Making a Murderer

The Verdict on Making a Murderer: Did the Netflix Doc Do Its Subject Justice?

If you’ve yet to finish binging on Netflix’s gripping Making a Murderer docuseries, don’t worry — this article won’t give away the ending. However, it will carefully ask the questions that you’re likely to be mulling over in the show’s aftermath. For instance…

* Having seen how easily the authorities in Manitowoc County, Wis., were able to send Steven Avery up the river for sexual assault and attempted murder — not to mention how long it took (18 years!) to get his wrongful conviction overturned — how scared are you that you could end up in the slammer for a crime that you didn’t commit?

* Since, as soon as Avery was released, he filed a monster of a lawsuit against the county, do you think that its officials retaliated by having Teresa Halbach rubbed out so that they could frame him for her murder? Do you have any doubt that Avery’s nephew, Brendan Dassey, was prompted by the authorities to make the confessions (yes, plural!) that he later recanted?

* And finally, on a scale of 1 (“It’s not right nor is it OK”) to 10 (“Flames, on the side of my face… !!!!”), how angry did the series leave you? Vote in the poll below, then hit the comments.



Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Michelle says:

    Look, the documentary was incredibly one-sided and I have to believe (based on what I’ve read) that there was damning proprietorial evidence that they didn’t show us. HOWEVER. To be convicted of such a crime with huge, huge, huge holes in the prosecution’s case… It’s ridiculous. I can sit here and rattle off five or six things that give me reasonable doubt that Avery committed this crime.

    • ajspree says:

      Exactly, even if parts of the states case was left out, or not all of the evidence was presented in the documentary, there is still a lot that gave me reasonable doubt. I still don’t think he was 100% innocent though. I was more outraged by Brendan Dassey’s case rather than Avery’s.

      • Platypus says:

        What they did to that kid really, really ticked me off. His case was a huge injustice.

        As for Steven Avery, much like Syed Adnan, I can believe he did it but there were way too many things that I would have to give the side-eye to (most notably, the guys working the case that were named in his lawsuit) and that should have created reasonable doubt.

      • nedsby says:

        Thrn exactly what do you think he was guilty of? Was there somethong I missed after watching the series twice that suggested he wad guilty of any 9ne of the charges that has ruined his life.

    • Ben says:

      Having worked on the other side of cases that the media does an ‘expose’ of – these exposes are always incredibly one sided. When I know the facts, they tend to make me come out angry (based on how much they ignore or avoid). They shape public opinion, but put little in to make sure they get everything right.

      I know nothing of this case, though, but I guess the important thing is that documentaries like this don’t make me particularly scared that I could end up in prison for a crime I didn’t commit. They only make me bothered that some people in authority are still willing to take an ‘ends justifies the means’ approach, which makes convictions unsound even where they are correct.

      • nedsby says:

        Exactly. The media is only out for sensation, the police are too lazy to do their job and make sure that they have the right man and the judicial system is a joke. All these things may be all we have but it’s just not good enough when a human life is at stake and that scares the hell out of me

    • Lara says:

      I read about the evidence the documentary did not cover and it still does not explain some huge inconsistencies in the states case. Why was there two burn sites? Also all of the DNA evidence was not found on the first, second or even third scan. It was all found after multiple searches and after Mantoic (sp?) detectives had been on site. Also, a good deal of the DNA evidence like the bullet was tainted. I came in with an open mind and I think Avery was looked at first because of who he was. No one else was ever considered a suspect. A lot of framing happened to get that conviction.

      • nedsby says:

        That convinces me even more that a gross miscarriage of justice has weakened any faith that the public may have had in fair play.

    • Don says:

      I am with you on the one sided ness of the series. I know that if it was presented full and concise, it is hard to belive that the jury and courts came to that conclusion. Even if Avery did do it, if I were on that jury, I would have to come up with a bit guilty. Regardless of what Krate said, “if he did it, it does not matter where the key came from. That is ridiculous.

      • So you’re all for police planting evidence if they think they have their man?

        • There are people who just can’t get their heads around the fact that the police force is like the Catholic Church. No one wants to believe they could be complicit with the crimes within their ranks but it is so common it defies belief. It makes me so angry that the good and responsible members have to wear the stigma for the few instead of weeding out the rot and detering these dreadful crimes. Until this happens, no one is safe.

