MAKING A MURDERER | Season 2 on October 19th!

Was Steven Avery set up to take the fall?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 87.5%

  • No

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Total voters
    8
Show All
robotea said:
 
I'm a big fan of dateline, but this is like dateline on roids. I'm surprised they got all this footage released.

Brendon's first lawyer was just a clown.
Click to expand...
He was def a latent homosexual, not that there's anything wrong with that
 
Last edited:
My theory: Whoever originally filmed this Doc perpetrated this whole fiasco. Filmed everything, did all the interviews, framed dude...........then sold the rights and the footage to the highest bidder (Netflix) for hundreds of millions.

View media item 1856349
 
While i believe dude is innocent, i feel he is paying for something he got away with. Steven was no angel.

Holbachs death is very suspect to point i question if shes really dead.
 
thenewjs23 said:
While i believe dude is innocent, i feel he is paying for something he got away with. Steven was no angel.

Holbachs death is very suspect to point i question if shes really dead.
Click to expand...

Yea, I even thought about that. Didn't catch whether or not that did a DNA test on the bones though.
 
Last edited:
FilthyJiujitsu said:
http://www.snappytv.com/tc/1195261/482197

"A big announcement from the filmmakers behind #makingamurderer"
Click to expand...


Bennyhinn said:
Safety my ***. These jurors didn't have a backbone and just wanted to go home to catch up on Lost.

7 of them initially voted not guilty

This is just a guilt trip for not having any common sense the 1st time :smh:
Click to expand...


I wouldnt doubt that they didnt feel safe. At least 2 people on the jury had direct ties to the police or judicial system right? Im sure at some point they felt threatened or thought it could be them next if they didnt agree.

No one knows for sure but its odd that it was allowed for those 2 to participate. Thought they were supposed to weed out people with "conflicts of interest" (or w/e term.u wanna use) on jury panels
 
Someone had balls to tamper with evidence. Pretty sure that type of person wouldn't hesitate to pressure average small town folk into a guilty verdict.
 
Mark Antony said:
I wouldn't doubt they were scared, especially watching that corruption first hand.
Click to expand...

Word up, and w/ it being an area where everybody knowing everybody it's definitely plausible. Even w/o the fear of the county sheriff, the fear of the stubborn jurors who believed he was guilty. The one juror who was dismissed said that some people in there initially thought he was innocent, but then the stubborn ones influenced by the weaker ones wanting to appease them so they sided w/ them.

I'm certain there was somebody in that jury room who was willing to lick the boots of the sheriff's dept if Avery got off but snitching on whoever voted "not guilty"
 
Based on the footage shown in the documentary Steven should not have been convicted, regardless of whether he did it or not.

Watching the documentary, I thought Teresa's ex-boyfriend was a little suspicious. The way he described getting access to Teresa's voicemails through her Cingular account seemed off to me.

I also thought Bobby Dassy and Scott Tadych were rather suspicious too. Their conduct and the inconsistencies in their testimonies were very suspicious to me, more so than the ex-boyfriend.

They also alibi'd eachother if I recall correctly so my current theory is that they did it. I also recall the documentary mentioning Scott trying to sell off a .22 rifle (believed to be the caliber of the murder weapon) shortly after the murder but he denied this in court.

Given some of the things I've read now I can't say with 100% certainty that I believe Steve is innocent but I've also read some things pointing at Bobby/Scott.

Something interesting I read today:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/05/media/making-a-murderer-netflix-juror/index.html

"Demos said the juror told them that "they were afraid if they held out for a mistrial -- that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and they were fearful for their own safety."
 
Last edited:
Yup....sites are starting to bring it to light more

http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertain...er-juror-says-avery-not-guilty-364234661.html
The creators of the popular Netflix documentary series "Making a Murderer" said that a juror from Steven Avery's trial reached out to them with an important revelation.

The two filmmakers, Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, said on NBC's "Today" Tuesday that the juror believes Avery, who was convicted of murdering a 25-year-old woman in 2005, was not proven guilty in his trial. The juror, who voted to convict Avery, only did so out of fear for his/her personal safety, Demos said.


"(The juror believed) Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin," Ricciardi said.

"Making a Murderer" depicts the story of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man who was imprisoned for 18 years and later exonerated for sexual assault. Avery went on to sue Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, officials for $36 million. Soon after county officials were deposed in that lawsuit, Avery was accused of murder in the killing of Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer.


Avery ultimately was convicted of murder and of illegally possessing a firearm, but was found not guilty of mutilating a corpse.

The series was filmed over 10 years by Ricciardi and Demos, two Columbia film school graduates, and has garnered powerful reactions from viewers.

The juror who contacted the documentary's filmmakers also said that the verdict reached in Avery's trial was a "compromise."

"The juror contacted us directly ... and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said. 

The juror told the filmmakers that they hoped a split verdict would send a message to the appellate courts to give Avery a new trial.

"That was sort of their plan but obviously it didn’t work out that way," Ricciardi said.

“This juror said that they have been open about what they told us and that if someone were to ask they would admit to being a source,” Ricciardi said.

The two filmmakers have not yet contacted other jurors to independently verify this revelation, they said. NBC News has not independently verified this claim with any jurors.

