"Making A Murderer"

I'm finally watching. Upsetting stuff.

I thought the first two episodes were really strong, but it got really boring once a few of these court episodes had passed. Besides that, I'm not fully convinced that Avery did not commit this crime, but he has some damn good lawyers, that's for sure.

I saw the first couple of episodes. While I do like it, it feels to me (and maybe it's intentional) like I am watching a TV show version of the first season of Serial. Perhaps that's the draw? Not sure but just guessing.

"his lawyers weren't great; he wouldn't have been imprisoned if they were."

Gypsy101, it doesn't work that way. A lot of factors go into whether one is convicted or acquitted, but one can certainly have a great lawyer who did everything for you and still be convicted. (I've only seen the first few episodes of Making a Murderer, so I'm not commenting on how good Avery's lawyers were or weren't).

Saying that if you got a guilty verdict you mustn't have had that great a lawyer is about as logical as saying if your dead you didn't have a good doctor, if you didn't get nominated for an Oscar you didn't give a great performance, or if you didn't get a role you don't have a good agent or you didn't give a great audition.

Updated On: 1/25/16 at 10:13 AM

There are many good reasons this guy's case has gotten so much attention, Broadway_Boy. It's not at all surprising that it inspired documentary filmmakers and that the series they produced has gotten so much attention - and also controversy.

Keep in mind that the series deals primarily with two separate crimes. One, the sexual assault on Ms. Beernstein, which everyone now agrees Avery was innocent but still spent 18 years in jail due to a horrific travesty of justice. Mr. Avery in key ways didn't fit the description Ms. Beernstein gave of the perpetrator. And there was an extremely suggestive identification of Mr. Avery in that case. So far that doesn't distinguish the case from thousands of other cases in the U.S. But it gets far worse.

Authorities failed to follow through on solid leads about another suspect not only at the time of the original investigation but even, years later, after that suspect confessed! And they kept this information from the defense even as they were trying to get dna from the victim's fingernails tested - dna which would later match the guy who confessed! And it appears Avery could have made parole several times if he had acknowledged his guilt to the parole board. But Avery, being completely innocent, refused to do so and stayed in jail.

Not only that, the failure of the system to work didn't only mean that Avery was wrongfully convicted. It also meant the guy who did it - whom at the time many prosecutors believed to be the right guy but their complaints were stifled by the system - went on to rape two other women.

Then there's the second case, the murder of Ms. Halbach. In which some of the key law enforcement people who screwed up the first case were also involved and in ways that strongly suggest to many - and for very plausible reasons - like they were trying to frame Mr. Avery. Which, of course, doesn't nec. mean that Mr. Avery didn't commit the murder, but it certainly raises very important questions about whether there have been two travesties of justice.

On top of all that, when Mr. Avery was being accused of the murder of Ms. Halbach he was already a well known symbol of wrongfully convicted exonerees, his name was on a state bill compensating the wrongfully convicted, the Justice Department had already investigated his treatment in the Beernstein assault case, and he was suing some of the same people who now the facts suggest to many may have framed him for the Halbach murder.

It's a fascinating story.

Updated On: 1/25/16 at 11:22 AM

Just finished it. It was equal parts fascinating and infuriating.

Looks like Steven Avery does have a new attorney who says she's going to be looking at re-examining all of the forensic evidence. And it sounds like - given her rather storied history of getting wrongful convictions overturned - she's as good an attorney as he could hope for.

Speaking of defense attorneys, I find it interesting that one of the legacies of the tough-on-crime era of the Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 42 administrations is this rather inaccurate meme that most defense attorneys are all greedy snakes determined to set violent criminals loose on our streets and that all prosecutors are seeking justice and truth. With that in mind, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who crushed on Avery's smart, talented, compassionate defense attorneys.

Broadway Joe - sounds like you would have been right at home on the jury.

Star Wars edition next?

His past despicable crimes were more than just mentioned in the series. The series included statements from a victim whom he held up at gunpoint, his own comments about his past criminal behavior, his owning up to his pleas of guilty, etc., and even numerous statements by several family members doubting his innocence. The series even showed, in one of its near-closing moments, Avery's own trial attorney Mr. Stang considering the possibility that Avery may have been guilty and in a way hoping he is because the idea of him being wrongly railroaded for two separate crimes is way too much to bear.

The series is a lot more nuanced than many are giving it credit for.

The fact remains that past criminal behavior is not proof of present criminal behavior, no more than demonstrable proof of a past wrongful conviction coupled with evidence of motivation and opportunity (as well as some evidence suggesting that it was actually carried out) for a frame clearly demonstrates factual innocence.

Moreover, this series wasn't only about Avery and how we feel about his present conviction. It was about Brendan Dassey's conviction as well.

It seems to me many are being unfair to the series, finding it to be one-sidedly pro-Avery because of their misguided interpretation of the title.

But "Making a Murderer" has a double meaning. It can mean either that the system worked hard to wrongly convict someone or that the system which inflicted one wrongful conviction - and the system's umbrage at being shown up to be insensitive to righting the original wrong it created and sustained - further created an actual murderer in Avery.... and perhaps two of them if one considers the possibility of Dassey's guilt as Avery's cohort.

Of course this too may seem simplistic to some. But the title has a double-meaning and an ambiguity than much of the show's audience seems to be ignoring.

Updated On: 2/9/16 at 02:54 PM

Margo319 said: "I get what the title means. And no, the horrific animal abuse was NEVER mentioned in the series. Not once. It was mentioned in a dateline episode that was unbiased and responsible journalism.

I agree about Brenden, I think he had absolutely nothing to do with this based on the research I have done, and not the series.

"

Okay, now you're just flat out wrong. He mentions his criminal history, which includes neglect of an animal (the cat) and breaking-and-entering of a convenience store, in the very first episode!!!! They even go on to state that he misses the birth of one of his children because he's serving a jail sentence for the cat incident. Did you even watch the show???

Margo, neglect of an animal can indeed be animal cruelty. But you are correct that Avery's conduct went far beyond neglect.

But you are absolutely incorrect the series did not discuss Avery's pouring gasoline on a cat and throwing it into the fire. The series showed Avery himself admitting that.

Updated On: 2/9/16 at 07:57 PM