Making a Murderer-Netlfix

Steve Avery is guilty.

His nephew is not.

1. Avery’s past incident with a cat was not “goofing around”.  He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.

2.  Avery targeted Teresa.  On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.”  On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel.  She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously).  Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.

3. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel.  Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?

4.  While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a “torture chamber” so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.  He even drew a diagram.  Another  inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to “burn it”…heat destroys DNA.

5. The victim’s bones in the firepit were “intertwined” with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey.  That WAS where her bones were burned!  Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa’s) were from this murder was NEVER established.

6.  Also found in the fire pit was Teresa’s tooth (ID’d through dental records), a rivet from the “Daisy Fuentes” jeans she was wearing that day, and the tools used by Avery to chop up her bones during the fire.

7.  Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct 31.  One at 2:24, and one at 2:35–both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives.  Then one last call at4:35 pm, without the *67 feature.  Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call.  She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.

8. Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch (under her hood in her hidden SUV).  The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5…how did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car?  Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to “plant” under the hood?

9. Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since 11/6…if the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from HIS gun?  This rifle, hanging over Aver’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it.  The bullet had to be fired BEFORE 11/5—did the cops borrow his gun, fire a bullet, recover the bullet before planting the SUV, then hang on to the bullet for 4 months in case they need to plant it 4 months later?

This Reddit post sums the logistics of your claim nicely. I don't agree:

Remember that in order for Steven to be guilty, he had to have killed Teresa in the garage (as the prosecution claims), despite their being none of Teresa's blood in the garage other than on the bullet fragment "found" months later. Her bloody body was then placed in the back of her own car (where her blood was actually found), and driven the 20 FEET or so to the fire pit where she was supposedly burned.

THEN, in order for Brendan to be guilty, she had to have been tortured, raped, stabbed and had her throat cut in the trailer, leave absolutely no biological evidence there, then either drag her or drive her in own car (still alive) the 20 feet to the garage and shoot and kill her, then drag or drive her to the fire pit for burning.

This is insane. If you believe the prosecution in these two cases, you not only have to believe that these two guys somehow managed to clean up all that blood and leave no trace (which is frankly practically impossible) in an extremely short window of time, but you also have to believe that for some reason they had to place Teresa in the trunk of her car to transport her a matter of feet to either the garage or fire pit or both... which also makes absolutely no sense.

I'm honestly not convinced either way. I will say that he should not be in prison. The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof...lots of room for reasonable doubt.

Stagger Lee wrote:

I'm honestly not convinced either way. I will say that he should not be in prison. The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof...lots of room for reasonable doubt.

I'm just gonna say that I tend to give the jury a fair amount of credit. They saw all evidence presented whereas we saw some evidence which was shown in a very biased way.

They convicted and it went through all the appeals. I'm just saying it isn't so black and white to form opinions based on a TV miniseries.

That said the kid's case was terrible. All of that should have been thrown out.

The documentary was biased. Obviously biased. It made for far more compelling television and props to them for doing that, but it was incredibly biased in favor of Steven so I can't say he is innocent.

The Jinx benefited from incredible luck, but it was still far superior to making a murderer.

Edward Edwards (GOAT serial killer) was the real killer.

juror 13 wrote:

Stagger Lee wrote:

I'm honestly not convinced either way. I will say that he should not be in prison. The prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof...lots of room for reasonable doubt.

I'm just gonna say that I tend to give the jury a fair amount of credit. They saw all evidence presented whereas we saw some evidence which was shown in a very biased way.

They convicted and it went through all the appeals. I'm just saying it isn't so black and white to form opinions based on a TV miniseries.

That said the kid's case was terrible. All of that should have been thrown out.

They convicted the first time, too

juror 13 wrote:

That said the kid's case was terrible. All of that should have been thrown out.

That was the real tragedy of the show. At least with Steve Avery, I think you can easily believe the case against him didn't prove he was the killer but still suspect that he might have done the crime. The kid though...can the prosecution in these things be charged with perjury or some type of negligent abuse of power? The same prosecutor told two entirely different stories of the crime to get two people convicted. How is that not perjury or some type of crime itself?

Then who killed her? All the alternative narratives make even less sense than Avery being the killer.

Fact: Avery initially admitted in an interview that Halbeck came to his property that afternoon, apparently forgetting that at 4:35 on 31 October he called her cell phone asking why she hadn't showed up. The 4:35 call is clearly an attempt to establish an alibi. But by the time he was interviewed several days after the crime, the police had already established that she was on the property, so he was caught in a lie. Why would he lie? Because he is guilty. There is no other reason to do so.

Avery was wrongfully convicted of rape in the 1980s. That was a gross injustice. But that doesn't make him a good person and innocent of the Halbech murder. He is guilty. Get over it.

Avery's guilt or innocence isn't even what the series was about.

The filmmakers went over there to document and research everything once the news of his second arrest made news.

It was about the justice system and the approach the law used in this case.

Because of the lawsuit, county law enforcement should not have had anything to do with this case at all. The next county over was the authority in this case.

But the local law stayed on Avery's property and were the ones that found all of the crucial evidence.

That's like Asafa Powell doing the blood test on Justin Gatlin.

And the interrogation of the intellectually challenged kid without a lawyer present was just wrong.

I am less confident of Steven Avery's innocence with further details, but I really don't know if he did it.

The documentary did succeed in showing that the legal system can be sketchy and biased.

The way the approached the 1985 crime was reprehensible.

just sickening wrote:

juror 13 wrote:

That said the kid's case was terrible. All of that should have been thrown out.