  2. Eric says:

    I have found myself becoming irrationally angry and yelling at the tv several times and I’m only on episode 5! Steven and Brendan were railroaded by those dirty cops. Brendan’s lawyer was a joke.

  3. Ian Barber says:

    I haven’t seen the show (and don’t know that I will), but I have to thank you for the Mrs. Peacock CLUE reference!!

  4. Rachel says:

    This is haunting, heart breaking and soul crushing. Yes the documentary makes it seem he is innocent. As of right now I believe he is. I’m glad all of this attention is being brought to it b/c I want answers….I want the truth. This doc has caused tears, anxiety, and insomnia to say the least….

    I’m glad though he never wavered in his innocence with the first case.
    And I will never go to manitowoc county or WI, ever! There was clearly a vendetta against Avery from the start. He did dumb, stupid things but Lordy the people that say “if he was still in prison this wouldn’t have happened.” Um he was innocent and you need b*tch slapped.

    Everything that happened (with the lawsuit and him getting arrested again) seems way too conveniently timed. And the dassey confession…..ugh I wish I could reach thru my tv and strangle those guys!

    • nedsby says:

      Me too. Everyone I know who has watched the series is of the same opinion as me and that is that justice was not served twice on this family because of who they were and who they were was nothing as hidious as those who killed an innocent girl to set Avery up. In fact, apart from the police the brother of the murdered girl seemed way to oblivios to the facts presented in court. One would think that he would have been more interested in getting the real killer since Avery had a perfect alibi. Maybe he just wasn’t all that bright because he read the papers and couldn’t get his head around the fact that a prosecutor could be wrong.

  5. Jay Bee says:

    As someone who lives in the area and has a background in journalism let me try and answer your questions…

    1) No worries at all. First off I have not spent my early committing crimes that put me in the eyes of law enforcement. Second, DNA testing is much improved and more common in these types of cases than what it was when Avery was originally convicted.

    2) The thought that the county would sanction Halbach’s murder is ludicrous at best. While it makes for a great TV storyline there is no indication and never has been of a crooked county government or sheriff’s department. To think that they would go rogue and commit this one crime to save money is laughable. Further, just because Avery filed suit there is no guarantee that he would win.

    3) I am fairly certain that Dassey was prompted. Virtually all interrogations involve prompts. With that said, the police were drawn to Dassey because a relative believed he was acting strangely and was losing weight. What caused that behavior? Further, the state Appeals court has found no issue with either the interview or the way Dassey was defended.

    4) The series left me angry…but not for the reason you think. It left me angry because of how one-sided it is and how it really is a work of fiction, not a documentary.

    Avery is guilty. Dassey may not be, but he convicted himself. A young girl in the prime of her life lost her life and is the only real victim in this mess. If you would take some time and review the coverage of the case and ALL the evidence that was presented at trial, not just what these producers presented to you, you would have a very different opinion.

    • Gern Blanston says:

      The appeals court didn’t find anything wrong with his original conviction either and look what happened there. Your post and opinion seem to be just as one sided as you claim the series to be. I too am from the area and if you don’t have at least one or two serious questions about what went down with his second conviction you have your head in the sand.

      • nedsby says:

        I agee with you. Some people just can’t get their heads around the fact that those who are sworn to justice would ever use their power against us in the most unspeakable ways.

    • Lorraine says:

