Wow. Anonymous getting involved could make this a whole lot crazier then it already is. This could be fun!!!!

Well, I for one stopped watching this and I suppose this could very well turn into a (very subjective) rant getting into why.

First of all, it's very likely that false expectations played their part in my letdown. I was expecting more of actual investigating a true crime. More doubt, more sides and angles. More mystery...

Or at the very least a good maybe even great story and while the real events here no doubt in many ways are such, though a lot more very sad all around than gripping, the series itself seemed much more interested in building or rather presenting a case than telling any great story.

In some ways, rather hopelessly in my view, it was closer aiming for Paradise Lost than The Jinx but fatally without the bigger story and themes that kept me both intellectually and emotionally invested in Paradise Lost.

The large majority of this case is being told by Steven Avery's various lawyers and his family members with the filmmakers basically just holding microphones.

I was getting extremely frustrated at just how much time was spent on those could not be more biased parties monologuing over doing some actual investigative journalism or if that's not possible at least providing great storytelling. Nothing could be less investigative or less compelling storytelling than repeatedly listening to partisan lawyers. It's also arguably letting whatever real story down in my opinion. Missing whatever potential. The family can be fine for some emotional buildup but when the mom and/or dad appeared for like the third time repeating essentially the same things I was starting groaning. I just don't find it very interesting and something this long, and prolonged really, whenever presenting actual facts and substance can't keep wasting time.

I think one tipping point for me was definitely when so much time went by from hearing about the car being found to eventually getting some details, but even then it was not enough details and it was still not seriously looked into. I guess that maybe we will get to that in three episodes or maybe not at all... Generally this series definitely kept left me wanting. That until I just didn't want to watch anymore.

So yeah, the long running time definitely played its part throwing me off. There is only so much hour upon hour of one-trackedness that I can endure without different turns being taken by the film-makers. The real life story obviously had great turns but apart from the no-miss that was the second murder and him being a suspect I think the documentary missed translating that into the series.

I guess that it just didn't want to. Possibly because twists and turns would muddy (muddy is a good thing!) and interfere with the strongly felt one-sided case that they're presenting. Fair enough that they're so determined and single-minded when it comes to showing me and telling me what to think. That they believe so strongly in this. They could very well be right for all I know but it's not great documentary filmmaking I don't think. It's not great journalism. And for this many hours when missing both of those important elements, then in my opinion it is not interesting enough.

It's also not that I want to watch and take devils advocate, opposite views to everything that's being presented (BUT WHEN LIKE 80% OF YOUR SOURCES ARE HIS LAWYERS AND FAMILY WHAT THE **** CHOICE DO I HAVE AND NO IT'S NOT SOMETHING ENJOYABLE) whether it was something said, cut out, included or not included but when the presentation is so lacking in different views, other views to critically look at (YOURSELF not the filmmakers doing everything for you) and I don't mean politely providing me with another side to take, but maybe one to at least question! This documentary leaves no room for that and is insistent showing and telling me what to really think for hours upon hours where eventually my primary involvement is reduced to the not very enjoyable process that is the devil's advocate mindset in overdrive getting more and more frustrated that there is only one side in play.

My exact feelings watching this, whether successfully articulated in this post or not, I would compare to watching the worst of tv-news. Fox News I guess. CNN if you like. More or less masquerading trash that I'll eventually have to switch off when it simply becomes too frustrating of an experience.

Thanks. Even if they couldn't bring it up during trial, I wonder if they deposed the roommate. Maybe he had an airtight alibi and it wasn't uncommon for Teresa to not come home for a day or two at a time.

there's more Anonymous stuff on this account: https://twitter.com/0Hour1

i'm not holding my breath on this being anything more than a hoax though.

Jerome Buting ‏@JButing 24. dec.
State doesn't have to prove defendant's motive, but defense must prove other suspect's motive. #Unfair. http://bsl.io/YGA via @bustle

I guess that explains why we never hear them talk about motive.

Kratz, the lead prosecutor, repeatedly denied requests for interviews for the film....so while I am not disputing the bias, I think it's important we understand that the filmmakers aren't going to be able to present each side on equal footing when one is willing to cooperate and the other isn't.

re: other troubling facts; e.g. 'torture chamber', 'rape fantasies', 'leg irons'...excepting the leg irons, the other two pieces of evidence are hearsay from a jail house informant......filtered through Kratz. If there is one thing you can be certain about is Kratz has absolutely no qualms blatantly misrepresenting facts to suit his narrative...see Brendan confession press conference for example. Taken together with the source it's laughable to give the allegations any weight.

As for the leg irons; the police took custody of them and presumably there was no DNA evidence on them (remember the lab in Madison? was testing everything for weeks 'trying to place her in the house or garage', so it's highly unlikely the supposed leg irons were not tested for DNA.

And as a brief aside: Of course after weeks of testing everything under the sun the only DNA match comes from a tainted test, that should have been excluded according the crime labs own rules, of an bullet miraculously found by Lenk several weeks after many exhaustive searches by other LEOs.

gmafb

BTW Am I the only one put off by Theresa's brother?

Kratz publicly claims 90% of the prosecutions evidence is left out of the film; like Esad he doesn't expand on it much beyond that. One of the only pieces of so called damning evidence he (Kratz) has mentioned is Steven's DNA from the hood latch of the RAV4.

Kratz_being_a_lying_POS/

Opening statement:

Transcript of Brendan's confession: excerpt from thread on Reddit:

lol.
and of course the gun wasn't in the car.
So the fact Brendan puts forth himself is demonstrably untrue, and the fact that Fassbender puts forth first is demonstrably true.....hmmmm

And if you read the transcript located here it is actually much more damning than the above quote makes it appear. The police make a complete 180 in the timeline and go back to the car to 'discover' the hood was opened by Steven. Like I really can't emphasize this enough....the complete 180 by the detectives in the interview leaves ZERO doubt in my mind they need Brendan to 'discover' another fact for them. It is the most unnatural progression ever if the police truly have no prior knowledge that Steven's sweat DNA is on the hood latch. And then, per usual, they suggest it to him.....so sketchy.

If it's true the Crime Lab didn't get a DNA match (from perspiratoin, not blood) until Apr 3, I have no idea how the police could have known to suggest the hood latch to Brendan. Does not compute.

Either Kratz has his facts wrong in the opening statement or something.

/Kratz_being_a_lying_POS

My favourite part was when the investigator start questioning brandon with his self interview paper, at first i was convinced that he was really trying to help him by getting brendan version to further investigate it, even when he start pushing brandon to say all the self incriminating bull**** i was thinking they want to prove that you can push brandon to say anything that s pretty smart ... ohh was i disappointed and felt stupid

They knew the battery had been disconnected........ And want us to believe that they didn't bother to check for DNA on the latch until months later.

Yea, I mean the only explanation is they knew that the latch would return a positive match; meaning they either planted the perspiration or had already tested it.

It's so obvious in the interview. They make a complete 180, suggest to Brendan the hood was opened, and welp that's it....nothing more to see here. No inquiring what happened after the hood was opened, etc.

US justice seems to consider you're guilty until you are proven innocent (story of S.Avery life), so let's just be like them and say they are guilty of corruption and manipulating the case until they prove the whole investagation was done properly

I honestly think in that case finding who really murderered that girl is not even important, when we see how the justice system is flawed and how big of an ******* the prosecutor is

The most tilting thing to me is that first case should have had huge impact on the whole american justice system and the case was dropped because a poor guy needed 400k$ to defend himself in another case

The battery being disconnected does make it seem more likely and auto salvage worker moved the car; I mean who else it like 'I need to make sure the battery doesn't go dead in the car of this chick I just killed????'

Force of habit is the most likely explanation......let's be honest; none of the other players were next level enough to do that to frame an Avery.

Not sure if there were any theories from either the prosecution or defense regarding the battery.

I guess you could unhook the battery if you don't want a car alarm to go off or any other sound a car could make like the beeping when a door is open.

Jfc this entire wall of nothing could be summed as "I didn't like it." Keep it concise people

My theory is that DP is Ken Kratz hopped up on pills trying to sabotage any rational discussion of the subject to the point where we all just decide to move on.

It could be the problem of every other person posting in this thread or it could be you. I will leave it up to your clearly superior powers of intellect and deduction to figure out which of those it is.

So if someone is sick enough to rape and murder, it's hard for you to believe that same person can engage in a cheerful conversation?

I'm still reading up on the topic, but there is something that I don't understand. Somewhere at the intro of episode 4 (could be 3 or 5) we saw a very small clip of 2 people at night with a camera in Stevens trailer. One of them said something along the lines of "here are shoes in case we need footprints in a case" and the other one laughed.

I thought that was a little foreshadowing of the big reveal, that the cops were dumb enough to video their planting of evidence and until the last 30 min I thought they would actually get caught :/.

I think that was someone from Steven's family, and the quote was something like "we should check the shoes, see if any of the footprints match unsolved crimes". As in, they were making a joke that they would get framed again.

At least that's how I remember it.

It was clearly someone mocking Steve. They even said something about "Welp I guess he won't be able to make this innocence project dinner!" It was disgusting.

Just finished this today and absolutely agree with you. They did an excellent job and seem extremely honorable and likeable.

I've only read the first 100 posts itt so far so it may have been mentioned but one of Avery's lawyers sounded just like Saul Goodman. He didn't come across as greedy or crooked like Saul but had a very similar voice.

If you're looking at the jury when answering the question, you're lying and I don't believe a damn word you are saying.

From the second I saw the brother I felt like something was not right. For some reason I thought this story was going to end with both guys being innocent, and I was convinced the brother/ex-boyfriend would end up being the murderers.

This is what the brother said, two days after Teresa went missing:
Interviewer: how are you holding up?
Brother: The grieving process, you know, could last days, could last weeks, could last years. You know, hopefully we can find answers as soon as possible so we can, you know, begin to... hopefully, you know, move on, hopefully with Teresa still in our life.

Who the **** talks like this two days after his sister went missing? The mother was just like "I hope shes fine" and the brother is already talking about the grieving process and moving on.


Then later on this other ****** guesses a login AND a password? **** off. They called her as a distraction, jumped her from behind, put her in the trunk, drove her off to some godforsaken place, put a bullet in her head, burned her, erased whatever voicemails they didn't want to be heard, towed the truck to the avery yard, dumped her bones in the ash pit, dumped her cellphone and purse in the barrel, done deal.

Motive? Ex-boyfriend and brother, 'nuff said. There could a million reason they're pissed off at her. Someone even said in the documentary that most of the time when a random murder happens, it's someone in their family/close friends that did it. Because that's the people you have history with, and thus where motives are born.

I think Bobby Dassey did it.