The Netflix documentary Making A Murderer has been making headlines across the country, and not a day goes by when you don’t see Steven Avery’s face on TV or the internet. Even though the film (rightly) calls the criminal justice process into question, the family of murder victim Teresa Halbach would rather not have her gruesome murder revisited on the small screen.
People Magazine spoke with members of Teresa’s family (who declined to participate in the series), and they are positive that the right man is serving time for the murder. Teresa’s aunt, Kay Giordana, said of the series, “It’s terrible. I can’t believe this came out. It is really unfortunate.” She was also surprised about the overwhelming amount of support that Avery has received since the documentary aired, telling the magazine, “I was very upset, but I know the right people know the truth. It is not even close to what really happened. Everybody has their own side of a story. That is the Avery family’s side of the story. I wouldn’t expect it to be different. They think he is innocent. I am not surprised. I am surprised that someone would put that together in that way and have it [be] one-sided.”
Teresa’s cousin-in-law, Jeremy Fournier agreed, stating, “It is so very one-sided. It seems like there are some shenanigans by the police in there from what I hear and read about, and I can see where people are getting their opinion, but they are only getting one side of the story.”
“Teresa trusted the world and never thought of anyone as a bad person,” says her aunt, Carol Stumpf. “Ever since this happened, it has definitely changed my thinking now. You can’t trust everybody. You have to be very careful.” She also thinks Avery is guilty since he never took the stand in his own defense.
Filmmakers Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos made an appearance on Tuesday’s Late Show with Stephen Colbert to talk about the documentary. When asked point blank if they felt Avery was guilty, Laura responded, “The state did not meet its burden either in Steven Avery’s case or Brendan Dassey’s case. So I would say, in my opinion, [they are] not guilty.” Moira later added, “Is he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Nothing I’ve seen – and I’ve seen a lot of stuff – nothing I’ve seen has convinced me of that.” They completely sympathize with all parties involved, citing that there are “no winners” in the situation and hope their work will encourage people to “reserve judgement” when seeing someone accused of a crime taking the perp walk on the news.
I don’t know about you, but the filmmakers did make me think a little more about the whole concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It’s true, there are no winners here, and I do feel bad for Teresa’s family, who have to live with the horror of losing a family member in such a terrible way. There’s probably a much better poster boy for “innocent until proven guilty” than Steven Avery, but I think the documentary definitely accomplished what it needed to.
Photo credit: Netflix and People Magazine
No offence but the fame-hungry brother and ex-boyfriend always seemed a little sketchy to me. They made some weird comments and love to be in front of the cameras. Based on what Theresa said in that video before she died (about how if she ever died remember her this way etc) which makes me think that maybe she wasn’t in a completely safe relationship with someone so maybe thought something bad might happen to her?
It’s kind of funny to me now how all these people are coming out saying that they’re shocked the US justice system works like this and that there’s corrupt police and lawyers as if this is something new and people haven’t been saying this for years.
Everything that uve written, I felt the exact same way. It’s crazy because reading ur post, I was like damn, u basically read my mind.
I 100% agree, that video was very telling and the boyf needed to be looked into more and see was there something there…why make a video of what way you want to be remembered if you are not afraid that something may happen to you.
While I don’t have a very strong opinion on whether Stephen is guilty or not…I do believe that the trial was unfair and some very corrupt things happened during this.
right? her brother really loved being on the news.
Exactly.
100%. Ex bf is all kinds of sketchy. And the state did not meet its burden in Avery’s case and Dassey is completely innocent.
I’m am sorry about Teresa, but she has not gotten justice yet.
Absolutely.
I don’t get all the distrust of the brother (I can with the ex boyfriend). With most high profile murder cases, you have a family member that is in front of the camera. Had it not been so high profile you wouldn’t see him interviewed nearly as much.
You all made my day! I feel the same way regarding the brother and boyfriend. Didn’t the brother erase messages left on her phone? And they had to guess her password? There is much more to their story!
Wait, why is the password thing suspect? No one knows my password, and I don’t know either of my siblings’ passwords.
I was also really struck by what appeared to be the first interview that the brother gave when the Teresa was still considered missing.
He said “The grieving process you know could last days, could last weeks, could last years. You know, hopefully, we find answers as soon as possible so we can, you know, begin to hopefully, you know, move on, hopefully with Teresa still in our lives.”
It seemed odd to me to speak about a grieving process while she was still just missing. Grieving to me indicates that someone has passed. I’ve had a loved one go missing for a short time and while he was missing, we wondered whether he had died but we were focussed on finding him and no one considered the grieving process or “moving on.”
I agree, that really struck me as odd as well. When someone goes missing, the first thought isn’t that they have been killed. Especially considering Theresa was an adult, it seemed really odd that he would jump to that conclusion.
That being said, I don’t think her brother had anything to do with her disappearance.
Thanks for bringing this up, Danniegirl. When he said this, it raised a hundred red flags… and the more he rambled, the more he realized his misstep, hence the awkward tacking on of “hopefully with Teresa still in our lives” to a discussion about grieving and moving on.
I don’t think there is evidence to point the finger at the brother or the ex as the murderer, but I do think they should have been investigated at the outset. Instead, law enforcement manipulated them time and again to circumvent due process. Why wait for a subpoena or search warrant when you can have the brother break into the voicemail, the ex access the online call logs, or the search party discover the vehicle you already found? The “grieving” comment may not show the brother had a role in Teresa’s death, but it does show he was aware of her passing before he should have been, and one possibility is that the cops told him.
That didn’t really seem odd to me. There’s people in my life, who if they went missing for over a day, weren’t answering calls, weren’t in the hospital etc. the only real assumption would be that they had somehow died or been taken and would be killed. Because they just aren’t in a million years the kind of people who’d run off somewhere without telling anyone or not respond to worried phone calls. A couple of hours could be dismissed as the car breaking down and the phone dying, but anymore than that and you’d know something’s gone horribly wrong.
Like, if it was my oldest sister, alarms would be raised if she was an hour late getting back from work and hadn’t called. If a day passed and we couldn’t find her, I’d 100% be thinking she was dead because any other explanation would be wildly out of character. My brother hikes and camps, if I couldn’t get a hold of him for a few days I’d be worried he was lost or had fallen or something, but I’d be assuming he was hurt rather than dead at that point. My youngest sister could be gone a week before it would seem likely she was in any sort of trouble, because she’s totally the type of person who’d turn off her phone, hop on a plane on a whim, and not realize anyone would notice until days later.
I agree. She (Teresa) seemed odd. Who makes a video saying something like that. Also her brother was SUPER sketchy. Saying he wanted to start the grieving process DURING the search for her?? And WHY did they delete her voicemails? Could she have possibly commited suicide, the police found her in her car and then paid off the family to frame avery and save her family from admitting to a suicide? I know, that sounds far fetched, but something about the brother and the boyfreind is not right.
You know who seems super odd, and also super sketchy? Steven Avery.
Far fetched–you said it!
Oh I’m sure no offense would be taken. /sarcasm. These posts are so irresponsible. The posters under this comment are suggesting the victim’s brother, former boyfriend, and/or roommate may have been involved in murdering her and framing a person who was a stranger to them. A stranger who happened to be the last known person to see her alive and who saw her around the time calls stopped being made from her cell phone. A stranger who had a bonfire at his house the night she vanished. A stranger who specifically requested her for the work and then called her anonymously to make sure she would be there. A stranger who purchased leg irons shortly before she disappeared. A stranger who has no alibi.
You’re assuming the investigating authorities didn’t thoroughly check out those alternate suspects. You haven’t read all the investigative records – they aren’t publicly available.
I’ve read comments from people speculating that Brendan’s stepfather and/or brother were involved in the the murder. That is what the documentary was designed to cause you to do. It is not as interesting a case and documentary worthy if you believe a guilty guy was convicted, end of story. Steve Avery’s defense – which I believe did the best it could under the circumstances to raise reasonable doubt as to the source of the circumstantial evidence against Avery – was not allowed to present evidence to the jury of third party responsibility because the judge ruled there was insufficient proof of it. If Avery’s defense attorneys had such evidence, I believe it would have come out in the documentary.
The jury heard the evidence and rendered its verdict. Short of new, admissible evidence or new evidence of legal error, Avery should not get a new trial.
Dassey’s confession would be inadmissible in normal circumstances so while it is possible Avery did this, there is nothing linking Dassey, in particular the sexual assault charge, which couldn’t be proven any other way since her body was in pieces.
You’ll notice my comments were limited to Steve Avery. What happened to Brendan was awful. As I’ve stated before, his first attorney should have been disbarred.
You can’t convict on creepy or being sketchy though, the evidence does point to Avery. Maybe the whole family just has weird personalities? Deleting the voicemails is a big sketch and hard to believe that detectives really didn’t push it. Which does show their judgement before they had all of the evidence.
+onemillionthousandbillion. I ALWAYS thought the ex was sketchy. As far as her brother goes…I understand that everyone deals with grief and anger differently and her death was much fresher for him then than it is now (as we’re all binge watching)…so it’s easy to judge him. That being said, he did seem very interested in the camera.
True … the ex- boyfriend said Scott called him and said Theresa was dead and that night they listened to her cell phone messages. Brother talks about grieving process. None of this adds up.
It’s about time someone thought of this woman and her family.
Haven’t watched the series yet, but I’ve wondered about this exactly. Who is looking out for them? I’m reminded of Hae’s family from Serial. It must be gut wrenching to relive over and over.
This so much! There is no happy ending here. A 25 year old woman was brutally murdered. There is no justice for that. This isn’t a tv show.
As I said yesterday, I do believe Dassey is innocent, and I do hope this series helps set him free, but even then what kind of life is he headed towards with no education, no ability to care for himself, and a sketchy family?
Every single thing about this situation is horrible, if not down right horrifying.
I think a lot of us who watched it were very conscious of the horror of it for the family GNAT. It was so sad to see a young woman’s life so violently cut short. The perpetrator deserves severe punishment. But the prosecution case did not to me prove that Avery was guilty. To me, there was reasonable doubt, and major questions about the process. While it is impossible for me to put myself in their place, I think if I were the family of the victim, I would want to be damn sure they had the right man in jail and that the bas@tard who did that to my child or sister was not still out there. The programme – while unavoidably selective in what it showed – did not provide that assurance to me.
That program left out crucial facts in favor of the prosecution. You can’t just watch that and believe you know what happened. Why do you think they left things out that damage their theory? Because they want to present an untrue, unfactual, biased view. Anyone who believes it is buying into their revised history of what happened. That’s exactly what they want you to do.
Amen, GNAT! I’ve said before, my husband is a former prosecutor. These documentaries and television shows are biased to whatever viewpoint the filmmaker has. They don’t show everything the jury saw and they certainly don’t know everything the prosecutors know, but aren’t allowed to present for various reasons.
People are not prosecuted in a vacuum and reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt at all.
Agree. And GNAT, didn’t you say you didn’t finish watching the doc? I recommend you do so, because even in light of all the evidence that was not shown, on both sides, there is more than enough reasonable doubt for Avery to have been acquitted. And Dassey is not guilty of anything whatsoever. Why is it you never comment on Dassey’s supposed role?
Teresa has not gotten justice yet. I’d be happy to sport a shirt that says “Justice for Teresa,” because justice hasn’t been served in her case yet. (Even if Avery is guilty, our society MUST convict him fairly. Using legally obtained evidence.)
i felt terrible for halbach. had this been handled properly by the authorities, there wouldn’t be so many questions now
GoodNamesAllTaken, you’re right in that it did leave stuff that favored the prosecution. they also left stuff out that favors the defense.
however, big word of caution: the media has been running with what ken kratz (prosecutor) is claiming, but he is not being entirely truthful about some of it. the court docs are still available and directly contradict and/or muddy some of his claims.
1 example would be “avery’s sweat dna was found on her car hood latch”. Sweat dna is not a real thing (it’s just non-blood/non-semen dna), and the tech who discovered the dna admitted it was an unusually small amount for direct contact and that he messed up and grabbed the hood latch with the same gloves he used to process avery’s car.
just a heads up, you’ve got to do digging with everything with this case i swear
Many of us have.
I meant someone publicly standing up for them.
The people who should have stood up for them and gotten Teresa justice are the Manitowoc/Wisconsin state prosecutors.
It seems to me they have utterly completely failed her and the American Justice System, whatever that misnomer/contradiction in terms is.
Kip
The recordings of the police step by step investigating before much was known about her dissappearance was shocking. They wanted him for this so bad they looked at everything and openly speculated how they can turn this into evidence against him. And how if they get him for this the law suit they all faced goes away.
Yeah totally FLORC! When the dispatch operator asked whether they already had him in custody…
My comment yesterday ended with those sentiments. I was stunned by a poster’s rebuttal. The insensitivity was astonishing.
.
That is very true. At the same time, I think the health of our justice system is worth our thoughts as well. Unfortunately, sometimes the examples that best illustrate the status quo involve crimes and victims of those crimes.
As Americans, our justice system is one of the bedrocks of our society. We always talk about our “freedom”, and yet the entities that serve as gatekeeper for those freedoms (courts and police) don’t get the scrutiny they should because most people don’t take a closer look until it impacts them or someone they love. Small towns and their version of “justice” is often pretty warped. You get people in very powerful positions who aren’t educated or impartial enough to serve honorably. You have generations of families living in the same areas, holding grudges and owing favors. In larger cities you find corruption as well.
It does not serve a victim of a crime well to have an innocent person imprisoned for that crime. I am not saying that is what happened here, but I think that any case where someone is wrongfully convicted could have their justice denied by people focusing only on the primary victim, and not the injustice of someone being wrongfully convicted.
What really upset me is that the police and investigators pushed Dassey into a confession that the evidence didn’t match up to and then proceeded to describe this horrible “confession” in a news conference! That poor family! It’s bad enough to hear that your sister/daughter was killed but what the police described has got to be 10xs worse to hear for them and in the end, the evidence didn’t match what they said happened.
They do. Imagine the possibility this was all staged (the crime), which means the person who did it is still out there.
I can’t get over the weirdness about her car being found, including the fact Avery didn’t compact it. One would think he had the means to do that, it was part of his work, and he forgot?
What about the detail of the unwanted calls she was receiving at the time (not Avery), that weren’t elaborated on?
No blood or traces of blood in the garage or Avery’s bedroom. If you were her family wouldn’t you wonder about that? Would you feel 100% comfortable that you received justice?
This was such a well-done, yet disturbing, documentary. It really appears that they were framed. Personally, I didn’t see enough/any evidence to prove they did do it.
I kinda wish that they participated in the documentary or whatever Making a Murdered is classified as. I would have liked to hear a lil more about Teresa. The video of her speaking about how she loved her family and lived a happy life was very sweet.
Teresa looks exactly like my friend, Jen. Like they could be twins.
It’s classified as a “documentary” and documentaries are ALWAYS one-sided. The genre has never had any obligation to be unbiased or objective.
I doubt Teresa’s family wants to actively participate in this doc if they think Steven Avery is guilty, why would they?
Kratz suggested it was a film student thesis piece. I have not investigated that assertion, but it is interesting, and fits the scenario.
Oh really? I wasn’t aware of that…meaning that’s how it started? If so, it’s rather impressive for a film student thesis.
@kitten-
from the New York Times, 12/20/2015:
In 2005, Ms. Ricciardi, 45, and Ms. Demos, 42, were a pair of graduate film students at Columbia University who had been dating for two years. In the midst of planning their individual thesis work, they read about Mr. Avery’s case in an article in The Times and thought it could be an opportunity to shoot a documentary.
That December, the two traveled to Manitowoc, Wis. “We rented a car and we borrowed a friend’s camera,” Ms. Demos said. “It was really to test the waters and see if there was a story.”
Thanks for that, Antisocialbutterfly. Interesting..
This case hits me hard having grown up in Central, small-town Wisconsin. Theresa looked like my sister and the girls I went to high school with. Everything and everyone in this is familiar to me, not personally, but the types of people, colloquialisms, etc. I have limited degrees of separation from her family and I hate that they are going through this again. It scares the bejesus out of me what those officers did, but Theresa needs to be thought of a little more in the collective sense.
Documentaries aren’t Always one sided, that would be a propaganda piece or a commentary is Always one sided. Documentaries are by definition- showing fact related material. There are quite a few documentaries that don’t have a bias, probably not the ones that get publicity but still they are made.
The better poster boy is his nephew, Brendan Dassey. He got screwed over.
Agreed.
If Avery is innocent of this crime, then that’s not one but two major crimes for which he was wrongly convicted. His poor judgment aside, that’s a compelling story.
But the same people responsible for coercing him are the same people who work for and were responsible for Avery’s first conviction and his second. Tainted waters. If you can believe that the boy wasn’t given a chance, then it’s only fair to question whether Steven Avery was given a chance. All those people had something to gain by putting him in prison.
I haven’t watched this yet, but as more information comes to light about this case and gets publicity, I’m starting to feel like these types of projects (Serial included in this too) are actually pretty irresponsible. Organizations like the Innocence Project are much needed, but we probably shouldn’t be trotting all this stuff out to let the public decide as a form of entertainment.
+1
I really loved the first season of Serial and kinda wish the producers had picked up a case like this for the second season rather than covering the Bergdahl case. I haven’t watched Making a Murderer yet, but it seems very intriguing and I’ll probably end up becoming a fan like I did with Serial.
I also feel awful for the victims’ families. The pain of losing a loved one in the most horrific way possible never goes away, but for these families their pain and personal lives have now been turned into entertainment for the masses. And of course, the person they believe murdered their loved one may now be released. Regardless of our opinions of whether the subjects of these shows are guilty or innocent, we cannot begin to imagine the pain and injustice these families are feeling.
@Tealily: listening to Serial, it’s so easy to tell which side the narrator is on. Who she believes and doesn’t. I don’t think that i should be able to tell which side of the fence ur on, listening to those stories.
By the second episode of the first season, I knew immediately that she thought that Adnan was guilty.
Second season, she’s speaking to one officer (the one who she says can never stay still) and she sounded like a smitten little school girl. I don’t know. To me, it was just weird.
“By the second episode of the first season, I knew immediately that she thought that Adnan was guilty.”
I came away with a different impression. I think Serial gave unnecessary weight to the idea that he was guilty simply to make it a more compelling program. If she sincerely knew about the AT&T fax cover sheet that said incoming call “pings” can NOT be used for determining location, they she absolutely intentionally slanted Serial to be “maybe he’s guilty”, instead of presenting what the facts told her.
In addition to the victim’s loved ones, we should also consider that 1.) We are not receiving all of the evidence on these shows. We are receiving information selected and edited to create a narrative. 2.) Even if one of these programs somehow leads to an innocent person’s release, they are being released into a world where they have become a celebrity and a lot of people still adamantly believe they are guilty. That seems like a dangerous combination to me.
Your points are extremely well-made.
Agreed. Well said and not many people are saying or considering such viewpoints.
Good point tealily.
You know who heard the evidence in this case and found it to be beyond a reasonable doubt? A jury. And that’s the way it works in America. That is who decided–not these filmmakers, not the viewers of the Netflix show. A criminal trial is not a social media consensus exercise.
The speculating that this woman was murdered by her family member or ex, based on some finding them odd or “sketchy”, is so irresponsible, beyond the pale, and actually disgusting.
“You know who heard the evidence in this case and found it to be beyond a reasonable doubt? A jury.”
That is meaning less and less anymore. West Memphis Three was also convicted by jury. Juries are at the mercy of the justice system to present them with quality information that has been held to a high standard. The police force and crime labs play vital roles in this process. If their standards are compromised, so is justice, with or without a jury conviction.
It may mean less and less … but what is the alternative to the jury system? Avery and his attorneys presented a vigorous defense during his trial. They questioned the police, the labs, the witnesses in open court. That is exactly how it supposed to work. And the jury convicted him. And if now some of them are saying they regret it, that means precisely nothing legally. And if the legal standards by which courts of appeals judge these matters are somehow wrong, I am waiting for someone to come up with something better.
I am a fan of the jury system, but I think that in order for the rulings to have integrity, standards must be raised for the entire process including during evidence gathering, testing, and interviewing witnesses. If any of those processes are interfered with, then the jury’s verdict has also been tampered with.
