Alright, today I’m going to do something I’ve never done before. I want to use my blog platform as an avenue for a conversation with you all. Most of the time, as it is with blogs, the blogger writes and the readers reads. They may leave the occasional comment to show their support or interest in a specific post, but it’s hardly ever a discussion.

Today, I want to talk with you. I want to hear YOUR opinion. On what? On the Netflix docu-series “Making a Murderer.” 

making a murderer

Have you heard of it? If you haven’t, I’d jokingly ask you what rock you’ve been living under! Have you watched it? If you haven’t, I would encourage you to cancel all your plans today and tomorrow and plan on binge-watching the 10 hour series.  It’s THAT fascinating. You will NEED to binge watch it because you will be hanging on the edge of your seat, wondering what the outcome will be. And even if you know what the outcome already is, as the series goes on, you will be left scratching your head with how they could possibly come to that conclusion, based on what was presented during the trial. 

***Before we go on, I am going to give you FAIR warning that there will be SPOILERS on here, so if you haven’t seen it or don’t know the outcome, find out first and come back to discuss!***

So, let’s talk! I’m going to give you MY opinion first and then I’m going to ask you YOUR opinion. Here goes…

After watching the 10 hour docu-series PLUS many interviews on YouTube since, my opinion on whether Steven Avery did in fact kill Teresa Halbach is UNDECIDED. I will admit that during the course of the Netflix series, I went back and forth a few times: guilty, then not guilty, then guilty and not guilty again. When I finished the series, my thought was definitely NOT guilty. BUT, since having watched many interviews, hearing additional evidence that was not included in the series, I’ve decided that I can’t decide! I’m not sure if he is guilty or innocent. 

Steven Avery

But what I do know FOR SURE is that regardless of whether Steven Avery did the crime or not, he was undoubtedly given an very UNFAIR trial and in my opinion, he most definitely deserves a re-trial. There was SO much reasonable DOUBT as to whether he did the crime, that it is crazy to think he was sentenced to life WITHOUT parol, based on that trial. Plus all of his additional appeals have been denied. CRA-ZY. 

What’s even more heartbreaking to watch in this Netflix series is Brendan Dassey, Avery’s nephew. He gave a confession, that in my opinion, was completely coerced and made up, due to the investigators ridiculous pressuring. This kid clearly has a disability, whether it’s learning or even more serious, as he had no idea what he was confessing to. As a mom of three young kids, my heart breaks watching him and knowing that he is now in jail until 2048. Why was he not protected by his attorney and mother? I can’t wrap my head around that one.

It’s clear that the legal system had some MAJOR missteps in both of these trials and that’s the main point of “Making a Muderer”: to show how the judicial system CAN fail someone and is really there to prove their guilt, not necessarily their innocence. 

So, let me ask YOU.

Do you think Steven Avery is guilty?

Do you think his trial was fair? If not, does he deserve a re-trial?

Do you think he was framed and that the Manitowoc County Police planted evidence against him in a way to get out of the 36 million dollar lawsuit Avery was bringing against them?

Do you think Brendan Dassey is guilty of what he confessed or do you think it was a false confession, as a result of the intense questioning and coercion of the investigators?

Let’s talk this out in the comment section below! 

Love & Blessings,

CMartin-Sign

 

Share this:

45 Comments on Let’s Talk: Making a Murderer

  1. Meg O,
    January 18, 2016 at 12:34 pm (1 year ago)

    I don’t think he is completely innocent… there is something so weird about the whole thing. Why he wouldn’t testify is beyond me… that is like putting a nail in your coffin. But I definitely think that he was not given a fair trial – totally agree.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 12:39 pm (1 year ago)

      Yes, I agree, super weird that he wouldn’t testify and definitely makes him appear guilty. But do you think he would do it, considering he had just spent 18 years falsely imprisoned AND was about to receive 36 MILLION dollars?! What would his motive have been? That’s what I don’t get and what I wish they would have talked more about.