That was the real tragedy of the show. At least with Steve Avery, I think you can easily believe the case against him didn't prove he was the killer but still suspect that he might have done the crime. The kid though...can the prosecution in these things be charged with perjury or some type of negligent abuse of power? The same prosecutor told two entirely different stories of the crime to get two people convicted. How is that not perjury or some type of crime itself?

Prosecutorial immunity, while not complete, is very broad. It is absolute concerning what the prosecutor does during the trial itself.

Freedom Trail wrote:

Then who killed her? All the alternative narratives make even less sense than Avery being the killer.

That's the question.

In the 1985 case, it was proving who the actual rapist was that got him released.

The ex boyfriend seemed a bit suspicious.

He is an ex but was heavily involved in this.

Ex's are always a suspect.

He "guessed" her password and was tracking her calls and messages. He had the ability to delete her messages. Sounds like a stalker.

He sent a woman with a camera to the exact location where her car was found.

Setting up Steven Avery, who the cops hated, would be the best way to cover it up.

Now getting her remains in the fire that Avery later was stoking would be quite a trick.

But why not interrogate him as well?

#2 - he used a different name because it was not his car. He used the name of the owner of the car - a common practice

#4 - this is "snitch" evidence. Even the DA said it was likely made up.

#8 - the person who test the rav and found the dna on the hood was the same person that just got done with Averys car looking for dna. This person did not change or remove the gloves used. It is very likely that there was a transference of DNA.

Dude is probably guilty, but OJ got off on way less. The DA's case was circumstantial at best. There is no way he should have been found guilty.

Halbach was not killed in the garage or the house. There would have to be some blood. Where was she killed then?

Star wrote:

Freedom Trail wrote:

Then who killed her? All the alternative narratives make even less sense than Avery being the killer.

That's the question.

In the 1985 case, it was proving who the actual rapist was that got him released.

The ex boyfriend seemed a bit suspicious.

He is an ex but was heavily involved in this.

Ex's are always a suspect.

He "guessed" her password and was tracking her calls and messages. He had the ability to delete her messages. Sounds like a stalker.

He sent a woman with a camera to the exact location where her car was found.

Setting up Steven Avery, who the cops hated, would be the best way to cover it up.

Now getting her remains in the fire that Avery later was stoking would be quite a trick.

But why not interrogate him as well?

Being an ex boyfriend does not make a man an automatic suspect. I have a few ex girlfriends from a few years ago. If one turns up dead tomorrow, am I automatically a suspect? No. Person of interest depending on the circumstances? Maybe.

So the ex boyfriend kills Halbech and somehow sneaks her body onto the property in the middle of the afternoon when Avery is home, and after we know Halbech was on the property on her on volition, and Avery doesn't notice that? How exactly did he pull that off?

Ridiculous.

Yes, some of the police did not like Avery. Yes, the DA did not like Avery. They thought Avery was a scumbag (they were right). The system failed in the 80s and Avery was wrongfully convicted. But that does not mean he is innocent, or was even wrongfully convicted of the Halbech murder.

#10. Avery's ex-fiancee has now come out and said he is a monster and 'not innocent', and that he threatened her to make him look good in the documentary when they were still together.

The documentary completely misrepresents why she left Avery in the first place. For these tow to even call themselves documentarians is a complete joke. They must come from the Michael Moore school of documentary.

A couple of thoughts:

Avery is a bad guy, there's lot of evidence to support this - the burned cat, the horrible letters to his ex-wife while he was in prison and subsequent statements by his ex-fiancee.

To go back to an earlier question, putting all conspiracy theories aside for a second, if Avery didn't do it, then who did? What we know is that Steven was the last known person to see her alive and her last known location was HIS property. Sure you can argue about police planting evidence and all, but the fact that he was the last known person to see her alive and it was on his property means there's a pretty darn good chance it was him.

Like many others, I think Brendan could very easily be innocent and at the very least deserves a new trial.

The part that boggles my mind about Avery's case is that if you believe he's guilty, then he must be the dumbest person on the planet to leave Teresa's car on his property, in addition to her burned body. I know he doesn't have a high IQ, but it's hard to believe someone could be that stupid.

DC Area Runner wrote:

A couple of thoughts:

Avery is a bad guy, there's lot of evidence to support this - the burned cat, the horrible letters to his ex-wife while he was in prison and subsequent statements by his ex-fiancee.

To go back to an earlier question, putting all conspiracy theories aside for a second, if Avery didn't do it, then who did? What we know is that Steven was the last known person to see her alive and her last known location was HIS property. Sure you can argue about police planting evidence and all, but the fact that he was the last known person to see her alive and it was on his property means there's a pretty darn good chance it was him.

He is a bad guy. I don't think anybody is disputing that.

Your question about who did do it totally misrepresents the burden of proof. It is not up to Avery to prove who did it. It is up to the state to prove that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is a total lack of accountability in our system for misbehavior by both police and prosecutors. That, combined with the vast disparity in resources between the state prosecutors and defense attorneys for the indigent and a variety of legal procedural rules that strong favor the prosecution, makes it very difficult to believe that this man received a fair trial.

He may be guilty. He may not be. We'll never know because of the way the case was handled. Regardless of the evidence not included in the documentary that may suggest he IS guilty, the filmmakers did an excellent job showing how the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department created an enormous conflict of interest in the case, ruining any chance for the unbiased truth to be discovered.

THAT is the problem with him being in prison. There are suspicious circumstances and evidence on both sides of the case. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was certainly not achieved. Nor could the defense prove that he was entirely innocent.

We don't often accept the gray areas - especially in our justice system. The truth is, even with a court case, it's sometimes impossible to know if a person is innocent or guilty. We should call it as such.

The nephew's case is despicable. That guy can't even spell innocence, much less prove it in a 10x10 room while in the face of intimidating detectives.