Avery’s defense was limited to the very narrow scope that was set by the judge, not allowing for 3rd party scenarios to be presented to the jury.
It started with the Thin Blue Line, which was a documentary that wound up getting a man exonerated from death row in Texas. Then Paradise Lost helped exonerate the West Memphis Three. So now you have a lot of filmmakers who are chomping at the bit to get a piece of the action by making a movie that they can claim “set somebody free.” The difference is that both the Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost creators admitted that they initially did not seek to prove anybody innocent. They were just making a documentary about an interesting subject. Over time, they came to believe that the subjects were innocent, but they did not start out with that view. In this case, it’s pretty clear that the filmmakers went in believing that Avery didn’t do it and they’ve tried to create a series to fit that narrative. Which is fine, but I wish they’d be up front about that.
Well said!
Great point!
I thoroughly enjoyed The Thin Blue Line. Although it was a couple of years ago.
No. The directors didn’t go in thinking he was innocent! Have you read anything about their journey?! They went in to document how he had recently been proven innocent for that rape, after spending 18 years in jail for that crime. They intended to be there a couple of weeks. Due to unforeseen events, they ended up there for TEN years. They know more about this case than you or I or the jury or anyone else knows. It’s completely unfair for you to present this unfounded opinion of the documentarians’ motives in this case.
Pinky: they have both openly admitted that they created the series with the intent of spurring the appeals process. Read my comment again. What they thought before the series was not my point. They created the documentary with the intent to have it show that Avery was railroaded. It has a very distinct point of view. Compare that to the Thin Blue Line or Paradise Lost Part 1, both of which were expositive films that were not intended to take a particular viewpoint (Paradise Lost 2 & 3 are very clearly partisan, but the filmmakers own that upfront). Or even Capturing the Friedmans, which very much allows the viewer to believe either side. This is not like that. They openly admit to hoping that the series gets Avery a new trial. They also, as multiple people have pointed out, omitted evidence favorable to the prosecution – something neither Thin Blue Line or Paradise Lost did. They actually took great pains to include all the evidence. So why didn’t they here?
The Paradise Lost films though began with filmmakers believing the 3 were probably guilty and were filming because of the crime and age of the boys. They only believed in their innocence after filming. Actually read they weren’t even fully convinced until later. @pinky, where did you hear they didn’t believe in his innocence? I’ve seen them in multiple interviews and they have never mentioned anything about his guilt of innocence but heavily are pushing he had an unfair trial and want appeals. Understand they were involved with the Innocence Project, that alone says they believed he was innocent before filming. From the very start they had the biased view he should be appealed and created a story to prove he deserves it. Their one goal was to get appeals on the board, that is it. A Thin Blue Line should be watched by everyone, a masterpiece in the world of documentaries.
Irresponsible how? It’s ignited an important debate about due process and mass incarceration in America.
Well, for the reasons outlined above, as well as the general idea of amateur sleuths trying to use public opinion affect the outcome of a case.
Irresponsible because it treats crimes (and all the people involved,suspects, victims, family) like family entertainment . And it will never really do anything to the systematic problems because the vast majority of people watching these shows see them as entertainment . Looking at shows like Dateline or 48 Hours you have two kinds of shows . The victim driven narrative where a suspect is always guilty and if he/she dares to proclaim innocence or lawyer up is seen as even more sketchy (innocent people wouldn’t ask for one) and the sympathetic wrongful conviction case (where people generally go on and on how the person convicted or a co defendant should have asked for a lawyer because that’s what people should do) . In wrongful conviction cases you usually have the the “angel” and the “devil” , with the devil being equally either the police/prosecutor or a co defendant (sometimes both) . Everything the angel says will be taken at face value while the devil is a lying liar who lies . It’s totally black and white .
In the end if the wrongfully convicted person is released there will be short outrage and then everyone moves on to the next episode . There is no real movement to reform the justice system attached to any of these shows , they basically live off that system .
Take prosecutorial misconduct . Prosecutors have immunity , you can’t sue them (well you can try , it will not go anywhere) , they can pretty much do what they want without fear of consequences . And prosecutorial misconduct is how we end up with cases like these :
https://www.facebook.com/FreeCharlesErickson/?fref=ts
https://theintercept.com/2015/03/12/murderinvegas/
I just don’t see the value of banning documentaries in all this. Isn’t inherent bias in criminal trials more worrisome than in documentaries?
I think “amateur sleuths using public opinion to sway the outcome of case” better describes the prosecution than anyone else here. That should be more disturbing than any documentary.
“Isn’t inherent bias in criminal trials more worrisome than in documentaries?”
Great point!
“Isn’t inherent bias in criminal trials more worrisome than in documentaries?” Aren’t they both worrisome?
Well, one is the rule of law that affects all citizens of a nation.
The other is an art form, or a form of expression falling under of freedom of speech. I think bias in one is a bit more worrisome than in the other.
Saying the documentaries are problematic does not mean the judicial system is not problematic. Saying that the documentarians should be weighing some ethical concerns that they perhaps aren’t isn’t the same as saying they don’t have the right to make the documentary. I’m not sure why you are framing it this way.
From my understanding, putting this doc out was a last ditch effort to raise awareness about the level of misconduct in Manitowoc. Avery and his family were heavily promoted in the media as killers by the prosecution from the very beginning, and that played a huge role in his being convicted. Both times. So the documentary was made to counter that, and I think it’s pretty ballsy. Again, whether he did it or not, the state didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and they made themselves out to be pretty shady in the process. That’s what the doc is really about. The miscarriage of justice that happens in our legal system more often than we’d care to admit.
I’m not at all surprised by the Halbachs’ comments. After all, would you rather believe that the murderer of your daughter was caught and punished, or is still out on the loose, possibly inflicting a similar amount of suffering on other families?
That said, I do find it odd that they weren’t at all, seemingly, angry with how the police completely ignored what would be the likeliest suspects in a female homicide; ex-boyfriend, current partner, friends, roommates. The police went straight to Steven Avery and never so much as blinked at anyone else.
You could be right, or that is the way the documentary made it seem. If they didn’t talk to the other side it really isn’t a balanced portrayal. I’ve watched part of it, and it definitely has a slant that I’m not sure people are that aware of. I too wish someone would do a documentary with both sides, and especially the victims family so you can see how and why they came to believe what they believe. Were they pressured or persuaded? As you say were they looking for some closure and this just felt right.
Oh, of course the documentary – as anything which has no input from the victim’s family, as with Serial, etc. – has a definite slant towards Avery’s innocence. I just find it so mind-boggling that the police interviewed the ex-boyfriend and the roommate TOGETHER and ignored shady facts like the roommate not ‘realizing’ Teresa was missing for four days, or Teresa’s brother and ex-boyfriend logging into her voicemails. In any investigation, but particularly in that of a female homicide, that is a very dodgy omission to make.
I actually think Serial did a great job of at least attempting to be unbiased—to the point where I was unable to make up my mind about Adnan’s innocence. Sarah Koenig was careful to point out any discrepancies and the aspects of the case that she felt conflicted about.
On another note, I’m surprised people aren’t more into Season 2 of Serial. I’m finding it really compelling so far…
Kitten, I think Serial Season 1 intentionally tried to make Adnan seem more guilty than he was. First of all, if Sarah really did know about the fax cover sheet that says incoming calls can’t be used to determine location and dismissed it as she says, then she’s pretty foolish. That document right there says the states case was bogus and it why Adnan’s case is still moving forward in the courts (next hearing in February). Secondly, the lividity on Hae’s body made the state’s timeline impossible. There is no way she could have been buried any earlier than midnight if she was killed on the afternoon she went missing.
I think being on the fence makes for engaging podcasts, but I think Serial did wrong by Adnan to play up the “maybes” for the sake of their product.
@Tiffany-Interesting to hear your take. I never felt like Koenig or the show was manipulating me at any point while I was listening. Point taken about the timeline but I actually thought that she skewed more towards presenting Adnan as innocent.
In regards to the things that made her doubt his innocence–she kept circling back to Jay Wilds’ testimony, how unwavering his story was, and the absence of any motive to implicate Syed.
The problem with these shows is it become more entertainment. Yes unfortunately the police, prosecution, and on the other side the accused may do some things that are dodgy and shady in the case, but it doesn’t mean the person is guilty or innocent. I am not a person who believes that you should do what it takes to find the truth. We have laws that create a process to make it as fair for both sides, but some times those are violated. If the prosecution violated a process at a minimum the evidence from the violation should be thrown out unless the evidence could have been proven to have been gathered in another way. The problem with these shows is they highlight the errors on either side and don’t show the mundane boring evidence that as opposed to what you see on crime dramas are generally the reason that people are either convicted or not.
I think she knew overall the story came across as “pro-Adnan”, so I think she added some extra doubt moments to give it the appearance of balance.
The only time I felt manipulated while actually listening to Serial Season 1 was during the Dana part about “He must be super unlucky to have all of these things happen”, because they were misrepresenting what the pings were supposed to show (Dana acted like the records showed the calls were made from LPark, but it just showed they were made from the zone which also includes LP & Patrick’s house, etc.).
However, after Serial ended and the fax cover sheet was brought to light by another podcast and used by Adnan’s defense team to move Adnan’s appeal process forward, Sarah said she already knew about the fax cover sheet but chose not to included it. (!!) If that is true, then that DOES make me feel manipulated because she was hiding very important factual and unbiased evidence. The cell phone expert that testified for the state, Waranowitz, has submitted an affidavit saying the fax cover sheet contained critical information that should have been presented to him by the state before he testified, and it would have changed his testimony. Sarah saying she knew about the document but just didn’t think it was a big deal seems either foolish or disingenuous.
Neither am I. In the series, the reporters asked Teresa’s brother for a reaction after Brendan testified, I believe it was his appeal in which the confession was being questioned, and he lamented that Brendan wasn’t truthful on the stand. When the reporter asks him, “have you seen the video of his confession?” And he says no.
I thought to myself, “really?” You (the brother) have come to the conclusion that this kid is involved in your sister’s murder and there are serious allegations of validity of it & you haven’t even bothered to watch it? Isn’t the family at all interested if real justice has been brought to Teresa’s killer?
But we don’t know what the police and prosecution told them. When you are the family of the victim you really only hear for months to year priors to the case from prosecution’s side. They already gave them details of how terrible her last moments were (which the evidence didn’t math). I think it shows how much people blindly trust the system to put the right man in jail.