      I’d like to take a minute to reply to your comment:
      1) Did you not understand that in the first case against Steven Avery that it shouldn’t have taken DNA to prove he was innocent? The case they built against him was purely circumstantial at best.
      2)People kill for money all the time. I mean, isn’t it a top motive when an investigation is under way? So if this is the case, why would it be ludicrous at best? Or do you just believe that somehow the people that work for the county or government is above those types of human emotions?
      3)Your comment here is laughable…The interrogations on Dassey was clearly prompted and not just some kind of “that’s the way interrogations are” prompts. They blatantly violated his rights by not allowing his parents to be informed or even present let alone to make sure Dassey even understood what was happening to him. He clearly is mentally challenged.
      4)You are angry because its a one sided documentary? Avery is guilt? Its Dassey’s fault he got into trouble if he’s innocent? As I feel very sorry for Teresa and her family and there must be justice. But the justice MUST BE RIGHT! You can’t go around charging innocent people just for the sake of SAYING justice has been served. What kind of justice is that? Justice would be worthless if that is how it was sought after. Is it your opinion that justice was served for the 18 yrs that Steven Avery spent in prison? Can you imagine being like Steven Avery and spending 18 yrs in prison when you were innocent and no one listening to you and missing out on all the things he did? Now that, for me is something to be angry about.
      You maybe right that there is more to the story BUT even if there is how can there be a conviction with all these issues to begin with? Basic rights were violated. Proper procedures were trashed. Evidence had been clearly planted….even if only in the brain, it was planted. None of these things should be ignored especially after the fact that a wrong conviction had already been unjustly handed down. Its true what they say…the poor is never innocent and our Justice system doesn’t give a damn about adequate counsel! Case in point, Cassey Anthony, OJ Simpson!

      • Walkie says:

        It’s absurd to claim that the case is circumstantial. The evidence against Avery is OVERWHELMING. Now you can argue how the evidence got there. You either believe the evidence was planted or you believe that Avery did it.

        But you can’t just toss aside that his blood was found in her car, her bones and teeth were found in his burn pit and her purse, phone and camera were found in his burn barrel. And her last know location was his address.

        Again, you can argue that the cops framed him but a jury had plenty of evidence to easily convict.

        • Lorraine says:

          Clearly you either didn’t read or maybe you didn’t comprehend what I wrote. When I wrote “circumstantial at best” I was referring to the first case where he was falsely imprisoned for 18yrs. It is a response to the original commenter.

          But to respond to the rest of your comment or reply…I believe it is possible that it was all planted! It is literally impossible to leave blood in someones car and not one finger print. But I’m sure you would have us believe that Avery wiped the car clean of his finger prints and just missed the blood…right? Fingerprints is one thing anyone would have had a hell of a time trying to plant…wouldn’t you agree? Teresa’s remains and belongings could have easily been placed in the fire pit as there is no proof that she was actually burned there. Would you not agree that there is some doubt there? And who cares if the Avery address was her last stop for the day again it doesn’t prove anything.

          One of the police officers called in to identify the license plate of her car before the car was ever found which he claimed to not have been looking at the vehicle at the time of the identification request. Additionally there wasn’t even an actual search for her when the police office called dispatch to verify the license plate. The police officer even identified the yr make and model to the dispatch person not the other way around.That doesn’t strike you as odd? If you haven’t read up on your histories of conspiracies you should…as you will find this is not the first conspiracy to have ever happened.

          As for the cops framed him comment, you bet, I believe that is a very possible scenario. People careers were at stake and the county couldn’t handle $36 mil. As I am sure you know people are killed for a lot less. And it wouldn’t be the first time that a jury was tampered with!!!

          My thing is though, I’d love to see, know, hear, or read, what evidence beyond a doubt that the jury found was compelling enough to convict him.

          • Yoko says:

            Well said. We have to stop believing that police and infallible and prosecutors are always good guys! My problem is why the defense couldn’t enter other possible suspects (I think I read there were 4 other guys with opportunity including other Avery’s) which is much more likely (two of the guys were in the documentary). To me, Wisconsin has a judicial system problem too that needs to be addressed. Hope Anonymous comes up with info we haven’t seen yet!

          • Dino Pro says:

            Lorraine, I completely agree with you!!

            Although I always post for the righteousness of Police Officers, I now have doubt.
            How could the Pig ( Bad Cop ) call in to identify the license plate of the car, before the car was ever found?? Why did they not expound on this? The sick Pig even gave dispatch the license plate number!!

            Absolute corruption….
            A travistry of justice.

          • randy l harris says:

            you do not understand you are thinking too logical your opinion is based on assuming stephen is a reasonable person he was a idiot .you cant just base this case on netflix documentary. did you hear brendan original confession he knew all the details. he said he turned away when stephen shot her 5 times it was on nancy grace .his testimony on the stand was almost comical when he said he made it all up . his cousin told lies she said BRENDAN told her he seen body parts in the fire. then she said she made it up. oh and get this when they asked him how he knew the details if he was not there. he said i could have got it from a book he did not say i got it from a book .that is just a couple of examples. there are many more if you research the case.

          • Lorraine says:

            Randy, I do understand and I am thinking logically and no, my opinion is not based on assuming Steven is a reasonable person. Also, the netflix documentary is all I have to go on so yes, it is reasonable to say I am basing my opinion on it. I did hear Brenden’s confession…but did you NOT hear how he guessed, and guessed, and guessed during his confession until the interrogator came clean with what they wanted Brenden to tell them about? Or did I imagine that? And so, on Nancy Grace, Brenden says he turned away when Steven shot her 5 times…but now you believe that is the truth, and you believe in no way could Brenden have gotten that information before Nancy Grace in your opinion? As for Brenden’s testimony it probably didn’t do him any good but you are saying his cousin is lying because she said originally that Brenden told her he saw body parts in the fire???? Did you not understand that her first witness confession wasn’t until after the news spread about her remains being found in a fire pit? I would say anyone could have guessed that! It was clear that Brenden didn’t know any details based on the confession I say saw and Brenden saying that he could have seen in it a book is simply just another example of his level of intelligence and the fact that he should have had a better defense. Did you know that Brended also said he had sex with her on the bed while chained up? There would have been some evidence of it left either by him or her and yet they didn’t test for evidence…Randy, you don’t find that strange? Also, the fact that there was testimony of one of the investigators sitting on the bed doing paperwork says to me they didn’t even view the bed as a crime scene. Why? Why didn’t they see the bed as a crime scene? To clear up my thinking on the matter all I’m saying, feeling, or is my opinion, that based on the evidence shown in the netflex documentary there was a ton of information that should have given the jurors doubt. That is my opinion and I wouldn’t have been swayed by anyone to think differently based on the evidence shown in the documentary.

          • Lorraine says:

            Ok Randy, just wanted to let you know that I saw the Nancy Grace interview and AGAIN it is all speculative! Nancy Grace says…Steven called Teresa 2 times before she came over by concealing his number but then calls Teresa again showing his identity “AFTER HE KILLED HER”! There is no way to determine the time or day she was actually killed. “IF” Steven said Teresa came to my salvage yard at 2pm and then called her after 2pm to leave a message for Teresa that she never came over is very suspicious…..oooooorrrrr, his timing was off about the time she actually showed up and if she showed up after he left her a message then its not suspicious at all. No matter what it still doesn’t prove Steven killed her. As for the ex-fiance, man come on! Really? She believes NOW that Steven did it but allowed herself to be filmed without her permission!!!! You have to be joking? Show me the law suit where she is suing Netflex! And while your at it….show me the letters Steven is writing to her threatening her to make him look good! Everything else Nancy talked about doesn’t prove anything! Remind me never to *67 someone and forget the actual time they came around! lol So give me a break….until you all that say Steven is undoubtedly guilty come up with some undoubted evidence (meaning there is no way to explain it logically) you can not change my mine. He may be guilty but the prosecution in the documentary did not prove it and so far neither has anyone else.

          • nedsby says:

            Spot on. It is hard to believe that there are still people out there who can’t beleive that the media, police, judicial system and politicians do everything for the good of the people every time. Wake up and think for yourselves without predudice. Anyone with an ounce of brains can see that this was a set up both times and why people are not up in arms protesting this is outrageous

          • Me too. Probably locked away never to be released until everone involved is dead.

        • nedsby says:

          Obviously you didn’t watch the whole series.

        • Obviosly you didn’t see the whole series. Why else would blood be removed from an existing vial of blood from Avery. There was proof that the bones and teeth were not burnt at the scene near Avery’s home and residue of this body was found in vessels that would have been use to transport the remains. I think that those who think the police would not interfere with evidence need to educate themselves starting with Ned Wood’s report on the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania where another innocent man is jailed without any dna samples, fingerprints, absence of witness line-up, and not even a trial. He even had his entire estate confiscated so that he could not afford a lawyer and he was convicted at a hearing. He had an IQ of 66. The worst part about these crimes is that no one wants to believe that some of hose who are sworn to give us justice could be so cold, calculating and brutal as any killer. Someone killed that young innocent woman and I believe that we saw him and his accomplices testifying in court

    • prish says:

      I’ve worked temp jobs for decades. Such a County sanction would be an impossibility, and this sounds like a sad case of a writing/directing/editing mixup, some reaching for a viewer hook. I haven’t seen the show, but I had to support this poster. County (and State) agencies in the U.S. have been using temp workers in all departments for at least 40 years as a way to save money, usually 2 month to 9 month stints. There is a constant turnover, and there would be NO WAY (and no secrecy) for such a thing to happen. And there is no James Bond, and there is no Santa Clause. Just stick with the horrific facts of a sad man’s life and psych being ruined by an 18-year unjust incarceration and an innocent person’s loss of life.