      Reply
      • Misty Blue
        January 18, 2016 at 1:07 pm (1 year ago)

        He let his lawyers take care of his case. If he testified he would’ve been made to look bad by the lawyers twisting things, and his IQ is so low, he wouldn’t have been able to control that in his favour. This is my opinion anyways. I think his not testifying helped, and a testimony would’ve been another nail in the coffin.

        Reply
        • Christine
          January 18, 2016 at 1:19 pm (1 year ago)

          So interesting. Well the prosecutors were definitely twisting just about anything they could! The key found days later in his home kills me. Like COME ON! And then not a single piece of her DNA ANYWHERE in his home OR the garage besides on the ONE bullet?! Oh man…my blood is boiling just thinking about it all…

          Reply
          • Misty Blue
            January 18, 2016 at 1:24 pm (1 year ago)

            no blood anywhere. two low IQ men who can barely form a sentence were expected to do this and not leave a single bit of DNA? Nah. Too much doesn’t connect.

          • Christine
            January 18, 2016 at 1:30 pm (1 year ago)

            I agree with that for sure. I’m not sure if he is totally innocent, but I definitely don’t think he did what they have accused him of…

  2. Lana @ The Joy Blog
    January 18, 2016 at 12:49 pm (1 year ago)

    I haven’t watched it because I’m trying to swear off tv, but I do know this after being pre-law in college for a while, the judicial system isn’t perfect, and a lot of the practice of law isn’t either. They’ve made leaps and bounds with dna and forensics, but there is still so much craziness in it. A lot of lawyers are prone to alcoholism, and their marriages end, it was a statistic I was told by my law professors because people need to know what they’re getting into. Guilty people go free on technicalities all the time, innocent people are sent to jail. Judges are supposed to remain unbiased, but they’re human so they’re not. Juries, too. It’s all just a big giant mess of human nature trying to be fair but hardly being so.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 1:03 pm (1 year ago)

      And this series definitely shows some of that (which, btw, I don’t watch TV either but this series was SO interesting! You should try to watch it when you get the chance). And that’s what leaves you so frustrated is that nothing seemed fair about the trial, regardless of whether or not he is guilty. It’s like the legal system needs to change in some ways, but how can that happen?

      Reply
      • Lana @ The Joy Blog
        January 18, 2016 at 2:29 pm (1 year ago)

        I think anyone’s guess is as good as another. It is so hard to to make this type of stuff truly unbiased. Maybe robots would be the only ones who would be unbiased. But then that would make first time offenders treated more harshly.

        Reply
        • Christine
          January 18, 2016 at 3:51 pm (1 year ago)

          Ha! Can you imagine robots as jurors?! I feel like I’m looking into the future…
          But you are right, it’s impossible to be totally unbiased, especially for those who are so closely associated in that county.

          Reply
  3. Misty Blue
    January 18, 2016 at 12:50 pm (1 year ago)

    I absolutely 100% agree with your opinion Christine, and I have been reading and watching everything I can about this case, more than normal people. He deserves a re-trial, there is just so much that wasn’t done that should’ve been.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 1:01 pm (1 year ago)

      I know!!! But how can he get a re-trial when he was denied on everything? I hear there are petitions circling to try and get Obama to exonerate him. Does that work like that? !

      Reply
      • Misty Blue
        January 18, 2016 at 1:05 pm (1 year ago)

        No, the white house has already replied due to the popularity of the petition. Due to the type of case it is, it cannot be pardoned by Obama, and it is up to a different type of government. His new lawyer has filed another request for re-trial, so we will see what happens.

        Reply
        • Christine
          January 18, 2016 at 1:07 pm (1 year ago)

          Oh ok. I hadn’t read that. Do you think they will make a Part 2 of this series, if he goes to trial again?! I would LOVE that! It’s all just SO fascinating…including tons of conspiracy theories out there.

          Reply
          • Misty Blue
            January 18, 2016 at 1:08 pm (1 year ago)

            I believe so, they’ve seen a crazy amount of popularity with this case. It would be in their best interest to keep the public updated. Only a small percentage of people will google and keep an eye on the case as it unfolds. The rest will just watch it and leave it at that. So there’s a good chance for sure.

          • Christine
            January 18, 2016 at 1:21 pm (1 year ago)

            I’m actually surprised they were allowed to make a movie like this, with court room proceedings and such. I thought that was usually kept very private. Although that being said, nothing seemed very private about this trial, including how the prosecutors gave that horrific detailed story of how Teresa was murdered to the media. How did they even get away with that?!

          • Misty Blue
            January 18, 2016 at 1:23 pm (1 year ago)

            Case details are free to the public unless there is a publication ban on it. Publication bans are huge in Canada.

          • Christine
            January 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm (1 year ago)

            Ya but even to be allowed to film in the court room…that surprises me. But maybe that is more Canadian law I’m thinking about. The prosecutors don’t seem to happy with the series. I couldn’t stand that Kratz character…and maybe that’s why he isn’t too happy! lol!

  4. Stephanie
    January 18, 2016 at 1:27 pm (1 year ago)

    I agree with you; i watched this out of curiosity after seeing it all over the place. I’m also undecided- there are a lot of things that seem already predetermined and were decided about the case before the evidence was all collected. Also, some of the lack of record keeping from the local police officer who could have exonerated him 8 years earlier is really fishy. I don’t know. The evidence points to him as a murderer- if it were up to me, I would do a re-trial in a different county/area. The thing now is that this case is so public and well documented its unlikely he would really get a fair trial no matter the location.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 1:34 pm (1 year ago)

      I agree that the evidence is there…on his property, in her car, etc. But it all seems SO fragmented and like so LITTLE, that it for sure opens the door to say he was framed, especially considering most of these pieces of evidence were found AFTER the fact and by Manotiwoc police themselves. I also agree with you that it seemed unfair before it even started…with letting the media hear so many of the details. The jury was already biased before they went in. The whole thing is just so frustrating and confusing from all angles, isn’t it?!

      Reply
  5. Erin H
    January 18, 2016 at 1:43 pm (1 year ago)

    Okay so I have a seriously big rant I could go to on this lol. I’ve only finally calmed down after finishing the 10 episodes a week or so ago. As I work with police officers I spent an entire week going around asking every single officer what they thought, had they seen it etc!? Many of them suspected guilt but they hadn’t even watched the whole series. So my take is actually so similar to yours it’s kinda crazy. Basically during the show I was flipping out because of all the perceived injustice that was happening and how insanely unfair it was I honestly couldn’t handle it! After episode 5 I wasn’t sure I could keep watching the series because it had me SOOO UPSET!! Like seriously. But I tried to give myself a day or 2 to calm down and then began watching again. In the end I was able to handle it but I went straight to work to find more and more and more info about the case and what has happened since. You are right in that there were several petitions going around to ask Obama to pardon Steven. As another person commented on your blog, Obama responded saying that he doesn’t actually have the power to pardon him, the only person that could do it would be the governor of the state. The governor also responded that he would not be giving ANY pardons while he is in office on his term and he also refused to watch the Netflix series (that’s what I read in an article at least/ or on a update to one of the petitions). I was definitely ready to sign a petition but I am glad I did not. After learning about how much evidence and testimony was NOT included in the documentary, I am concluding that I now do not know whether he is guilty or not but am leaning more towards guilt at this point. One of the last things I watched was an interview of his ex-fianc√© Jodi on the Nancy Grace show (find it on YouTube)

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 1:52 pm (1 year ago)

      Haha! I love your “rant” and how passionate you are about this. The hubs and I have been talking about it so much that he finally said, “Write a post about this and get your readers take on it.” So I’m glad I took his advice because this is fascinating to see just how many people have watched it and are invested in it.
      I did see a little clip with his ex where she says she thinks he is guilty…but I’ll need to try to find the whole interview, although Nancy Grace is hard to stomach most of the time! I saw her interview with one of the Whalberg guys where she just keeps SHOUTING at him! So irritating.
      But like I said in one of the comments (not sure if it’s on here or on Facebook), but Avery doesn’t have a clean past at all. He had run ins with the law and while he had never murdered someone before, this doesn’t seem hugely out there for someone with his track record. BUT…he had just spent 18 years falsely imprisoned and was about to be awarded 36 MILLION dollars!!! WHY ON EARTH would he do this at that time?! The timing and the lack of MOTIVE is what I don’t understand…and to me, why it does seem somewhat framed.

      Reply
      • Christine
        January 18, 2016 at 4:44 pm (1 year ago)

        Just watched the interview with his ex fiancee and I’m not sure I fully believe her. It just seems odd to me that there is SO much lying in this entire case. Why is she flip flopping? I think she COULD have gotten help, if she was really in that much danger when she was with him. I don’t know what to think after that…other than she’s also had her run in’s with the law and was an alcoholic at that time. As you could see, she didn’t remember a lot of things. Maybe that’s from trauma, maybe that’s from alcohol…who knows. But it is very interesting for sure.

        Reply
  6. Kate
    January 18, 2016 at 2:09 pm (1 year ago)

    I have been watching this too and based off the series it dose not seem like a fair trail. It looks as though there are some major problems. Then a little voice in my head reminded me that even though this is a Documentary it was created (at least in part ) for ENTERTAINMENT and with an agenda. Meaning that I should not believe it as is because I do not have all the information.

    The events in this series are tragic and it is also scary to see how much a one-sided documentary can effect the masses and make us (myself included) jump on a band wagon of wanting to sign a petition so quickly. I’m not even going to lie, based on the things I saw about the show on facebook I assumed his innocence before I even started the show!

    I think there are things that look really bad for the police department in the show but I also think there may be some missing information from what all actually went on in the trial. So I don’t think I can say weather I think he did it or not as I only got one side of the story.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 2:21 pm (1 year ago)

      I hear where you are coming from. Major missteps that should have resulted in a re-trial for sure. And yes, there’s an agenda to the series for sure and that is to show how the judicial systems works (from what I’ve read) and how they want to prove guilt. The filmmakers said they didn’t plan to show one side over the other and prove his innocence but rather just show the trial and how it all played out. It will be interesting to see what comes of this, if anything, now that it’s out

      Reply
  7. iamalighthouse
    January 18, 2016 at 2:22 pm (1 year ago)

    I’m with you and some of the others. I lean toward not guilty for Steven…but I don’t know for sure. Brendan, I think, was completely compelled and I was up in arms about how misrepresented he was. He HAS to have a disability and his treatment was abhorrent!

    The crazy, disjointed evidence. The way the local cops were allowed to work in the case when they weren’t supposed to be at all, the weird evidence that was tampered with, and the way it was held pretty locally (I’m sure everyone knows/is related to everyone in those towns = minds made up already). PLUS, why would the car be hidden on his property and SO badly hidden…like it was meant to be found?

    Honestly, I don’t know if we’ll ever know, because what else could be done? It seems to me the jury was COMPLETELY biased, though. I don’t know how they could have proven him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the lack of and conflicting evidence. I don’t know what they were thinking. There is definitely something fishy and the fact that several of those cops lied/defied orders (not signing in) even in the courtroom, then how the other one was later found to have some really lewd conduct, definitely makes me distrust their testimonies!

    What Youtube interviews did you watch? I’m interested in what you mentioned about evidence not in the series.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 3:55 pm (1 year ago)

      Agree with Brendan’s treatment. SO bad! Agree with evidence that seems tampered with. And agree that it seems crazy that the jury found him guilty. Apparently, when they first went into deliberations, 7 voted not guilty, 3 guilty and 2 undecided. How it turned into guilty boggles my mind.
      As for other videos…here’s one of an interview with his ex. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTz673OMTF0
      As for new evidence, I’ve read a few interviews with Kratz that says certain things weren’t included in the documentary like Avery’s DNA under the hood of her car and a few other things. Just google search them to read them all!

      Reply
  8. Esther
    January 18, 2016 at 3:21 pm (1 year ago)

    To be honest, I watched half an episode and turned it off. In my current 36-week pregnant state, I just couldn’t handle it and I usually love stuff like this!

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 3:50 pm (1 year ago)

      Haha…I can imagine. It’s definitely an emotional roller coaster of a ride! Maybe catch up once your babe is born! xox

      Reply
  9. Quinn Ross
    January 18, 2016 at 4:05 pm (1 year ago)

    Sadly… A lawyer has read this and comments as follows:

    The determination is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ If you are undecided, then you find him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Not testifying cannot be used as a factor when determining guilt or innocence. It is not evidence. It is a choice. Whether a person chooses not to testify is based on a million considerations, most of which are undertaken and advised by the lawyer. The jury is not allowed to consider this when determining guilt or innocence.

    Whether you believe some grand conspiracy existed or not, if you are left with the real concern that he could be innocent, then the only verdict is not guilty. Remember not guilty doesn’t mean innocent.

    Personally, a TOTAL lack of blood evidence at the alleged kill site, multiple burn sites, keys magically appearing in a conspicuous position after multiple searches of a mobile home and the specific area of the home where the key was found, not to mention a failure to firewall the investigation from officers with a clear conflict of interest all adds up to reasonable doubt. Whether he killed her or not, the prosecution simply did not make our the case.

    Great documentary. As someone who has prosecuted and defended serious violent crime, I can say that the work done by the creators was incredible. They created a real narrative that doesn’t exist as readily in a criminal investigation or trial, without biasing the perspective. It was a compelling watch.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 18, 2016 at 4:15 pm (1 year ago)

      Thank you for weighing in here Quinn! I appreciate and value your comment, from a lawyers perspective, especially as someone who has seen both side of cases like these. And so with your explanation, I would say then that my opinion is he is not guilty due to reasonable doubt. And that is why I was surprised that he received the verdict and subsequent sentence that he did.

      Could you weigh in on why all of his appeals are not even being considered? I think I read somewhere that courts don’t like to change verdicts and that’s perhaps why even with his first prison sentence, it took eight years before the truth finally came out. Would you agree with that?
      Also, what does the future hold for him and Brendan? Do you think that there could be a re-trial or at this point have they exhausted all their options? Also, I feel like it would be really hard to find anyone without a bias at this point…

      Reply
      • Quinn Ross
        January 18, 2016 at 4:37 pm (1 year ago)

        Appeals…. Only as good as the State you argue them in. This is a conservative, law and order state. As you indicated appeal courts are reluctant to overturn a decision and replace it with their own, but the do regularly order new trials. Why they haven’t in this case is beyond me. Additionally, some very important procedural motions were lost by the defence and I am suprised those findings weren’t overturned on appeal. It looks as though the system is protecting itself.

        On the other hand, this was a documentary made by humans. They very couold have coloured the perspective so that relevant pro-prosecution info was missed or not presented fairly. The viewing I had made me scratch my head so often, that perhaps we weren’t afforded the ‘whole’ story.

        Still when I go back to the basics, agreed to by defense and prosecution, I find reasonable doubt. This guy was prosecuted on his history, his family and his socio-economic status.

        As a final note, the lawyer for Brendan should be disbarred and jailed himself. He was a pawn of the DA.

        Reply
        • Christine
          January 19, 2016 at 6:31 am (1 year ago)

          This is all so interesting. I definitely agree that Avery was prosecuted on his history, family and status. He seemed to be deemed guilty before he was even tried, which didn’t seem fair. And yes, Brendan’s first lawyer was awful and I think a huge reason why he is still in jail. Thanks so much for your comments Quinn. I appreciate hearing from a lawyer on this!

          Reply
  10. Kaley
    January 18, 2016 at 6:03 pm (1 year ago)

    I definitely think he did it. Or he at least was somehow involved even if he didn’t directly kill him. I can easily see him harboring a lot of rage towards females after one put him away falsely for so long, I can also see him thinking he can get away from it because he was wrongly convicted before and therefore untouchable. I also think the police planted evidence and/or did shady things to ensure that he went away for this crime! He deserves a re-trial, but he is definitely not innocent!!

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 19, 2016 at 6:33 am (1 year ago)

      “Untouchable” – that’s a very interesting idea. Hadn’t considered that before but it does make sense. I also agree that regardless of whether he did it or not, that the police definitely planted evidence to ensure he went to jail for life. And if we can all see it, why couldn’t the jury? I wonder if many of them have regret about their decision? Especially after watching the documentary…

      Reply
  11. Leslie
    January 18, 2016 at 7:39 pm (1 year ago)

    I binged watched the series too! I couldn’t stop, I watched it in 1 day! I don’t really know what to think, really. The house was searched so many times before the key was found, the blood from the 1985 rape charge was tampered with. I just don’t know.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 19, 2016 at 6:34 am (1 year ago)

      It’s hard eh, to pick a side?! Like I said, I keep flip flopping. Apparently they are still filming…so I’m really interested to see how this all continues to play out.

      Reply
  12. Carin Harris
    January 18, 2016 at 8:29 pm (1 year ago)

    Well I’m halfway through this series and I am not sure. I don’t think he killed her. I also do not thing Brendan was involved. I do think evidence was planted – this family knows how to disassemble cars – why would Teresa’s car be left there so obviously? Can’t comment on the trial yet since I haven’t seen it. But I will soon!

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 19, 2016 at 6:47 am (1 year ago)

      Ya the car is a hard one to believe, considering they have a car crusher. And why would her blood be in there, if the murder happened in his garage and then he disposed of her in the burn pit? He would have no reason to put her in her car. Come back and let me know your thoughts about his trial once you’ve watched it. It’s so frustrating!

      Reply
  13. Jessica
    January 18, 2016 at 8:37 pm (1 year ago)

    I have to finish this series!! I keep hearing such amazing things about later in the season- I just have to finish it.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 19, 2016 at 6:47 am (1 year ago)

      Yes! Finish it girl! And come back and let me know your thoughts!

      Reply
  14. Lisa
    January 19, 2016 at 7:03 pm (1 year ago)

    Oh! This series has absolutely consumed me! I think I watched it in 2 nights or something because I just couldn’t stop! I’m still undecided! I was so strongly not guilty after first watching the series but then I was reading more about it all online and it seems like maybe there’s more to it than what the series showed, so I don’t know!!?

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 28, 2016 at 9:28 am (1 year ago)

      I totally agree with you Lisa! It’s SO perplexing eh?!

      Reply
  15. Very Erin
    January 22, 2016 at 2:40 pm (1 year ago)

    I’m from Wisconsin and remember watching on the news the Theresa Halbach murder investigation and following trial, so I started watching the documentary with the assumption that he is guilty. After finishing Making a Murderer, I’m really not sure. I know that he shouldn’t have been convicted based on the evidence presented, and should certainly get a new trial. However, I also firmly believe that he is CAPABLE of murder, given the other things we learned about him threatening him. It’s also important to remember that we saw a few hours of trial, which is only a small fraction of what was actually presented. You can find articles with information about important evidence that was left out of the documentary, which makes Avery look more guilty.

    Reply
    • Christine
      January 28, 2016 at 9:30 am (1 year ago)

      I think that was a big point of the documentary to show how he was already presumed guilty before the trial even started, the way he was presented in the media. Seems crazy those press conferences that they had, giving all that insane detail, don’t you think?

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *