Making a Murderer


That is damning, his calling her and asking for her repeatedly. Though, is it actually true or just another lie fabricated by the Manitowoc? Remember the DA gave a very compelling description and narrative of what they did to her, which was pretty much disproven in court. No blood in the room, no wait it was in the garage…no blood there either. Never mind…lets talk about keys, cars, blood and a bullet…ahem all items that come from a tainted source.

I’m not saying for sure he’s innocent. However, with all the other shenanigans Manitowoc Law and Order pulled, I wouldn’t put it above them to fabricate this as well, or at least greatly embellish. I would love to read an article where her boss actually says that, rather than all coming from a tainted source.


That is a valid point. As I said, I do believe the county did do some pretty underhanded things, so it’s entirely possible that those claims are pure fabrication on the county’s part. However, I do wish they’d included them in the documentary, along with the claims he’d called her repeatedly on the day she was supposedly murdered, while using *67 to block his caller ID.


I agree with that, and think it’d be interesting to see if he regularly used *67 or just on this occasion. If he was a paranoid nutjob (which is appears he might have been), using *67 pretty much every time you pick up the phone to call someone other than your family/girlfriend might make sense.

It just seems to me that while a lot of info may have been left out of the documentary, what was included gets me pretty close to or past the threshold of “reasonable doubt.”


Is it really damning evidence that he requested she come out to do the pictures? She has been the one to come out before and take the pictures for previous listings. If he is used to dealing with her he might just prefer to have her come out as opposed to someone new. Even if it is just because he finds her attractive, asking for the pretty photographer to come out and take the pictures versus someone else from Auto Trader does not make you a murderer.


Combine that with alleged conversations between Theresa and her boss that Avery “creeped her out” because he answered the door in only a bath towel, and the claims he used a false name and blocked his caller ID when calling her cell phone though, and it does add an ominous tone to the whole thing. As I said, I don’t know whether or not these things are true, but I would’ve thought they were significant enough to be included in the documentary as they were brought up during the trial on more than one occasion.


This is what the defense had to say about the towel incident as well as her being “creeped” out.

“The argument that … she didn’t want to go back to the Avery property was in fact blown up by two Auto Trader witnesses who did testify at trial. So this is a really good example of less significant prosecution evidence omitted and defense evidence omitted. The Auto Trader witnesses said [Halbach’s] reaction when [Avery] came from his little splash pool in a towel was ‘ew,’ but not that she was unwilling to go back there.”


That’s fine, but again, it does seem like something that’s large enough that it should have merited at least a mention. Including it would not have played into the narrative that I think the film makers were going for though. And that’s really my only issue with the series. It does have a narrative that seems to heavily favor the defense through the use of some (in my opinion) decidedly manipulative ways.

I think it’s great entertainment, and a fantastic look at the failings of the justice system (or more appropriately, the people who control the justice system in some areas) in many ways. But I also think it’s wrong to be sure of a man’s innocence based solely on this series.


Interesting. That kind of reminds me of the allegations (related to Petraeus’ affair) where the socialite lady down in Tampa was accused of having an improper relationship with some officer because he sent her a topless picture of himself. Of course, once you saw the picture, you realized there was nothing sexual about it, and it was a dumb joke, the sort of thing you might put on a holiday card.

The way these things get twisted in our own heads probably says more about us than it does about the actual incidents (although, frankly, Avery in a towel would elicit an “ew!” from me, too).


See I don’t think it’s large enough that it needs to be in there. I do agree that the show came off as having a bias, however I would imagine they had to make some really hard decisions on what to put in and what to leave out since they only had so much time. Also, I think the fact that Kratz declined to do any of the individual interviews that the Dean Strang did resulted in the film coming off more bias. If we were able to have scenes with the prosecution working on the case and hearing their side of things it wouldn’t have come off as bias.


There’s a significant, interstellar-sized, distance between “innocent” and “prosecution unable to sustain their case beyond a reasonable doubt.” The second thing is all that’s required for the accused to remain free.


Based on the evidence presented IN THE SERIES would you have convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt? I would like to think I wouldn’t have but I know I would be swayed by other jurors.


His girlfriend at the time of his second arrest just released an interview calling Steven a monster, and claiming the documentary is full of lies. Supposedly there are police records of multiple domestic abuse visits to his place while they were dating.

I wonder what’s going on there.


His fiancé at the time of his second arrest is talking about Steven now. She calls him a monster and says the documentary is full of lies. In one article, she claims there were numerous domestic assault calls against Avery, and supposedly there are police records to back her claims up.

I wonder what’s going on there? They seemed happy in the documentary.


She always seemed a little crazy to me on the show. That’s the problem with this case, other than the lawyers for Steven Avery I don’t know who I can trust. It seems like this whole county is full of crazy people.


Steven Avery was without question a fucked up dude. He had already served time for dousing his cat in gasoline and throwing it into a fire.

But such stuff doesn’t necessarily mean he committed later crimes.

But yeah, he’s a monster based on the thing with his cat.


I firmly believe the real source of a lot of outrage due to the documentary is because of how Dassey was treated…from the coercion to the public defender team’s actions to the cousin admitting a lie in testimony. If you were to take Dassey completely out of the picture, there would be much less disappointment in the system. You could say Dassey’s situation was used by the documentary to deflect for Avery. This is interesting, because in the beginning, Dassey’s situation was used by the prosecutor to convince the public that there was a ‘there’ there when they release details they later had to essentially rescind for the trial.


they mentioned in the documentary that him and his finance had a highly troubled relationship from time to time, including threatening her multiple times when he got frustrated, or himself.

Guy had a temper for sure…

The most damning evidence I read is purchasing handcuffs and leg irons right before Theresa came, which the cops claimed he claimed was for his fiancé. Again, IF true AND they were not found…damning . Note, IF…when law enforcement and the legal system start taking short cuts like they did here…its hard not to imagine they would say anything they could to justify their actions. Sadly, they ruined their credibility over and over…ran over it so many times with their falsifications that its flatter than subatomic pancake…a out of control drug addict has more credibility…


She also apparently has a rapsheet longer than Avery’s.

— Alan


A New Yorker piece on how Making A Murderer got it wrong. The author got to speak with Penny Beerntsen among others.


Boom. Brendan Dassey’s conviction has been overturned.