I agree. I’ve seen this time and time again with the families of victims – they want closure. That doesn’t necessarily mean they have the clearest vision about true justice for their loved one.
The room mate that took forever to report her missing. Can’t get over it.
I still believe Avery is guilty, however I do think his nephew deserves a new trial. As a former police officer myself, the police interview process with the nephew is highly questionable.
But, my sympathy lies with the victim and her family, not a guy who abused animals, women and even tried to blackmail a rape victim into buying him a house.
THANK YOU!!!! Before any of this stuff in the documentary goes down, he admitted to pouring gasoline and oil on his cat before throwing it in fire. Also, he admitted to and was convicted of a burglary. This man is not “innocent” in any sense of the word. For the animal cruelty alone, he deserved that 18 years in jail. He gets zero pity from me.
You should take a lot at the comments thread in the last Making A Murderer post which widely discusses how past crimes and convictions relate to accusations and current trials. Whether someone thinks a person is “good” or “bad” or “innocent” or “guilty” is NOT THE POINT – it’s about using evidence to follow the rule of law and give due process. Sometimes I feel like I am just muttering to myself/my screen.
He already did his time for the cat, btw he has an IQ of 70 and was drunk with his friends when that happened, not saying is ok but consider that. He did time for all his other crimes, and he always admitted them and had no problem doing his time. Im pretty sure he knows hes not a saint, but to make him pay for another crime he didnt commit just cause his a horrible person.. Yeah, hope some of you never end up in his situation.
@Kip It’s because some people don’t want to be wrong and will not listen to reason when it contradicts their ingrained version of the truth or reality. That willful ignorance thing that abounds in the American electorate. It’s why the country is in the state it’s in. Because people would rather operate on belief than fact in all aspects of their lives. Good luck to them when they inadvertently come down on the wrong side of the law and are looking for someone to listen to them or insist on due process in their case. Good. Luck.
Sooooo the preferable alternative is that everyone watch one movie and decide that they know everything about the case? If that’s what constitutes “critical thinking” then we definitely are in deep DEEP shit.
How about open discussion and varying opinions where people present thoughts from both sides? Or is that just too much free-thinking for the masses? What about not knowing? Is that ok? Is it ok for me to say that I don’t know definitively whether Steven Avery is guilty or not, but I do think he deserves another trial and that I’ll leave it up to the next jury to decide his fate?
Lastly, critical thinking is about nuances, grey areas, and having the freedom to NOT commit to the widely-held beliefs of the public. It’s about being secure with the idea that maybe you don’t know everything. It’s NOT about kowtowing to the masses or being bullied into agreeing with everyone else.
@Kitten I usually agree with what you most so I don’t get your point. Nowhere did I equate critical thinking with watching a documentary. My point was that it appears that both people’s opinions AND legal decisions are NOT evidence based, and that is deeply troubling.
@kitten Yes, when people continue to argue about whether or not he is guilty, not whether or not he received a fair trial. They are discussing beliefs and caught up in emotion, not thinking critically or rationally. You have to make that distinction.
@ Kip- I thought I made it clear that my comment was about what “critical thinking” means, since it was brought up. I don’t think that people watching one movie (with an agenda) and proclaiming themselves legal experts on what is clearly a complex case is the best example of critical thinking, that’s all.
@Pinky-Thank you for the clarification and I agree with you. I can see that you’re really passionate about this and FWIW, I share your outrage about the wrongfully convicted. I truly believe that it’s one of the greatest tragedies that can befall a person. I just prefer to keep an open mind about things, that’s all. I’m not convinced that Avery’s guilty and I’m not convinced that he’s innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to support either side of the argument. But I do 100% agree that a retrial is absolutely warranted and necessary here. Regardless of how I feel about Steven Avery, this is clearly a failure of justice on a systemic level from law enforcement to the courtroom.
@Zaid – He didn’t just do a drunk prank. He tortured his trusting, family cat in front of people, poured oil and gasoline on it, and then threw it in the fire to burn it to death. It wasn’t just a “drunken mistake.”
I do think he needs a retrial. He would still be found guilty if the allegedly planted evidence is tossed, in my opinion. The timeline of things does add up that he could have killed her. (Especially with his ex now saying that he told her to act happy or he would hurt her, if he takes the stand and character witnesses could be called, he’d be in trouble.)
Yes, there are others who should have been investigated. If their involvement can be firmed up more, then perhaps Avery would be found innocent just due to the reasonable doubt part.
As for his past crimes affecting my thought process on his current incarceration, I do think it matters that he tortured a cat to death, raped 2 women according to their affidavits – 1 being an underage relative of his and another a woman in her 40’s, and had anger problems. That leads me to believe that he could have killed Teresa Halbach. Had he never been arrested and put in jail, never allegedly molested his nephews and raped women, and never tortured a cat to death, but instead fed the homeless every weekend and always went out of his way to help people, my view would be different.
@kitten – who’s promoting themselves as legal experts other than the prosecution?
@Kip- You really don’t see people on these threads who fancy themselves to be armchair legal experts? Maybe you should scroll through again…
Put it this way: anybody who states unequivocally that Avery is innocent is presenting herself as someone who knows more than the prosecution, the investigators, the family of the victim, and anybody who was closely involved in this case.
“BECAUSE IF YOU WATCHED THE MOVIE THEN YOU WOULD KNOW!” lol
NOPE. Nobody except Steven Avery and the victim know for sure what happened and it’s a point that’s often lost in the back-and-forth arguing about this polarizing case. It’s the comments that are presented with absolute certainty that I object to.
Also, these type of comments ignore the very systemic issues that we’re attempting to highlight. There’s enormous pressure that comes from the public and the victim’s family to solve cases. There’s also prestige and financial incentives that motivate detectives to find a suspect and close a case. That applies to the DA as well. None of that excuses ignoring protocol, planting evidence, or any manipulation of a crime scene on the part of an investigator. But it doesn’t mean that because a case was botched, that the suspect is automatically innocent. All it means is that they deserve a retrial.
@kip: right? Like talking to a brick wall. Of course the documentary is slanted. The point is not whether he’s guilty or not! The point is that there was enough tampering and conflict of interest and evidence to suggest that the county and the prosecution were negligent at best! Where is everyone?!?
@Zaid- I know quite a few people with an IQ of 70 that would never torture a cat & I am seriously tired of the “I was drunk” defense. It’s a horrific act and a red flag.
@Kip- Prior bad acts can be admitted into evidence to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. I often find myself muttering to the screen myself at comments on posts like this. Prior bad acts like torturing a cat, holding a relative at gunpoint are extremely relevant here.
@Pinky- I don’t know if Steven Avery is guilty or innocent and neither do you. This documentary was biased and slanted towards Avery. It left out key points: like the prior bad acts I mentioned, Avery repeatedly requested Halbach to come out to take photos In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance and one time answered the door in his towel! He also called her 3 times on the day she went missing, twice blocking his identity. Yeah that doesn’t suggest he was obsessed with her.
Most important to me, the bullet with Halbach’s DNA on it came from Avery’s gun, that he purchased leg irons and cuffs three weeks before Teresa disappeared and like the ones the nephew described held Halbach…
It’s pretty damning evidence…..even if the cops planted evidence, it is entirely possible Avery is guilty. Everyone assumes that he’s not because the prosecution of him was flawed. If he is retried and found guilty… would it stop this madness?
@Tammy – I said similar things above regarding his still potentially being guilty and found guilty if the planted evidence is thrown out.
I do want to mention that Scott Tadych, Brendan’s stepfather-to-be was trying to sell a .22 right after Teresa went missing. The ballistics report on the bullet may have not proven that it came directly from Steven’s gun, but rather just from a .22.
Also, the leg irons and cuffs had not one speck of Teresa’s DNA on them. Now with that said, it’s entirely possible that Steven meant to imprison Teresa at a later date and that he was using the items on Jodi at the time in practice for kidnapping Teresa. We’ll never know.
As for his calling for the same photographer, it could mean that he was obsessed with her, or it could mean that she took good pictures and he liked her work.
What I want to see are photos of the burn pit prior to the removal of her cremains, due to the statements saying that her bones were “fused into a seat” and “entertwined with radial tire belts,” – which could prove that it was the actual burn site – but I think that the police didn’t take any, did they?
If convictions can be based on prior behaviour alone that is a slippery slope towards a “Minority Report” situation.
All the evidence, including the DNA evidence *because no mixed sample was found* is circumstantial.
That’s still not proof of innocence though, Kip.
People get convicted all the time based on *only* circumstantial evidence.
@Jag- what about Avery answering the door in only a towel? That’s not creepy at all? If that happened to you, what would you think? Avery filed an appeal to have his conviction overturned but unless he has evidence that exonerates him (like the DNA in the rape case he was previously convicted of) or that he did not receive a fair trial. I believe his appeal challenges the search warrant conducted and a juror’s conduct during the trial.
@KIp- I never said that though.. I said prior bad acts can be entered into evidence if it meets certain criteria. Scott Peterson was convicted on circumstantial evidence and Casey Anthony freed because the state only had circumstantial evidence. Plus there is some debate about the jury instructions in Anthony’s case. However, no one doubts either one’s guilt in either case it’s just that the state won the first and lost the second.
The issue here is how the cops investigated Halbach’s murder & that is where the focus should be. It’s entirely possibly Avery is guilty but was railroaded, it’s also possible he’s innocent. My argument is that his killing of a cat, despite being drunk and having a low IQ, is extremely troublesome. It’s not because I find anyone that harms a defenseless animal despicable (I do) but that behavior is a red flag. Along with violent behavior towards women portrays a very angry, disturbed man that could have very well murdered Teresa. He also spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Prison changes you and not for the better. I think quite a few posters on here are forgetting that.
@H where did you take that from? He was never abusive to her. Penny Beerntsen, the rape victim, said he contacted her a while after being released and mentioned he couldn’t get job and couldn’t even afford to buy a house. I don’t see anything wrong in that. Also, she said he was cordial and not abusive. I find it sad how, although inadvertently, the person who wrongfully accused Steven Avery of rape putting him in prison for 18 years has no problem in jumping into the guilty verdict. I guess that’s what helps her sleep at night.
You can read her thoughts here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3386157/Making-Murderer-rape-victim-breaks-silence-saying-Steven-Avery-asked-buy-house-released-prion-believes-murdered-Teresa-Halbach.html
I think this is a fair assessment from her families side to be honest..
Teresa’s cousin-in-law, Jeremy Fournier agreed, stating, “It is so very one-sided. It seems like there are some shenanigans by the police in there from what I hear and read about, and I can see where people are getting their opinion, but they are only getting one side of the story.”
Avery’s guilt is actually not the point in my opinion as I can’t say he did or didn’t do it (Brendan Dassey is a whole other story if you ask me) . It’s about manipulation and abuse of the legal system and complete ineptitude and corruption of law enforcement, the DA and the judge, of which there was an abundance in these cases and should have resulted in a mistrial, retrial and punishment for those clearly involved.
And that’s just it. The point is the corrupt justice system in the case – but the vast majority of people I see commenting on other sites seem to just be rallying solely for this man to be innocent. They’re missing the point.
Well put.
I’m deeply sorry for the loss of Teresa. Her family is going through hell and it’s unimaginable of the pain they’re living with.
The problem here is that the state butchered the case. The state messed this up, hugely. Without going into a many paragraph post ( I gotta get my kids out the door for school. ) The state of Wisconsin, imo violated the law and it’s been a mess.
‘The state butchered the case’ – boom, exactly.
It reminds me of my aunt talking about the Casey Anthony case, which I know little about (being English); she said the state were too complacent that the jury would convict automatically based on the emotional stakes of the case (mother killing her young child to pursue a life of sexual freedom), and so they neglected to present all their evidence compellingly enough to eliminate reasonable doubt.
Here obviously the jury still convicted – but if the state had presented a coherent, convincing case rather than relying on emotionality, I doubt there would be so many people calling for retrials or proclaiming a false conviction.
That actually was not the situation- the jury at large was saturated with crime television programs in which DNA evidence is always available and the lynchpin in the conviction. Caylee’s body was too decomposed to provide suitable DNA evidence, but the circumstantial evidence throughout the case was overwhelming. The jury did not properly comprehend the instructions from Judge Belvin Perry regarding convicting on “circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt”. They took it to mean it had to be irrefutable, which was wrong.
Rather, it, and the Halbach/Avery case were more of an Occam’s razor conclusion regarding overwhelming circumstantial ( and for Avery, DNA) evidence.
There’s no denying the DNA evidence and some of the evidence in general. My concern is how it was gathered. The steps that weren’t taken to get the evidence, to me seems illegal and should’ve been thrown out. Also the interrogation of the nephew was so unethical that I felt it should have been thrown out as well.
My issue with this situation is not about whether he’s innocent or guilty. To me it’s about the measures of how the states case got their evidence. It was almost like they thought they were above the law with zero consideration to the process of the legal system. At the very least there should be a retrial and any evidence of the first trial should be thrown out.
I watched the whole thing in two days. Super addicting and disturbing. What upset me the most was the way in which Brendan Dassey was treated. However, there was a lot of evidence that was left out of this documentary and it is very one-sided. Just a few weeks before the murder, Avery bought Hand cuffs and leg restraints which Brendan said Avery used on the victim. Also, Teresa had specifically asked not to be sent out to his home because of previous inappropriate behavior by Avery. Avery called her phone three times that day using *67. If the film makers had put all of this info in their documentary, it probably would have resulted in a very different reaction from their audience.
Agreed! Theresa’s last appointment was with Avery, who she was scared of and didn’t want to meet. And who can blame her, he’s a sadist who once burned a cat alive – for fun. After that appointment she was never seen again, until her burned body and car was found on Avery’s property. I don’t even care that much if the police deliberately placed one or two pieces of evidence to secure a verdict against a man they disliked. Sure, that’s a crime, and IF they did it the cops should be fired at the very least. But – there’s just no way I believe any other scenario is nearly as likely as Avery killing her – even without the keys and DNA. I simply don’t believe the cops murdered her, or helped someone else they had no obligations to by completely fabricating a crime scene. And I’m tired of people saying that they ‘feel’ somebody else did it because that person ‘looked guilty when interviewed’ or ‘was too pleased to be interviewed’.
Wait a second–is that actually a theory? That the cops killed her????
Yeah – I agree.
And maybe these people who seem excited to be interviewed were told before they had agreed that this would help show HER side of the story, and they’re happy, thinking they’re helping.
The whole thing is such a cluster****.
@kitten yes. Because people are straight up crazy. I agree with the comments above that a 10 hour documentary does not show the entire case a jury is presented, that the filmmakers were 100 percent biased, and that the only case that should be retried is Brendan’s.
FYI the prosecution when presenting a case does not have to know 100 percent what happens, they have a theory and they present that with the evidence that they have. People have been convicted when there has been no body (Scott Peterson) and no direct evidence and very little circumstantial evidence (Scott Peterson again).
@Whatevers-That is…insane.
Re: Scott Peterson (good example BTW), you actually reminded me of the Casey Anthony case where there was no evidence beyond the circumstantial and she was exonerated because of that very reason.
What’s amusing to me is the same people who are claiming emphatically that Avery is innocent are some of the same people who still emphatically believe that Casey Anthony is guilty and got away with murder. The reality is that case was evidence of the judicial system and law enforcement doing it’s due diligence and the prosecutor failing to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A parallel between the Avery and Anthony cases: prosecution relied too heavily on the defendant’s poor moral character. Not to say that I don’t think Casey Anthony is guilty, just to say that the evidence was simply not enough to convict.
Wait, you don’t really care that the cops placed evidences to make someone look more guilty? Really? You should, because if the cops did that, you can be sure that it wasn’t a one-time thing, and they probably do it every time they “feel” someone is guilty but can’t demonstrate it. And that, to me is scary as helll!
No one, regardless of the race, status, education or past convictions, should ever go to jail for a crime he/she did not commit. It’s the cops’ job to find the evidences and the State prosecutors to prove beyond any possible doubt that the person is guilty. If you need to frame someone to get the verdict you want then you should change your job because you’re sh*t at it. And you’re not protecting the population at all.
Totally agree Arpeggi.
@ Kitten
There appears to be many alternative theories among Avery’s defenders as to who killed Theresa and why. There are two main groups of theories. The first is that police and prosecutors were behind Theresa’s death as part of a plan to frame Avery and not have to pay him a settlement for an earlier, wrongful conviction. (Which is not how an unrelated, ongoing lawsuit can be stopped, but what the hey.) The other theory is that Avery was framed after the police procured Theresa’s remains from her boyfriend and/or family. Police, prosecutors and Theresa’s nearest then conspired to hide the truth: She either committed suicide, or was killed by her boyfriend or one of her relatives. That’s the two lines of thought. Avery, on the other hand, seems to think either one of his brothers might have done it, because yay family.
@ Arpeggi
Slow down a little. I didn’t say I was ‘not concerned’ by the idea that evidence in this case might conceivably be fabricated. I actually said that such an act would be a crime, and that cops who fabricate evidence should at the very least be fired. ( In reality, they’d risk jail – and deservedly so.) I just can’t personally summon AS MUCH concern for a man I actually believe did kill Theresa, as I would if I thought he was innocent and all the evidence was fabricated. Which I don’t. Doesn’t mean I don’t want the full truth about the case to be found, no matter what it is, or that I want a corrupt policeforce.
That should be ‘care’, not ‘concern’, apologies for any confusion.
Most of those are bs. They found no evidence of Teresa in those handcuffs nor the bed, besides Brendan said they used them, how reliable is that ‘confession’?
I dont know about her asking not to go there, but I believe I read somewhere her boss denied those claims.
On the other hand, here’s a list with sources that the docu left out and are pro defense.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/40dquo/prodefense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/
Idk if hes guilty or not, but look for more than that prosecutors list.
So, the family’s chose not to participate in the doc and then complains that it’s one-sided?
+100
Yea that’s my only problem with these statements from both the family and the DA. Both parties refused to participate so really, the film makers only had access to one side.
Yes, let’s ask the victim’s family to participate in a one-sided documentary where the pain of losing their loved one can be filmed and later dissected by Netflix viewers who think they are armchair Sherlock Holmes. I’d jump up on that immediately. /sarcasm off
Exactly…
This.
Right?????? Come.On.
EXACTLY. Well said!
No. By definition, it wouldn’t have been one-sided had they participated. Where is the logic on this thread or the deductive reasoning?! I’m scared.
I dont think anybody knew how big this was going to be. They filmed for about 10 years, Im pretty sure they werent going to follow them around like with Averys family. A simple interview would suffice, her brother had no issues to give those to media outlets.
I still understand why they wouldnt want to cooperate, it does gives the image that its about the man they believed murdered her.
Yes. They didn’t want to re-live the pain I would think. They don’t get to have an opinion when someone else decides to tell the story? It’s their story too and they can decide to speak whenever they want. It’s not their duty to talk to filmmakers.
Of course not, but is you refuse to participate, you can’t complain that it doesn’t reflect your feelings.
Uh, yes you can. You can put out your side of the story at any time. It’s incredibly unfair to say to the VICTIM’s family “Here. We’re doing this. Eat sh*t or shut up forever.”
I don’t think anyone is telling them to eat shit. Just that they had the opportunity to participate, and choose not to. The fact that it’s one-sided is *partially* because of that choice. They’re absolutely allowed to say it’s one-sided and express how hard this is on them, but to make it seem like they weren’t given the opportunity to present their side at the same time is disingenuous.
Are you serious? Why should they be expected by the public to participate in a docudrama series that profits from their family member’s murder? Would you, were you in their position? I sure as hell would not- how much more pain should they be expected to endure?
Right?
Hey guys – can you jump on over and do some interviews for this interview where we’re trying to prove the innocence of the guy you’ve been told brutally attacked and murdered your sister/ex/daughter/whatever?
God almighty. The lack of critical thinking on this thread… I’m outtie.
‘Ta, Pinky.
They spoke to the news media at the time – fairly extensively – and many, many victims’ families do speak with media, especially media that seems intelligent and sensitive. The Averys could have been portrayed to look like complete trash – and judging by their rap sheets, may be – but you see the parents supporting their son, completely. The filmmakers don’t seem hostile. The family is well within their rights not to; I would have liked to have seen that doc with their involvement.
Good grief. It’s completely understandable why the family would not *want* to participate and relive their loss and the trial again. Living through it once was too much. By declining, though, they also cut off their opportunity to get their voice heard, or to balance what may (or may not) be a biased documentary where no one speaks for the victim.
Thank you. What was in it for the Halbachs? First of all, they’re already spending the rest of their lives with this as a constant, one that will rear its head especially around birthdays, holidays, whenever someone in the family is born/dies/gets married. Calendar dates have meanings they never did before – one year, two years, 15 years – every anniversary. And when you’ve got a missing family member, that time of year when they went missing and were found isn’t a date – it’s a season. Now, getting on to the idea of participating in a documentary in which they get to dredge up this stuff and answer deeply personal questions about it from strangers who are filming them. Sounds appealing, right? And then – this….Were they promised any sort of editorial oversight in how their portrayal might be framed (ala El Chapo)? Guessing not.
They’re victims as well, not just Teresa. No f*ing way should they traumatize themselves with appearing in a documentary trying to prove their daughters murderer is innocent.
This entire ordeal is a no win situation.
Law enforcement are corrupt.
A slain woman’s family has to relive the entire ordeal all over again.
A young man was railroaded by law enforcement while clearly lacking the cognitive ability to adequately defend himself.
As for Avery, I still don’t know….
What I do know is that reasonable doubt was there, the same jerks who framed him for that rape should have NEVER been allowed on the case, and the same judge….
I couldn’t even finish the documentary out of rage.
Comments online, everywhere, have shown me that God forbid you’re a crappy human being, people will simply wish you life imprisonment for existing—my father is a judge, he says prosecution will always look for the most simple minded or easily persuaded individual, from what I’ve read, this country has plenty.
YES. Unbelievable!
Unfathomable they put this stupid story on the cover and Rock GOD and Icon David Bowie in a little blurb at the top. WTF People magazine???
Thank you. Alan Rickman and David Bowie deserve to have more coverage.
If it,s already gone to print, how can Alan Rick an get any coverage in this issue?
I only watched the first episode so I don’t really have a full opinion, but even if he isn’t guilty, he’s still a shady person with an equally horrifying past – and extremely violent family – and I’m appalled that these two women are glorifying him in such a way. They could have literally picked anyone who was ‘falsely’ convicted without such a sketchy past in order to make their point. This documentary, although it’s done well, is soo disrespectful to the victim and her family and others who have lost family members in such a way. They’re downplaying her murder so much just to scream that he’s innocent. If anyone was screwed her, it was his less than average nephew. Good grief.
Same. 100% with you about everything.
Just to add to your comment, initially I wondered the same thing about why they chose Avery as their hero instead of the people featured in After Innocence, who were far more sympathetic and likable. I do think it was intentional on the part of the film makers to find someone as despicable as Steven Avery in order to reflect our inherent prejudices and biases.
For me, it backfired in the sense that I just didn’t care about the guy. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think our judicial system is problematic and prone to corruption, just that it was hard for me to get invested in the fate of such an awful person.
I agree with what you’re adding. I do think that there was some foul play on the police side and I do think the justice system failed him in a sense of an unfair trial, but i just think everything else about him is pretty awful and the way he treated others is despicable. Threatening to kill his wife repeatedly? Setting a cat on fire? Even if he was innocent he’s still so highly disturbed and dangerous.
Exactly. I find him repellant.
Know what would have been interesting too? If they hadn’t just focused on ONE guy. Use his case as an example, add another couple cases where there was awful proceedings where the person is a more sympathetic figure.
I’m telling you: watch After Innocence. It follows the cases of the wrongly convicted on death row. Keep a box of tissues nearby because it is horrifying.
Totally agree, Erinn. I think more people would be open to the idea of him being innocent/him in general if it wasn’t just so focused on him and how HE didn’t do anything and how HE was wronged and how HE was set up etc..
Theyre not glorifying him, you would know that if you watched the whole series.
As for minimizing her death, we dont really know how she died. It may have been a suicide for all we know (I dont really believe that)
I can’t get past the first episode. It’s too hard for me to stomach, considering his past. He’s such a sick and twisted person that even if he was innocent, he’s still be a horrible person.
Horrible person or not, he and his nephew still deserved a fair trial. And her family to know the truth, not be fed the prosecutors sweaty fantasies.
I don’t see anyone saying Avery should not have had a fair trial. No where do I read in anyone comments that state they find Avery despicable that he should not have had a fair trial.
I do not know if Avery is innocent or guilty but neither do you, Zaid.
I never said I knew if he was guilty, I keep going back and forth with every new thing I find, but a lot of people here keep saying they wouldnt mind him rotting in a cell because of his past behaviours instead of the reason hes there actually. And thats as dangerous as an unfair trial.
Look at the facts left out of the documentary, Zaid…
1. He killed a cat.
2. Repeatedly running naked in front of a deputy’s wife car
3. He was out on bail the night Penny Beerstein was attacking for ramming his car into a neighbor’s car with a pickup and holding her at gunpoint, threatening to rape her. 6 out of the 18 years he spent in prison was for this attempted rape, which he actually did.
4. His past of domestic violence- threatening to kill his wife, almost killing his fiance.
5. Lying at his girlfriends DUI trial
6. Brandon Dassey telling investigators that Avery had molested him and other family members on multiple occasions.
7. He threatened to burn down his girlfriend’s house.
And what a number of you are missing: Brandon Dassey’s confession was not used at Avery’s trial to convict him. The physical evidence collected against Avery was used against him…. this whole planting of blood by the cops against Avery is farfetched. Especially the cop leading the investigation into Halbach’s murder was not investing the Beerstein rape.
I would suggest all of you read Michael Griesbach, The Innocent Killer: A True Story of a Wrongful Conviction and its Astonishing Aftermath. Greisbach was actually instrumental in getting Avery freed of the wrongful conviction for the rape of Beerstein.
That has nothing to do with him having a fair trial. Nobody is saying his a saint, just to focus on this one crime and the ‘evidence’ presented.
Dassey’s confession wasnt used, but the prosecutor made sure to broadcast it before the trials, contaminating the jury. It was hard find unbiased juries, and even some were related to people working on the county or so.
I dont know about the blood, there were no fingerprints, they claimed he used gloves, but that his hand was bleeding.. How the blood got there.
Its also suspicious Manitowoc county found the damn keys and the bullet(?) After thousands of searches when theybwerent suppoused to be there in the first place for conflict of interests.
Honestly, idk if he did it, if he did I hope they manage to know how because what the prosecution said is bs.
PS: sorry if my grammar is terrible, English is not my first language.
@Tammy
Your points 1-4 were all covered in the documentary
Yet, he deserves a fair trial. You do not convict someone for past crimes or for being an overall shitty human being, you convict someone for a specific crime based on the evidences, legally obtained, in front of you. The justice system should work the same for every one, even assholes. I think it’s actually a good thing to have used this person as an example of unfair trials. People obviously need to be reminded that a the system needs to work for everybody equally.
Dani,
Since you only watched a single episode, you’re missing the point. The series is about the justice system and the pretense of equal protection in the eyes of the law. It’s not about making us care about the guy. Or the victim, as a matter of fact. For all intents and purposes, I wouldn’t want to deal with him in real life. I’m law abiding, educated, and community oriented; unlike Avery, I smell clean. But he has the same rights as me. He was a marginal, barely functioning in school, and given to unbalanced acts. Guess what? So are the majority of Project Innocence clients. According to a veteran lawyer working with them, they’re shady as hell and/or really dumb. Let’s not wait for the perfect, angelic, likable wrongfully convicted dude to shed light on the enormous power of local authorities AND the bias of communities against marginals (of which I saw signs in your comment).
Sorry for the rant, back to my point that you should see the rest of the series.
Preach. I’m so encouraged to see more comments like this. Thank you. People are entirely missing the point of the documentary. Most of them are finally admitting that they didn’t watch it. Most of them, in this thread or the last, showed their bias in the beginning over the cat incident, which really proves they still aren’t understanding the legal system, the reason for the documentary, or the due outrage over the case. Proving him as innocent is not the burden of a documentary film maker. Proving him GUILTY is the burden of the state. They did not do that. And it’s very likely they tampered with evidence. THAT IS THE POINT IN ITS ENTIRETY. Full stop.
I feel for her family (even though I suspect something about the brother and ex-boyfriend) but that does not mean that we should just allow the State to railroad two people. There is a standard and the State did not adhere to it or attempt to meet it. The family should be pissed at the State for f*cking this case up so badly that the public has a right to be outraged.
Also, regarding *some* of the things that were “left out”—they were left out b/c even the Court agreed that it was inflammatory and not relevant. The series would have been doing a poor job of showing the criminal justice system if it included information that was NOT presented to the jury.
Her family is an inconvenient truth for a lot of Making A Murderer viewers. First because it gives the word “murder” meaning. But more importantly because it reminds them that a lot of people had a legitimate interest in finding the true killers and on the balance of fact they settled on Avery. By the documentarians logic, every single person within the system from simple clerks to the jury are either stupid or in on it. Here’s the family saying that there are things that you the viewer didnt see, things that swayed even us, her family. But people will find a way to rationalise this away too.
Have you ever had to live through the murder of a loved one – your child, sister? I would venture that the trauma and emotional upheaval of that loss, in those circumstances, would likely lead to you accept whatever conclusion the police offered just for some closure. After all, the only thing more horrendous than murder is the thought that the police didn’t investigate properly, that you don’t actually know what happened to your sister, your daughter, and that the murderer is still out there.
The Halbachs’ acceptance that Avery was guilty is in no way a definitive ruling, and it doesn’t mean they saw ‘things that swayed even [them]’ that were kept out of court or the documentary. Most likely, it means they just needed closure from a very painful situation and leapt at the first sense of it that was offered by the police.
The rationalisation to which I referred ^^^. As it happens my family has had loved ones taken from us. My mothers eldest brother was shot dead in 1987, his killer is still at large. She lost another brother in prison attack and her family disputed the attempt to pin it on an inmate who was already serving a lengthy sentence without possibility of parole. His killer was eventually identified but my mum and her family had to fight for that. So no, losing loved ones doesnt turn your brain into a revenge driven mush. If anything, you want to be certain that whoever did it faces justice. When even members of the extended family (not just grief striken parents) are saying they believe who did it, you should listen.
@Naya, I am so sorry your mother and family endured such terrible tragedies and that the killer remains at large for your mom’s eldest brother.. that is not easy at all for a family to go through.
I happen to agree that the family of Teresa Halbach is an inconvenient truth for viewers of Making a Murder. You see it by the posts on here to the family stating there were things you did not see. His ex-fiance made a statement yesterday that the documentary was heavily slanted towards Avery and yet, you have so many people on here being armchair lawyers, police officers and judges. The justice system is flawed, it’s made up of people and they come to their job with prejudices and a certain mind set. I cannot get past the evidence and it points to Avery. Just because he spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit does not mean he’s innocent. Sometimes an investigation focuses on a suspect because… that person actually did it.
+1 Naya.
@Rachel-OR the family actually truly believes that Avery is guilty?
To jump to the conclusion that they blindly trusted everything the police told them because they were so desperate for closure is a bit unfair, don’t you think?
This is exactly the problem I have with this documentary and for people asking why the family didn’t want to participate, I think you have your answer right here. A lot of people have their minds made up and are unwilling to consider all potential scenarios. To me, the best documentaries present more questions than answers.
“The family did it”, going by the comments above. The brother did it then got the police, the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and everybody in between to cover for him. Just…lovely!
I think they went with what the prosecutors said without arguing. The brother said Dassey lied on the stand, yet when he was asked if he watched Dasseys confession he said no.
AGAIN: belief that someone is guilty or innocent does not make it so. Two members of the family have now stated that they feel Avery is guilty, in part, because he would not take the stand in his own defense. That means, quite literally, nothing in a case. Talk about people deciding ahead of time what they think before considering the facts of the case! The brother repeatedly, and in front of the media, accused people of lying on the stand because they didn’t admit to the story he had already decided was true in his mind. What is the point of a criminal case if the family already “knows” who the killer is (thanks to the cops/prosecution polluting the public and the scene of the crime)? Mind boggling.
@Careygloss…know what’s mind boggling…ignoring the fact the documentary left out key things about Avery that if people watching had known would have a different view.
I honestly had never heard of this case until very recently. I hate documentaries, because they are NOTHING but propaganda tools. People watch them thinking to get educated and never consider where the information is coming from. Creating entertainment based on murder is voyeurism at it’s worst.
Wait, it’s documentaries fault that people don’t think for themselves or think critically?
Propaganda tools? Propaganda only works when information and knowledge is controlled and people are not allowed to think for themselves.
This documentary has ignited an important discussion about criminal justice. How is that voyeurism? The events in the documentary happened to real people and it seems important that a version is told, even if it has to be a biased one.
I think the problem is that the series was meant to show the problems with the series (which even if you think he’s guilty as hell, you have to see how there were massive problems with the way the system worked). The issue is that people focused (understandably so) on the immediate case instead of the system itself.
We need a “documentary” that investigates these new type of “documentary making”. But then that will probably just trigger sheeple hysteria in the other direction.
I’m a terrible person, but I’m always leary/skeptical when the victim’s family gets involved in the criminal justice process. Unless they were witnesses to the crime or can provide key pieces of evidences, they just seem like emotionally manipulative pawns of the prosecution. So while my heart goes out to her family, when it comes to abuses in the legal system, they’re not my primary concern. Justice cannot come at the expense of a fair trial.
I’ve gone through loss. A close family member was gunned down in his home and because he wasn’t discovered until a week later, the funeral was closed casket. As to his killer, the prosecution said it was one guy and that was it. We didn’t question it or the process. We just wanted him to be punished.
I’m very sorry.
I’m a true crime junkie and loved this show. I am not convinced of Avery’s guilt in this case, I would need to see more from both sides to reach a conclusion. I do think Avery is a total creep and immoral human, but that alone doesn’t prove he’s guilty of this crime. I do think a lot of shady things went down during this investigation and those should be addressed.
Someone here said that shows like this paraded victims around like entertainment. For someone like me who is obsessed with true crime I disagree… It’s not the crime but the psychology behind it that I find fascinating, and the psychology behind investigators and their gut feelings in cases. For me it really comes down to discerning what makes a person tick. And any system that is used every day deserves to have a spotlight on it and to fall under scrutiny now and again to ensure its working
I’m very conflicted on this subject, because I have always been a true crime junkie too. But when the murder of someone who was a friend of several of my friends was covered on one of these show, I saw how it affected them and it wasn’t good. Every few years, they repeat that episode and it’s like ripping open a wound for everyone who knew her. I can’t imagine if it was a program like this or Serial, where the same case is focused on for episode after episode and it’s all anyone talks about for months like they know the people involved. Sometimes it’s hard to remember that these are real people and not just stories.
One of the brothers and her ex boyfriend seemed sketchy to me. Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped in Northern Minnesota nearing thirty years ago now and it’s only been recently that his mother has begun to use the past tense for her son. Teresa was missing just a few days when her brother, in an interview, said he was grieving for her.
And checking and deleting her voicemails when she was missing? Without telling anyone? What the heck is that?
And who was harassing her via phone?
I keep coming back to that as well. I’m not sure I would go so far as to say it means they were guilty of the crime, but it definitely provides other suspects who were never even questioned, thus further showing how the system did not work as it should have. I’m not sure what motive anyone had for hurting this woman, but their behavior was suspect enough that it seemed like there was something going on they didn’t want the police to know about because it would have made them suspects.
I don’t say they’re guilty, just that there’s room for some questions there. I wonder if the police knew she was dead and told the family. Or maybe he didn’t mean “grieving” as in a loss, but to say something else. Checking the voicemail, however? Isn’t that tampering with evidence?
Right, it wasn’t the guy who recently bought leg shackles and indisputably lured her to his property (by blocking his phone number/using a different name) after behaving lewdly to her in the past. It was her brother! Right!!
The mental gymnastics are amazing.
You solved the case! Good! Now I have more time for mental gymnastics!
@betsy thinking their “sketchy” isn’t enough evidence either. Sketchy doesn’t equal guilt.
Unless that information was ruled irrelevant when it was actually very important. The jury should know that Theresa was fearful of Avery. The jury should know that the dna found on the key was sweat, not blood. The jury should know that Avery purchased shackles 2 weeks prior to the crime being committed. It suggests premeditation.
No DNA in sweat. No evidence of shackles being used on the victim. Anything else?
Sweat can contain shed skin cells and the like. DNA can be extracted.
There was none of her DNA on her key fob. How is that possible? Or likely?
one of my friends is actually a forensic scientist and she said that her dna wouldn’t necessarily be on the fob. i was surprised too.
i’m a lawyer and she’s a forensic scientist and this series has been really enjoyable to discuss based on how we both view the case.
I’m a lawyer with experience in criminal law and have advanced degrees in science. It is totally possible for her DNA not to be on the keyfob.
If this keyfob was planted, as the conspiracy narrative go, why didn’t those framing the defendant be sure to get the victim’s DNA on there? After all, they supposedly planted her DNA on the bullet from the defendant’s gun, right? If they were running around with her DNA and his DNA, they sure did a crap job of framing him.
It must be awful for the families but that only shows how much of a disservice police and prosecutors do to the families when they take shortcuts and pull shady tricks. If Steven Avery is guilty they’re partially responsible for him getting all this attention by coercing witnesses and the like. No one would be interested in a by the books case if it was handled properly.
I only watched up to the second episode of this show but I went down the wormhole with Serial and listened to Undisclosed and Serial Dynasty (which became Truth and Justice podcast) and the information that came out in those shows makes it clear that the police did the most awful and sloppy job ever, and the prosecution was so corrupt, and his defense attorney was eventually disbarred due to incompetence just a true clusterf**k. Anyway Adnan Syed will probably be released because of Brady violations by the prosecution.
“shows how much of a disservice police and prosecutors do to the families when they take shortcuts and pull shady tricks”
I agree 100!
…Are you a “Magnet”? 😉 Are you excited for Adnan’s hearing in early February? I am so curious what Waranowitz and Asia will say in their testimony!
There’s a DM article out with comments by his former fiance, who said that he physically abused her and she had to eat two boxes of rat poison so that she could go to the hospital just to escape him. And then from there, she called the cops.
But the thing is, it’s not the perfectly upstanding citizen who gets wrongly accused and found guilty. Most times it is people who are poor, who have backgrounds that include brushes with the law. Those are the people who are assumed guilty and railroaded. They can’t afford a good lawyer, everyone already thinks they are guilty before a jury is even picked. Who knows if Steven Avery is guilty or not, but they sure as hell proved the system is absolutely broken.
Exactly
Thank you for saying this. It is often minorities, poor people, people who were in the system for other crimes, people who associate with the “wrong” people (in this case Dassey via his association with his family) who end up in this position. It doesn’t diminish the importance of exposing the rampant issues in our criminal justice system.
Avery was blessed to have two very hard working, intelligent lawyers (true heroes of the movie btw based on their dedication to the system) who managed to initially convince so many people on the jury that reasonable doubt existed. Too bad the jury had other issues like people who went in there already convinced by a story the prosecutor told on television; a story they didn’t even present in court because they never made Dassey a witness, knowing he was unreliable. Dassey did not have any advantage.
I don’t know who is guilty here but this documentary is important if only it reminds people that our legal system is broken in many ways.
His attorneys, like any attorneys, are not dedicated to the system working properly (well of course many are dedicated to that, but it’s not their only interest). They’re dedicated to providing the best defense for their client and creating doubt as to his guilt.
I don’t believe his family was poor – look at the amount of property they owned for their business . They might have LOOKED poor, but I think the parents had some bucks. Who paid for those lawyers?
he settled his claim against the county for I think about $300k (he was suing for $36 million) after he was arrested for this crime b/c he needed a lawyer. So he paid for the lawyer.
I noticed that several people are commenting on the documentary without even having watched the entire series. Shouldn’t one watch the thing before speaking with such authority on it? You can’t watch 1/10 of it and know its tone and purpose.
Again, if your ONE source of information for this case is one filmmaker’s singular vision, then that’s more of a problem than you think. I have read a LOT about this case since they started posting about it here, from different sides of the coin, from different sources so that I can have a comprehensive view of things. Just because I haven’t seen one person’s interpretation of what happened in its entirety doesn’t mean that myself or others in my position are any less knowledgeable about the subject–nor are we any less entitled to an opinion.
Why would you assume that everyone who is speaking has no other sources, but this film? There’s been so much in the media since then. It’s very easy to find the articles about the evidence the documentary didn’t cover. You say you want a comprehensive view, but ignore one very key source.
I don’t even think Steven Avery is necessarily innocent. I’m just saying the documentary is a very big source of information. Most interesting is the footage from trial. If one was truly interested in information, I’d think that they’d want to watch that.
If you haven’t seen the documentary, it means you are less well informed about the documentary.
I didn’t assume that? I simply pointed out that the insinuation that people need to watch the movie first to have an informed opinion is a bit ridiculous. If that wasn’t what you were insinuating, then I apologize but that’s how I interpreted your comment.
Anyway, point taken about the courtroom footage.
@Betsy-Yeah I’m less informed about the documentary, sure, but I’m not less informed about the case and that’s what we’re primarily discussing.
I don’t think anyone needs to watch the documentary to have an informed opinion about the case, but they do need to watch the documentary if they are going to spout off about how one-sided and biased the filmmakers are. I’m perfectly OK with people not liking Avery and thinking he is guilty — I watched all 10 hours and I still don’t like Avery — but this documentary is not a campaign to turn him into a saint. A lot of the unsavory issues about Avery’ s past are actually in the documentary like cat killing, making threats to his ex-wife etc.
I think this is an important and thoughtful piece of filmmaking about the complete breakdown of our criminal justice system that most on this thread are just completely missing because Avery turns them off. This documentary didn’t convince me that Avery is 100 percent innocent of Teresa Halbach’ s murder, but it sure as hell did convince me that our criminal justice system needs major reform and that every American citizen should be gravely concerned. BTW, the people who are turning this into a whodunit are also way off base.
It is so disturbing that people see this as justice served because Steve Avery is not a good person. That same system that put away an “evil” man like Avery also put away a “good” boy like Brendan Dassey. That same system let Gregory Allen free to continue his raping spree while Avery rotted in jail for 18 years. It is shocking how many people think the concept of “karma” is a good way to run a justice system.
I am horrified by people who have not watched MaM yet think their opinion is valid. They criticize others of only listening to one side of the story. News flash! A lot of people have read deeper into the situation and looked into the “critical pro-prosecution evidence” left out of the documentary. After everything I’ve read, I’m actually even more convinced now that Avery and Dassey were not given a fair trial. It annoys the crap out of me that people are still parading around evidence that has been disproven (e.g. the arm and leg chains were shitty Spencers-type cuffs that could be easily removed; Teresa was grossed out by Avery once coming to the door in only a towel, but she never said she was scared of him).
I completely understand why the Halbachs didnt’ participate in MaM. I also understand why they would want someone – anyone – to be punished for Teresa’s murder. It in no way justifies what the system did to Avery and (to a much larger extent) Dassey.
Great comment
Yes
As usual the victim and family are pushed to the side. My heart goes out to the family and hope they can recover from this and get justice.
I agree. And it’s an eye-roller, the comments criticizing her family for NOT wanting to relive the ordeal of watching their beloved family member get horribly murdered and hear all the gory details AGAIN, especially when they believe the person found guilty was indeed guilty. Are you kidding me?
Also funny to read people saying “I think the brother or her boyfriend or one of Steven’s relatives did it” when they want to believe the man who *67 called her, whose bullet was found in her, whose property she was found on in two different barrels, who has been violent with women before, who BURNED a cat alive (remarkably similar coincidence to Teresa H. being burned), is innocent as a lamb.
i don’t think people are criticizing them for not participating but for coming out now and saying it’s one sided (same with the prosecution). both the family and the prosecution were offered a chance to give their input and they refused. that’s fine but it’s disingenuous to act as if they weren’t given the opportunity to provide their position/side of the story or as if they did give their position/side of the story and the film makers left it out.
“Also funny to read people saying “I think the brother or her boyfriend or one of Steven’s relatives did it” when they want to believe the man who *67 called her, whose bullet was found in her, whose property she was found on in two different barrels, who has been violent with women before, who BURNED a cat alive (remarkably similar coincidence to Teresa H. being burned), is innocent as a lamb.”
jc126, I am with you on that.
I feel terrible for Teresa and her family. I think Avery is right where he needs to be. And really there is no legal basis for him every getting out.
I finally figured out what this documentary reminds me of – another documentary I saw called Murder in the Park, about a guy supposedly wrongfully convicted while the “guilty” person goes free; the first guy’s last name was Porter. The effort to free him was led by a professor at a university who was on an anti death penalty crusade.
It also reminds me of other past cases where there’s a movement to free allegedly innocent people; such as Jeffrey MacDonald (that case has faded from attention, but there was a push to get him a new trial and that he was railroaded) or Darlie Routier; there are other well-known ones. When you watch them or one of their advocates, it’s SO easy to believe they’re telling the truth.
Lastly, watching the documentary reminds me of the Paradise Lost trilogy (and I do believe THOSE men were innocent). If you watched the first part, you’d be looking at one of the kids’ stepfather as the likely culprit, but it turns out quite different and in fact he is one of the people who believe the WM3 are innocent. But it’s a reminder that even in a supposedly neutral documentary, the filmmakers are human and do slant things unintentionally or not. At least they had the integrity to acknowledge their mistakes.
I have not watched this documentary but I am curious about this presumption that there is something wrong in a filmmaker having a point of view, and especially having the point of view that the person convicted of a crime may, in fact, be not guilty.
Our system of justice – as we have seen over and over again – is not perfect. Mistakes are often made, and people pay the price for them. The people who pay the price for those mistakes are often the individuals who are least able to defend themselves. As such, I have no problem with documentary filmmakers looking at the flaws in our system and drawing conclusions about it.
As I said, I haven’t seen the series, so I have no opinion on this specific case. But just because the filmmakers seem to have a different opinion than the victim’s family doesn’t make them wrong, either factually or ethically.
I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments. I haven’t watched this series, I got emotionally invested in Adnan’s case and I’m not keen to do it again right now.
But I do agree that even if you are the lowest form of scum, you deserve a fair trial. Corrupt police and District Attorneys are not doing the victims or society a service by opening the conviction up for appeal.
On of my favorite law shows (BBC’s Silk) said: the Prosecutor doesn’t win or lose the case, she only presents the facts.
If the police and DA are doing their job, the conviction will come.
600+ hours of courtroom testimony/evidence /admission condensed to 10 hours.
I not really understanding how people feel that the victims family is being ignored? They were asked to participate in the documentary. It took place over 10 years. At any time, they could have put their voice to it somehow. Many crime victims have done so with participation in docs, TV shows, books and the like. But they have chosen to not put out statements or have a rep for the family, I respect that choice, but please don’t say that you haven’t had a chance.
I cannot imagine the pain the family faces. Honestly, if it were me, my biggest pain would be coming from not knowing the truth. They really don’t even have a solid link that she is dead (bones were inconclusive, teeth are questionable, only some blood in her SUV). And then to see the only statement come from Brendan (which seems coerced and inconsistent), much less not having anything to back up his version….you just don’t have any answers. I would want answers. I mean, for all we know, she bonked her head in her SUV and is walking around with amnesia. Long shot, but we seriously just don’t know. And, for that, my heart breaks for the family.
But I also think any decent person would not want an innocent individual locked up. Imagine how horrible the rape accuser must have felt when the case was opened again? Him killing a cat, however horrible that is, does not justify life in prison or ignoring his claims of innocence. The family should address their anger at the sheriffs department for botching things so much that there are so many loopholes to cause outrage. All this doc did was publicize those errors (I personally haven’t read/heard anything else from either side to sway my opinions formed just from the doc). I’m not sure if Avery is guilty and many things make it seem that he isn’t a high-caliber individual, but he has done his time for past crimes and deserves a fair trial.
“But I also think any decent person would not want an innocent individual locked up.”
Maybe the family truly believes that Avery is guilty of the crime and would support the DA/investigators regardless of how they went about getting a conviction?
Not saying that’s how they feel, just pointing out that it’s a possibility. I can’t imagine how I would feel if I was in their shoes…Ideally, I would hope that I’d want law enforcement and the DA to do things the right way but who knows? I hope I never have to find out, that’s for damn sure.
I get what you’re saying. They may very well kinda have their blinders on and just think “the cops said he did it, the nephew said they did it, a jury convicted him. Case closed, let’s try to move on with our lives.” That may even be supported by their own personal, negative views of the family. Many people still believe that if the police declare it, it must be true (and there was a lot of unsubstantiated info declared by the police and media….it would be hard to not be swayed). But this whole thing may be made even more difficult for them by bringing to light the discrepancies in the case and the fear of “what if?” What if he did it and gets away with it because of shoddy police work? What if he didn’t do it and the killer is still out there? What if in our quest for justice, we were blind and convicted the wrong man? Again, so many questions that they may never get answered. There are so many lapses in a fair trial, I have difficulty believing that they don’t see that even a little bit. I don’t doubt that they do not want to relieve it again….I wouldn’t. But it would be so hard to not want fairness (for me, anyway). But, as we have seen, some people may believe that the sentence is fair for past wrongs.
“Many people still believe that if the police declare it, it must be true”
Ain’t that the damn truth? Same goes for our government and other authoritarian institutions.
Anyway, your comment is great (if depressing) and gives food for thought.
I can understand Theresa’s family not wanting to participate in the series. But if they had, would the documentary have been so skewed in Avery’s favor?
teresa was the actual victim here and there still isn’t justice for her. the whole investigation was just a complete joke and now if steven avery did it or not there will always be doubt due to the way the police handled it. i think a whole new investigation needs to be launched because someone killed her and her family needs closure.
How do you “lure” someone out to the salvage yard at the edge of town, where you’d done business before? I know multiple people live on that compound, but seriously, it’s on Avery Lane.
Also, what is that video of her they showed in court? It struck me as really weird to be talking about how she’d like “to be remembered”.
The jury was clearly contaminated by the coerced confession, considering how often the prosecutor told the story to the media.