Making a Murderer Season 2

Making a Murderer: Netflix Boss Hints at a Possible Season 2

Netflix has some unfinished business with Steven Avery.

At the Television Critics Association winter press tour in Pasadena on Sunday, the streaming giant’s Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos hinted that watercooler smash Making a Murderer may see a Season 2.

“The story is still unfolding,” he told reporters when asked about a possible follow-up season, “so we’ll certainly take a look at it.”

Sarandos conceded that the docudrama’s exploding popularity took him by surprise, too. “It was a remarkable turn of events in the last couple weeks of the year,” he marveled. “It was that crazy combination of super-addictive television and [people having the] time to watch it. So people were watching it and telling their friends, who also had time to watch it during the holiday break. People were just obsessed with it. There must be something genetic in us, that we’re natural born detectives. And there’s a sense of injustice and certainly a sense of mystery.”

Regarding the controversy about producers omitting certain facts of the case in an effort to bolster its alleged pre-Steven Avery narrative, Sarandos noted, “This show was 10 years in the making. There was 70 hours of footage. To split hairs about what was left in and what was left out… it was a great film and we want  people to watch it and decide for themselves.”

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. Jackie says:

    Personally, I feel those arguing about his guilt or innocence are missing the point of the show. It was a personal view, yes, but a hard look at the criminal justice system. And if you are poor, uneducated and not a part of the small community mold, you are targeted. Just look at any other wrongful conviction and the process behind that wrongful conviction. At the end of the day, was due diligence done here? Why should laws like the Denny law be allowed? Isn’t the core of a defensive strategy is to come up with alternative theories and suspects? Why did the judge allow testimony of the county sheriff’s department when they were not supposed to be a part of the investigation? Outside of guilt or innocence, the point of the documentary was exposing those flaws.

    • I agree 100% with everything you wrote. Third party liabilty mandates, determined by a judge, are a travesty to protecting due process and finding the TRUTH.

      • WisconsinAttorney says:

        Speaking as a Wisconsin criminal defense attorney, and with all due respect, the idea that Denny is “a travesty” is ridiculous. If you read the case, you’d know that it only limits claiming third party liability without having even the slightest bit of concrete evidence to back it up beyond “Well, maybe they were there.” ANYONE can be ANYWHERE, but Denny requires you give a reason why they had motive, means, and opportunity. And to that, I’d point out that in 10 years of this not a single family member of Avery’s has come forward to point out another suspect. If it were my son/brother/uncle/whatever in prison for life without parole, I’d be bringing concrete evidence forward. It’s not like there aren’t attorneys here eager to help him; Avery has just given them nothing to work with.

        • April24 says:

          What bothered me more than anything else was Brendan Daseys case. He was a minor that was being questioned by the authorities without a parent or at least someone from the school to look after his interests and he clearly was mentally slower than most kids his age. Does the law in Wisonsin not protect a minor in those cases?

          Honestly I came away from watching the series without a clear innocent or guilty verdict but concern how a minor can be treated at the hands of the law…that was unnerving!!!

        • Campbell says:

          “If it were my son/brother/uncle/whatever in prison for life without parole, I’d be bringing concrete evidence forward”:

          You’ve spoken as an educated, intelligent (assuming), LAWYER about the reasons why an intellectually challenged, uneducated family can’t find CONCRETE evidence to an alternative. Guessing you missed the point of the documentary and in doing so reinforced the point of the documentary. You will never understand until you learn to truly empathize with what the other half don’t have.

          • WisconsinAttorney says:

            @Campbell: I have plenty of “intellectually challenged, uneducated” clients who can accomplish that just fine. My main gripe with the case is that for 10 years the Avery family has been claiming that it was another family member who did it, that they’re certain they know who it was, but when called to put their money where there mouth is (so to speak) they refuse to do it. And that’s fine; people have the right not to incriminate themselves, and I respect that. But if you’re his parents, his brother or sister, a close extended relative, etc. and you KNOW Avery didn’t commit this crime and KNOW who did, but you still keep your mouth shut and let him serve his life sentence without parole . . . I mean, what are you waiting for? His appeals have all failed. This documentary didn’t disclose any new information. He’s had some of the best lawyers in Wisconsin and couldn’t beat this case at trial or on appeal. They need to stop sitting around and speak up if they have information, you know?

        • Shell says:

          “without having even the slightest bit of concrete evidence”

          Actually, it limits you from claiming 3rd party liability even if you have plenty of concrete evidence but can’t come up with a the reason *why* the other person did it. Because motive is required, even if you had that person’s DNA at the scene, them in possession of the murder weapon, and video evidence of them near the scene of the crime at the time it happened, if you couldn’t come up with some plausible reason for why they would have done it, you can’t introduce it in your defense.

          • WisconsinAttorney says:

            @Shell: Sorry. I misspoke. I consider motive to be “concrete evidence,” but in you pointing that out I realize most people aren’t going to read it that way. But while you’re right that Denny might cause problems with your scenario, I’m fairly certain I could get an acquittal with that information without citing Denny once :-)

        • Tom says:

          Come on. You must be as about as slow as Averys family is. It is obvious that his family is slow and not well educated. Plus, these are good people. They are not the type of people that goes around pointing fingers and accusing without knowing if they actually did do it.
          You should be ashamed of yourself for spitting out such ignorance. The evidence that has been provided in this series shows that Steven is obviously not guilty. If anyone is guilty, it is the Manatowac justice system. They had a 36 million dollar motive, they had the ability to kill the girl, plant the evidence and frame Steven. Based on what I have seen, that’s exactly what they did. They are obviously heartless people, you can tell by the way they did everything. Hell the prosecutor has been found to be a sex addict and drug abuser who used his position to get those things. The Averys did not have a fair trial.
          It really pisses me off to know that there are people like you and those POS’s that were involved with framing those poor people. What the hell is wrong with you people????

  2. Adam says:

    If they do a second season, I hope they move away from the Avery case and focus on something else, and also take a long time between seasons. The first season took a decade to film, so hopefully they don’t rush a 2nd season to a year timeline.

  3. Typo? says:

    I believe it was over 700* hours of footage

    • Shell says:

      lol. Yeah. It’s definitely not 70. Only 3 days worth of footage would be a pretty sorry amount after 10 years of work

  4. Rose says:

    Maybe his family fears being killed if they go to the law with what they know? Just a thought…

  5. chaosrainz says:

    For those of you interested, iHeartRadio has a rebuttal now streaming on their app:
    “In the ten-part podcast series, Rebutting A Murderer, you’ll hear evidence not included in the Netflix documentary.

    Hosted by Dan O’Donnell, a non-practicing attorney and journalist assigned to cover the case from Avery’s release in 2003 to the convictions of Avery and Dassey in 2007, O’Donnell provides first hand knowledge of the evidence that the filmmakers intentionally left out. Episode-by-episode, O’Donnell sheds light on what prosecutors believe actually happened to Teresa Halbach and fills in the missing pieces from the trial.

    Listen to the ten-part podcast series Rebutting A Murderer for free only on iHeartRadio.”

    • Tom says:

      Evidence that was left out??? Wheres the blood??? How is it that traces of blood were found in the Rav4 but yet nowhere where it has been said that the actual killing took place. They say she was beaten, throat slashed and shot in the head. Where is the blood? It was obvious that none of that took place on the bed or in the garage where they said it did. There is no way in hell that the Averys are intelligent enough to have been able to clean up all the blood to the point that not a trace could be detected. If they had been that smart, the Rav4 would have been crushed and done away with. They had the ability to get rid of it.
      Another thing that bothers me is that her plate was called in after she was said to have been abducted. Not only did the officer call the plate in, he also made a note of knowing that it went to a 99 Toyota before dispatch said it had. How would he have known that? Plus, that would make that officer that last one to see that vehicle which was after it is said that she was at the Averys where and when she was said to have been abducted. That evidence alone proves that Steven was set up by the Manatowac justice system.

  6. jessica says:

    I just watch it and I think Steven and nephew is innocent.

  7. Tom says:

    Where is Steven and his nephews royalty’s from the series? I would think that enough money was made to hire the best attorneys available. to help them. It is obvious those two are innocent.
    Why hasn’t a fund been set up to help them?

    This makes me wonder about how many other innocent people this has happened to. All those involved in this injustice and others like this, need to be found and held accountable.

  8. Lauren says:

    I’m most definitely sure they are innocent!! I don’t kno what it is but that’s my opinion!! They got him once made them look bad cause he was innocent the whole time, got out and tried sueing them, I mean no offense but the judiciary system and court system are a little big headed!! We all know that.. So he made them look bad they got mad and did what they could go to make him look like a awful person, the evidence doesn’t match up, like The key if the key was there they would’ve found it the first time it doesn’t just fall out of the back or inside of the bookshelf and nobody hears or sees it you find it on the third time at that that’s what really gets me right there. In the garage if she was shot in her neck was bleeding and was stabbed me in the garage I’m pretty sure that there will be blood in there you can’t get rid of blood not even bleach gets rid of blood when use a black light blood shows up nothing was found so it just doesn’t add up to me and I think they’re innocent !! It was also clear the boy was pushed into saying whatever they wanted, pushed and pushed and pushed eventually you may get tired of hearing it, and he was young and as everyone could tell not all there!! That is all I rest my case!!

  9. UK4Justice says:

    @ WisconsinAttorney Have you not thought that the Family who are in their senior years have little or no trust in the Justice System after fighting for justice in his 1985 case and are now faced with going through it all again. I think anyone who has had to go through what the Avery Family has would be very wary of the corrupt US Justice System and what they say to who and about what.

    I also got the impression that they are a very private family who prefer to keep themselves to themselves but given the media circus surrounding both cases they ended up losing their privacy when they became the focus of media attention.

    I don’t think the Avery Family are any different in thinking the killer could still be at large as we have all suspected other characters in the case and outside of it too.

    Having thoughts about other suspects and speaking about those thoughts does not automatically mean you can accuse that person without having concrete evidence that backs up your accusations.

    Concrete Believable Evidence was never really presented though during Steven or Brendan’s Trials so I would assume you can accuse anyone of doing anything in the US whether Innocent or guilty and make a case of it.

    The US Corruption of Justice requires a complete overhaul of the whole US Justice System which President Obama should make his priority before leaving office!