Making a Murderer: Have no idea how anyone can think Avery is

[kckd]

absolutely innocent. But also have no idea how anyone could think there isn't reasonable doubt. HTH did the prosecutor let the Manitowoc PD get involved in that case or anywhere near the crime scene after it was turned over to the other county has got to be one of the dumbest moves ever. Luckily the DA must've known that no judge would throw the case out and went ahead and put a damning PC out before the trial ever happened about evidence they didn't present. Don't know if he's just stupid or genius.

 

[Lewis & Herschel]

TV Producers can make Hitler seem misunderstood. You bend and spin things anyway you want. Just remember the girl did not torch herself...and everyone in prison is innocent.

 

[kckd]

TV Producers can make Hitler seem misunderstood. You bend and spin things anyway you want. Just remember the girl did not torch herself...and everyone in prison is innocent.

I think he's probably guilty. Reasonable doubt has to be overcome. For the record, the guy is a total sack of crap. Do feel for the teenager though. Evidence just doesn't matchup with his story.

Likely scenario in my opinion: Avery talked that girl into riding somewhere in her car, made a move on her and she rejected, he put a bullet in her head then burned her body. Not enough blood evidence for it to have gone down like the kid said. It would've taken forever to clean his garage and house if he'd killer her there. He had some much crap laying around he'd have had to spend incredible amounts of time cleaining everything.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Is this something currently in the news ?
Should I worry this ''Avery'' person will be turned loose to set ME on fire ?
I feel naked and vulnerable in My ignorance.

 

[JungleRecon]

Heard someone talking about it. And, they mentioned the producers left out a lot of damning evidence, that kind of made the petition signers look pretty dumb. Something about the girl having issues with him before, him specifically targeting her, DNA found on him and in his home, he had *87 calls to her. If we are talking about the same thing? If not disregard.

 

[HeulenHund2]

I'd never heard of Avery or anything about this case till just now.
My thinking is He probably did it, but give Him a new trial and hold it in a jurisdiction as far from the county the last trial was held in as possible, while remaining in Wisconsin.
When a woman goes missing the very time She was scheduled to be with Avery, the charred remains, Her car and other evidence is found on the premise, it's hard to fathom a scenario other than His being involved.
Having not watched a minute of the 10 part documentary though, clearly I'm not up on the details like some of You junior crime stoppers.

 

[kckd]

I'd never heard of Avery or anything about this case till just now.
My thinking is He probably did it, but give Him a new trial and hold it in a jurisdiction as far from the county the last trial was held in as possible, while remaining in Wisconsin.
When a woman goes missing the very time She was scheduled to be with Avery, the charred remains, Her car and other evidence is found on the premise, it's hard to fathom a scenario other than His being involved.
Having not watched a minute of the 10 part documentary though, clearly I'm not up on the details like some of You junior crime stoppers.

Watch it if you are a Netflix subscriber. You won't regret it. For the record, I was skeptical before watching the doc. I already was somewhat familiar with the first case. I did not just go on the doc. Neither did I just go on what Jeanine Piro and others in the media said. Read other info independent of those sources. Again, I think there is a more than 50% chance he's guilty. But the fact that almost all of the crucial evidence was handled by the Manitowoc PD when they weren't even supposed to be the main investigators is incredibly suspicious. And that puts a lot of doubt there. The guys is a creep and the doc tries to hide that. But being a creep doesn't make you guilty. It does make a lot of PD's want to railroad you though. Happened the first time for sure.

 

[Fivehade]

1) it's not a documentary, it's a movie....took them ten years to make it too....they can create a lot of doubt nitpicking everything to death
2) he was guilty the first time ....got set free over a single pubic hair? sounds like BS to me ....I just ain't buying it. they did DNA testing to begin with and 18 years later found ONE pubic hair? come on man
3) his nephew confessed...repeatedly
4) they're a family of creeps and criminals
5) found a bullet in her garage with her DNA on it
6) found her chopped up burnt bones in a fire pit next to her house
7) he called her a bunch of times using *67 right before he killed her
8) he asked his other nephew if he would help him dispose of the body
9) if you believe he didn't do it, you'd have to believe the police murdered that poor girl....without anybody ever seeing them and without an ounce of evidence

that movie is pure propaganda designed by defense attorneys to line up a big paycheck from the government

 

[kckd]

1) it's not a documentary, it's a movie....took them ten years to make it too....they can create a lot of doubt nitpicking everything to death
2) he was guilty the first time ....got set free over a single pubic hair? sounds like BS to me ....I just ain't buying it. they did DNA testing to begin with and 18 years later found ONE pubic hair? come on man
3) his nephew confessed...repeatedly
4) they're a family of creeps and criminals
5) found a bullet in her garage with her DNA on it
6) found her chopped up burnt bones in a fire pit next to her house
7) he called her a bunch of times using *67 right before he killed her
8) he asked his other nephew if he would help him dispose of the body
9) if you believe he didn't do it, you'd have to believe the police murdered that poor girl....without anybody ever seeing them and without an ounce of evidence

that movie is pure propaganda designed by defense attorneys to line up a big paycheck from the government

1. A documentary is a type of movie or film. If you believe otherwise you have created your own definition.

2. If you think the he was guilty the first time, you've got problems. He was not set free because of a single pubic hair. He was set free because the only thing that put him there was the victim and she even admits that she was wrong today.

3. His nephew has an IQ of 70 and was clearly led to a confession. Hardly gave any testimony that he wasn't led into saying by detectives. Consistently told him he was good if he told them what they wanted to hear and bad when he didn't. They did so without an attorney or parent present. The evidence doesn't even match his confession which is part of the reason they didn't even use his confession in Avery's case.

4. That's true, but you still have to prove each case on it's own weight.

5. After searching the garage multiple times. It was on the garage floor. After Manitowoc deputies involved in his previous lawsuit for wrongful criminalization visited the sight multiple times.

6. Next to his house. The defense also had an expert witness testify that it would be virtually impossible to get a bonfire hot enough to burn a body to the point those bones were burnt. Suggesting they must have been burnt somewhere else.

7. Troubling. But it was twice, not a bunch.

8. I've read about this case many times, but never heard about this at all. It was the same nephew, based on testimony that should be described as almost coerced.

9. No, not really. Could possibly be that someone murdered her. Realized she'd just been to Avery's house.

As I've said numerous times already. I think he did it. I don't think his nephew was involved. The prosecution's story of how it was done doesn't make sense based on evidence found. The prosecution has the burden of proof.

 

[Fivehade]

1. A documentary is a type of movie or film. If you believe otherwise you have created your own definition.

2. If you think the he was guilty the first time, you've got problems. He was not set free because of a single pubic hair. He was set free because the only thing that put him there was the victim and she even admits that she was wrong today.

3. His nephew has an IQ of 70 and was clearly led to a confession. Hardly gave any testimony that he wasn't led into saying by detectives. Consistently told him he was good if he told them what they wanted to hear and bad when he didn't. They did so without an attorney or parent present. The evidence doesn't even match his confession which is part of the reason they didn't even use his confession in Avery's case.

4. That's true, but you still have to prove each case on it's own weight.

5. After searching the garage multiple times. It was on the garage floor. After Manitowoc deputies involved in his previous lawsuit for wrongful criminalization visited the sight multiple times.

6. Next to his house. The defense also had an expert witness testify that it would be virtually impossible to get a bonfire hot enough to burn a body to the point those bones were burnt. Suggesting they must have been burnt somewhere else.

7. Troubling. But it was twice, not a bunch.

8. I've read about this case many times, but never heard about this at all. It was the same nephew, based on testimony that should be described as almost coerced.

9. No, not really. Could possibly be that someone murdered her. Realized she'd just been to Avery's house.

As I've said numerous times already. I think he did it. I don't think his nephew was involved. The prosecution's story of how it was done doesn't make sense based on evidence found. The prosecution has the burden of proof.

American hating, cop hating , garbage propaganda drummed up over 10 years by uber liberals ....you left wingers don't like the truth? just make up your own

 

[JungleRecon]

The body was burned in the pit. Cables from the tires that were burned at the same time were tangled in the remains of the body in the pit. Another fact they left out.

 

[JungleRecon]

I don't care what he did or didn't do. Sounds like the world would be a better place if his whole family was offed.

 

[HeulenHund2]

The body was burned in the pit. Cables from the tires that were burned at the same time were tangled in the remains of the body in the pit. Another fact they left out.

I just don't see so much evidence being fabricated. If the cops were being prosecuted I could see them trying to save their asses, but not over a civil case.
I'm guessing if We could know all the facts, he was involved in the first case as well.

 

[kckd]

Have any of you actually watched the documentary? (Just so everyone knows, documentaries don't have to be objective). What I see online always arguing this are guys who didn't watch the documentary and guys who only watched the documentary. Very few actually try to look at both sides.

In the first case there was only one attacker. The woman who was attacked doesn't even believe it was him anymore. THey have the guy who did it, who was there at the time, whose pubic hair was on the victim and was already in jail again for other sex crimes. If you have looked with any depth at all into that first case and think he was guilty I'd think your IQ wasn't much higher than his nephew's. You just about have to prove your innocence to get out of jail once convicted. They don't just let you out cause you might not be guilty.

 

[dieharddawg62]

I've watch it and followed the case. I think at the minimum they should both get another trial away from both counties.

The hubris and unrepentant attitudes of the judge, the DA, the sheriff, the detectives, and police from the first case is very disturbing. They put an innocent man in jail for 18 years because they didn't like him. And, they knew it before he was ever released. They should be in jail.

 

[Fivehade]

Have any of you actually watched the documentary? (Just so everyone knows, documentaries don't have to be objective). What I see online always arguing this are guys who didn't watch the documentary and guys who only watched the documentary. Very few actually try to look at both sides.

In the first case there was only one attacker. The woman who was attacked doesn't even believe it was him anymore. THey have the guy who did it, who was there at the time, whose pubic hair was on the victim and was already in jail again for other sex crimes. If you have looked with any depth at all into that first case and think he was guilty I'd think your IQ wasn't much higher than his nephew's. You just about have to prove your innocence to get out of jail once convicted. They don't just let you out cause you might not be guilty.

you're probably a fan of Obama because that black guy is in that new Star Wars movie, then

the guy is guilty as hell