    • MsDaisy says:

      I wouldn’t brag about your background in journalism if I were you. Talk about a sleazy profession….

    • Gbvoices says:

      Sure, same judge, same corrupt criminal system. This is all about money and a criminal suppression of evidence. Period.

    • nedsby says:

      I was just thoroughly disgusted. This kind of thing goes on all the time. It worries me that it could happen to anyone of us at any time and if you can’t afford a good gladiator to fight for you against the state and police authorities, then what hope do you have? Here in Australia they confiscated Martin Bryants millions so that he had to rely on a court lawyer who was told to get him to plead guilty so that they wouldn’t have to go to trial The evidence against him was so pitiful that with a decent lawyer he could never have been found guilty. To this day witnesses that could clear him have a d notice on them and they are terrified to tell the truth.

  6. Steven says:

    I didn’t watch, but love the Clue reference!

  7. Pamela says:

    I hope the anonymous group brings those people down.

  8. Cate53 says:

    The series was gripping stuff, but my heart just broke for that kid Brendan who seemed to have no idea that he was admitting something so heinous. The detectives job is to try to get them to confess but Brendan’s own lawyer seemed to be part of the group forcing a confession out of him.
    I think Avery’s guilt is in question – he might have done it but the evidence is so so dodgy! How on earth can there no have been reasonable doubt. Apparently one if the jury that convicted him included the father of member of the sheriff’s dept!

  9. David B. says:

    An amazing show but extremely one-sided and prejudicial in regards to what evidence was presented. If you research what evidence Kratz presented, I’m actually shocked the jury was 7-3 for Avery being found not guilty initially.

    Research it yourself and you’ll change your mind or at least be more open-minded. Examples: DNA on the car (not blood, sweat), initial comments from the original Dassey confession that match the evidence (phone, camera, and purse contents in the Avery bonfire), calls made to and from the Halbach phone using *67 to disguise the call origin, bleach stains on Avery’s and Dassey’s clothes probably prompted from bleach used in the garage to kill the DNA and wash out the blood, Steven asking specifically asking for Halbach to return to the house and giving the contact information of his sister since Halbach told coworkers Steven creeped her out, and don’t forget, Steven wasn’t arrested for 5 days after her disappearance. Plenty of time to move, clean, burn and hide things.

    • Isobel says:

      There’s no dna in sweat, it’s water and minerals, blood cells contain dna

    • Kristen says:

      I’ve read the same article, and while there are one or two things that raise a few questions, not all of them do. I don’t think him requesting her to come out that day should be deemed suspicious. He didn’t request her by name, he simply said something along the lines of, “can you send the one that came out last time” or something to that effect. I don’t find that odd in the slightest, since he had already said in the documentary that he prefered to use her b/c “she would come, take the pictures, and the cars sold”. Maybe he made her uncomfortable, but that’s not a crime. As for the *67, perhaps she wasn’t answering calls from him, so he thought he’d hide his number to see if she’d answer. Do you know how many people have done something like that in their lifetime? I know I have. Again, not a crime. Harassment at best. As for the bleach on their clothes, that is something that would cause me to be suspicious.

