interview/trial live, as it was happening real time? Surely if they did, they would at the very least have ample proof of misconduct against those conducting the investigation/trial etc.
Sounds crazy
Just don't see how it can be accurate, I genuinely just assumed it was a work of fiction reading the thread until someone asked the question earlier in this thread.
Just a question, when you are talking about a video of the investigator trying to force/manipulate the accused to sign a form/statement/confession. Surely what the documentary is showing here is a recreation of events based on the information they have gathered? The film crew couldn't have been there filming every moment of the investigation/interview/trial live, as it was happening real time? Surely if they did, they would at the very least have ample proof of misconduct against those conducting the investigation/trial etc.
Sounds crazy
Otis
Well-Known Member
It is that crazy.
The bit about getting the lad to confess IS captured on camera and it was filmed!
The worst part though is, this coercing of him to sign the form is actually carried out by a bloke working for the DEFENCE team not the prosecution!
The defence appear to be working for the prosecution. Get him to confess and then pass the info straight over to the police so they can question him.