More pro Avery propoganda. The antithesis of unbiased documentary film-making, whose sole purpose is to convince millions of gullible couch potatoes that a guilty man is innocent.
US: Making a Murderer (Netflix)
- Thread starter johnyccc
- Start date
More pro Avery propoganda. The antithesis of unbiased documentary film-making, whose sole purpose is to convince millions of gullible couch potatoes that a guilty man is innocent.
Soldato
Yeah, I have to say, having done just some very basic research after season 1, I'm not sure I would bother with season 2 as it feels like you're almost watching fiction.
Soldato
A bit like the first time he was convicted. Stupid gullible jury!!
Had they thrown away the key, Teresa Halbach would still be breathing and Avery would still be where he should have been the whole time.
Bit judgemental, the name of the documentary is making a murderer. It implies in itself that he might not have been so if they hadn't wrongly convicted him and the evidence is tenuous at best that he did the second time. Money is a huge motivator and a massive law suit might do funny things to people.
Its proof alone that the system isn't perfect with his first conviction and that's what makes the story so gripping.
I highly doubt that they have found anything new to will release him though tbh as he would already be out, but I'm sure it will be interesting none the less.
Soldato
Personally I think it shows how powerful the press and media can be. It gives quiet a slanted view on things from what I can tell, which could be why there are all these protesters etc as they've just watched the Netflix show and think that clearly he's innocent.
Tbh, I can't remember season 1 all that well now. What was his first conviction?
Tbh, I can't remember season 1 all that well now. What was his first conviction?
Murder of a girl on a beach. Which turned out to be a passing vagrant or someone in a town nearby who had done it before.
Soldato
It was actually rape of a woman, who then wrongly identified him as the offender in the trail which convicted him, as there was no other evidence. I only watched this last week and I really enjoyed the series. But you always have to be careful with documentaries, especially ones like these as you only see what the creators want you to see.
I don't believe this series will bring up much more evidence that proves it wasn't him. Its more than.likely just going to be the appeals made to seems like new evidence. Clearly didn't work as he's still in jail and always will be. Imagine the uproar of the government got it wrong twice and were complicit. Never gona happen.
I believe that the new season will focus more on Brendan Dassey but I'm very jaded by series one. I felt like a complete idiot that I had given this the time of day when I started doing my own research.
Netflix allowed the makers to completely re-frame the truth by omitting swathes of evidence that if you read the count documents make clear why Avery was convicted.
Clearly he was not responsible for the original rape, clearly he was responsible for the 2003 murder.
Hopefully the new season will hold it's hands up and address it's dishonesty and put the record straight.
Netflix allowed the makers to completely re-frame the truth by omitting swathes of evidence that if you read the count documents make clear why Avery was convicted.
Clearly he was not responsible for the original rape, clearly he was responsible for the 2003 murder.
Hopefully the new season will hold it's hands up and address it's dishonesty and put the record straight.
Can you link to any of this evidence??
Soldato
Soldato
Ha ha, okay, sure. I think I spent about 10 minutes taking a look after the end of season 1 and couldn't believe how much was missed. If you didn't find any, I guess that's on you.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story:
http://stevenaverycase.com/what-making-a-murderer-didnt-tell-you/
Most of that list is unrelated or total crap. Like he had previous issues with women. That's not a determining factor in anything without evidence (I was guilty of pooing my pants as a baby but I don't now) and so the rest goes, etc etc.
Its also not possible to determine dna from sweat reliably (you would have to pour tons of it on an object to get enough dna). Where's all the finger print evidence to go along with it etc.
I could go on but can't be bothered.
However I will say this. I don't know if he did or didn't do it. I just don't think the evidence is enough in my mind to make a conviction..
Last edited:
Soldato
If you think that's the same as...
Then yeah, we probably shouldn't bother going on. Not that it makes everything else true, but your example is not a good one as to why it should be ignored.
The point being, LOTS of stuff was ignored for a reason.
Because past transgressions are not evidence, simple.
That last bit is silly, claiming it is never going to happen because there would be uproar. The more likely explanation here, given the amount of attention this has now received, is that there isn't much to support that they've definitely got it completely wrong in this case.
The first season is, as the other poster has mentioned, rather a one sided documentary.