      All in all, the documentary wasn’t meant to prove Avery to be innocent of the crime, it was meant to shine light on the corrupt judicial system. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of a crime in order to convict, and I don’t think that was done. For every piece of evidence, there were far more questions. Officials were involved the second time around that should’ve never even been allowed to do so. Testing wasn’t advanced enough. Where did the blood go that was obviously extracted from the sample in evidence? What was on the voicemails that the brother and ex-boyfriend deleted? Why was there blood in the trunk of her SUV showing the body had been moved? Why weren’t there ANY fingerprints in or on her car? Why was the cop verifying a license plate number, make, model, and color of a car that had yet to be located? Why did the search require 8 days? Why did a man that they think is smart enough to clean up a murder scene, spotlessly at that, not destroy the car in the crusher rather than hide it with a few twigs and branches? How did no one find it suspicious that a key a was found after two detailed searches, and only found on the third by two officials that wrongly convicted him the first time knowing that there was a better suspect? Then, how did the key not have one bit of Halbach’s DNA, yet had DNA from Avery? They obviously thought him capable of covering up the murder scene, but incapable of cleaning off a key chain? Yes, there are probably a few scenarios that you could come up with to answer these questions, but that’s all they are, scenarios that we think up in our imagination. There’s nothing here that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery committed this crime. Don’t even get me started on Dassey. That entire thing broke my heart. That boy never should’ve been committed. Ever.

      • nedsby says:

        Yes, it’s all pretty laughable when you think about but I wasn’t laughing. I still want to see justice done. I hope to see more of this series in the future with a fair outcome no matter who goes down for this insidious frame up.

  10. Rowan77 says:

    I’m left with a lot of questions – and yes, I read about the evidence the prosecutor said the show left out – and considering the amount of evidence tampering done by the cops, I don’t see this other evidence as being quite so damning. Plus the prosecutor contradicts himself (“the sheriff’s department couldn’t have planted evidence because they weren’t on the property,” “the deputy sheriffs found the key to her car in his home [which is on the property]”.

    And statements like they found his sweat on the inside of the hood of the victim’s car, providing them his DNA form his hand – yet there is no DNA in sweat and they did have his DNA when they swabbed him and when he touched or drank from anything.

    Also, how could he have cleaned up the blood with bleach and left no trace when bleach only cleans what the eye can see, but does not remove DNA markers. What they would see when they used Luminal are the smudges of where he wiped/mopped up glowing with the blood markers. And how did he kill her and clean up everything having to do with her, but his prints and DNA were all over his place? Forensically it makes no sense. Did he do it? Maybe, but not the way they told the jury, and with all the tainted evidence, nothing gathered by those officers or techs should have been admissible.

    • Kristen says:

      What gets me is they push so hard that he cleaned up an entire murder scene, but yet he “hides” the car towards the outside front of his lot, only covering it with a few branches? Seems to me if he’s smart enough to know how to spotlessly clean up a murder scene, he’d be smart enough to know he should destroy the car in the crusher rather than keep it around. So much of this doesn’t make sense. They frame him to look the way they want him to, depending on which piece of evidence they are pushing at that time. Yeah, maybe he’s odd or a bit creepy, but I honestly don’t think he did it.

      The one thing I can’t let go of… why did the brother and ex-boyfriend delete voicemails, and what was on them that they had to delete them? Why wasn’t the cellular company able to retrieve the voicemails? Maybe technology wasn’t that advanced then? Ugh! So many unanswered questions. This is why I can’t watch crime documentaries. Unless there is a guaranteed detailed confession or an eye witness involved, we never know the whole truth or account of events, and I’m left wondering. :(

  11. DarkDefender says:

    I wish I could say I was surprised, but I see convictions way too many times on insufficient evidence because some juries are afraid to hold the state to their burden and they convict because they fear a guilty person going free more than they care about an innocent person going to prison. Which is not what innocent until proven guilty, means.
    The more people who see a series like this, the better. It’s time people open their eyes to the miscarriages of justice that routinely occur in this country. Avery’s case (unfortunately) is not as unique as people imagine.

  12. Andy says:

    Avery did douse his cat in gasoline and throw it in a fire, and definitely committed a burglary. Doused a live cat in gasoline, and threw it in a fire. Think about that for a minute. Those facts are not in question at all, so that makes me feel less bad. It’s still beyond shady what happened to him and there needs to be investigations into the handling of all of this and it certainly doesn’t excuse any potential wrongdoing, but he is not exactly what I’d call a good person either. I personally think anyone that kills a harmless animal for no reason probably deserves 20 years, so…

    • DarkDefender says:

      thats one of the major problems with the system.. It’s a mentality that people deserve to go to prison… Even for crimes they didn’t commit,because they are perceived as “bad people” or they committed some crime they were never charged with. Two wrongs don’t make things right.

      • Isobel says:

        Agree he could be charged and convicted of crimes like arson, burglary and animal abuse, but you can’t convict him of murder based on faulty evidence, that’s a total breach of the legal system that protects us all

        • Walkie says:

          What is faulty about the evidence? The fact that you think the cops planted it? Can you prove that?

          • DarkDefender says:

            There are tons of bad cops and lazy prosecutors out there in the world. Evidence gets planted every day. Cops lie on the stand every day. In fact most people lie in many ways while testifying.
            They are not all bad, but supporting a wrongful conviction based on weak or coerced evidence does no one justice. Not one single person. It violates the Constitutional rights of the accused (and by extension, all of us).
            But it is way easier to think it doesn’t happen all the time, when you are removed from the system. For those of us who have to swim in it daily.. Not so far fetched to witness such corruption. It is much more common an occurrence than the media portrays it.
            If you think this documentary series is biased and self serving… Just google corrupt cop or corrupt DA/prosecutor. The amount of articles out there are just the tip of the iceberg.

  13. MH3ndr1ks says:

    I was outraged by the injustice done to Brendan Dassey. It scares me how a case like his ended in conviction. I screamed at my tv like it was me on trial (I never thought that I would be stupid enough to yell at my tv).

  14. Walkie says:

    I have zero doubt that both men deserve another trial. There are too many questions that haven’t been answered. But I also think that way too many people have jumped onto the “They are both innocent” bandwagon.

    Dig a little deeper into the evidence. Did you know that Brendan, talking to his mother on the phone from prison, mentioned that Steven had made sexual advances at both he and his brother? Did you know that Teresa’s phone, purse and camera were found burned in a barrel just outside Steven’s trailer?

    There is a lot more to this case than what the creators of the documentary showed.

  15. Karen Jonsson says:

    It did seem too convenient for the police. Insurance would have paid the four hundred plus thousand, but they would not pay the 36 million in damages that he sued for. So in the end Avery settled for the insurance money in order to get a good lawyer. The only thing that I heard that could make me think that all of a sudden Avery becomes a killer is when the victim’s friend said she hinted that one customer was always making her feel uncomfortable with his passes. So I think that he may have injured her during one of these passes and afraid that she would raise the alarm he felt he had no choice but to kill her. It may just be a crazy coincidence that the police caught a break with the damages. I wanted to believe he did not do it, but Michele’s bones were in a pyre on his property. If the fragments were moved then there would have been evidence of debris that was out of place. You cannot pick out fragments of bone from another area without transferring things. Plus even though I am not a big fan of police, that they would kill a totally innocent young woman in order to frame Avery is ludicrous.. I could see if it was some criminal that was a terrible excuse for a person. But this young woman? Sorry it does not compute.

  16. herman1959 says:

    This show scared the hell out of me because I’m afraid that this could happen to anyone. On a side note, I feel like we all need to speak to our young people about refusing to answer any police questions in the absence of parents. Long story, short: there is no way the key was there that whole time…NONE.

  17. KMW says:

    Sammy, I think the point you are making about the lack of EDTA (preservative) in the blood needs to be revisited. The test is inherently unreliable and is known for being inconsistent. That is why it has not been used since the OJ Simpson trial. Moreover, just because the test did not show EDTA does not mean EDTA was not there. (i.e., how low a level can it detect–not proven).
    Not only that, but the FBI was given a mandate–to exonerate WI law enforcement. That was their directive. To that end, they tested only 3 of 6 blood samples.
    Body language also tells a lot. Did you see the FBI guy blinking and suddenly developing a tic when asked about the test? Consciousness of guilt. Just another reason,out of a long laundry list, why Steven Avery deserves a new trial.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Absolutely, I’m surprised the FBI didn’t step in and take control of an investigation after they allowed such a individual to testify on their behalf. If I had been in the FBI, I would have pulled that guy in and fired him for what he did. Your right, his body language and the way he kept blinking was clearly obvious he was aware he was not telling the truth under oath.

  18. Dod says:

    Nancy Grace is a tool.

  19. nedsby says:

    Has there been any changes in the Avery case?. I am so concerned about the undeniable miscarriage of justice in this case.