A Change.org petition  requesting pardons for Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey, who was also convicted in Halbach's murder, has over 200,000 signatures. A petition on Whitehouse.gov  received more than 58,000. Should the White House petition receive 100,000 signatures by January 16, the White House has to respond publicly.

The prosecutor in Avery's case, Ken Kratz, has said that the documentary left out important evidence, and told The New York Times  that the filmmakers had an "agenda" to stoke public outrage.

Demos and Ricciardi have denied the accusation and told "Today" they were pleased with the reaction to their show.

“We made this series to start a dialogue and the fact that so many people are talking is just thrilling,” Demos said. She hopes the dialogue will encourage those with information to come forward.
 
Last edited:
WrightOne86 said:
Yup....sites are starting to bring it to light more

http://www.nbcchicago.com/entertain...er-juror-says-avery-not-guilty-364234661.html

The creators of the popular Netflix documentary series "Making a Murderer" said that a juror from Steven Avery's trial reached out to them with an important revelation.



The two filmmakers, Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos, said on NBC's "Today" Tuesday that the juror believes Avery, who was convicted of murdering a 25-year-old woman in 2005, was not proven guilty in his trial. The juror, who voted to convict Avery, only did so out of fear for his/her personal safety, Demos said.






"(The juror believed) Steven was framed by law enforcement and that he deserves a new trial, and if he receives a new trial, in their opinion it should take place far away from Wisconsin," Ricciardi said.



"Making a Murderer" depicts the story of Steven Avery, a Wisconsin man who was imprisoned for 18 years and later exonerated for sexual assault. Avery went on to sue Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, officials for $36 million. Soon after county officials were deposed in that lawsuit, Avery was accused of murder in the killing of Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer.






Avery ultimately was convicted of murder and of illegally possessing a firearm, but was found not guilty of mutilating a corpse.



The series was filmed over 10 years by Ricciardi and Demos, two Columbia film school graduates, and has garnered powerful reactions from viewers.



The juror who contacted the documentary's filmmakers also said that the verdict reached in Avery's trial was a "compromise."



"The juror contacted us directly ... and went on to describe the jurors ultimately trading votes in the jury room and explicitly discussing, 'If you vote guilty on this count, I will vote not guilty on this count,'" Ricciardi said. 



The juror told the filmmakers that they hoped a split verdict would send a message to the appellate courts to give Avery a new trial.



"That was sort of their plan but obviously it didn’t work out that way," Ricciardi said.



“This juror said that they have been open about what they told us and that if someone were to ask they would admit to being a source,” Ricciardi said.



The two filmmakers have not yet contacted other jurors to independently verify this revelation, they said. NBC News has not independently verified this claim with any jurors.



A Change.org petition
 requesting pardons for Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey, who was also convicted in Halbach's murder, has over 200,000 signatures. A petition on Whitehouse.gov
 received more than 58,000. Should the White House petition receive 100,000 signatures by January 16, the White House has to respond publicly.



The prosecutor in Avery's case, Ken Kratz, has said that the documentary left out important evidence, and told The New York Times
 that the filmmakers had an "agenda" to stoke public outrage.



Demos and Ricciardi have denied the accusation and told "Today" they were pleased with the reaction to their show.



“We made this series to start a dialogue and the fact that so many people are talking is just thrilling,” Demos said. She hopes the dialogue will encourage those with information to come forward.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah so i also wondered how they convicted Brendan on all 3 counts :x and SA got the 1
 
Saw this on reddit about Scott Tardych:

Scott also has an extensive history of stalking and violence including punching the 11 year old son of an ex-girlfriend in addition to multiple attacks against her (she then got a restraining order against him), as well as assaulting his own mother over some misplaced fishing gear. Also, one of his co-workers reported that he tried to sell them a .22 caliber rifle (the type of weapon believed to be the murder weapon), and another co-worker stated that he left work on the day Steven Avery was arrested, and was "a nervous wreck". While we're on the subject of Scott's co-workers, they have variously described him as a short tempered and angry person they believe is capable of murder. Some of the specific phrases used are "psycho", he "screams a lot", and describing him as someone who would "fly off the handle at everyone at work" who was "not hooked up right".

Sources:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery document page 23 +.pdf

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wkow/newsdocs/avery documents 1-22.pdf
 
Colombia said:
 
Based on the footage shown in the documentary Steven should not have been convicted, regardless of whether he did it or not.
Click to expand...
My feelings on the matter after watching in full. As an attorney watching this was almost comical. A pure example of the system being manipulated for a desired result. The prosecution failed to get anywhere near fulfilling their burden of proving that Avery committed that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. There was an overwhelming amount of reasonable doubt all well reasoned by the defense. More than the OJ case lol. Avery's attorney's were fantastic.
 
Last edited:
RavageBX said:
 
My feelings on the matter after watching in full. As an attorney watching this was almost comical. A pure example of the system being manipulated for a desired result. The prosecution to get anywhere near fulfilling their burden of proving that Avery committed that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. There was an overwhelming amount of reasonable doubt all well reasoned by the defense. More than the OJ case lol. Avery's attorney's were fantastic.
Click to expand...
Kratz mentioned being annoyed and felt he "needed to swim upstream" in this case. 
mean.gif


Pretty sure that's kind of the point of being a prosecutor, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, not the other way around.
 
Has it been confirmed that some jurors had connections to the police department and the judge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom