bob Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Has anyone else watched this? We're about 7 episodes in (of 10) and it's absolutely amazing. It's a documentary filmed over 10 years following the court case of a man charged with murder. Except the man was previously sent to prison for 18 years for a crime that he didn't commit, and was subsequently sueing the State for. It's incredible television. It also pretty much confirms every single stereotype of every American you've ever heard. So far i would recommend it!
Happenstance Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 I've heard great things about it so I'm probably going to start watching it next week.
somme Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Yeah I watched it all in one go. Amazing stuff and completely compelling. Couldn't recommend it more.
Tales Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Seen the first eight and plan on finishing it tonight. Been a great and shocking show so far. Highly recommended.
Happenstance Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Just finished watching the first episode and it really is fascinating stuff. Looking forward to watching the rest of it.
jayseven Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 Managed to finish it a few days ago... A real rollercoaster of a ride. When the first episode ended I kind of thought "oh what? What else is there to tell?" Then it just unravels from there. The defending attorneys did a great job of highlighting all of the errors of the police department, and raised some serious questions about a string of issues. The media's role seemed to be highlighted as a significant element of the result - can't completely determine how much of that is editing of the show or not but the question is raised. I was really most impressed with the amount of contemporary documentary footage, which really distinguished this from other generic "my husband was an axe murderer!" lite-doc stuff. The DNA stuff is most startling, and the fact that the license plate and car type was called in by a cop before the car was missing -- however it wouldn't be that hard for a family member to provide those details. The family/friends of the missing lady being on the search team was also ridic... ultimately I don't think I could cast a judgement as to whether it as Avery or not, so I hope if I was in that position I'd be strong and vote innocent.
Charlie Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Managed to finish it a few days ago... A real rollercoaster of a ride. When the first episode ended I kind of thought "oh what? What else is there to tell?" Then it just unravels from there. The defending attorneys did a great job of highlighting all of the errors of the police department, and raised some serious questions about a string of issues. The media's role seemed to be highlighted as a significant element of the result - can't completely determine how much of that is editing of the show or not but the question is raised. I was really most impressed with the amount of contemporary documentary footage, which really distinguished this from other generic "my husband was an axe murderer!" lite-doc stuff. The DNA stuff is most startling, and the fact that the license plate and car type was called in by a cop before the car was missing -- however it wouldn't be that hard for a family member to provide those details. The family/friends of the missing lady being on the search team was also ridic... ultimately I don't think I could cast a judgement as to whether it as Avery or not, so I hope if I was in that position I'd be strong and vote innocent. I watched the whole thing in the space of 2 days in between Christmas and New Year and thought it was incredible. Really great television. I think Avery is guilty. I've done a bit of research and they left a lot of stuff out that makes him look far guiltier than it shows. However, I don't think he would've been given a guilty verdict if the police hadn't intervened and possibly even planted evidence. The blood vial is the biggest one for me. How could that possibly happen? Finding the keys in his house and the bullet in the garage, both miraculously after a cop from Manitowoc county shows up. Brandon's coerced confession should also have been thrown out from what we saw of it. Things missing from the documentary included: Avery had bought the chains described by Brandon a few weeks prior to the murder Avery had phoned the girl multiple times and her work asking specifically for her to come out to photograph the car. She thought he was creepy and didn't want to. Brandon's 'coerced' confession wasn't actually as bad as it looked on TV. The full recording and transcripts are available and he volunteers information freely.
somme Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 I watched the whole thing in the space of 2 days in between Christmas and New Year and thought it was incredible. Really great television. I think Avery is guilty. I've done a bit of research and they left a lot of stuff out that makes him look far guiltier than it shows. However, I don't think he would've been given a guilty verdict if the police hadn't intervened and possibly even planted evidence. The blood vial is the biggest one for me. How could that possibly happen? Finding the keys in his house and the bullet in the garage, both miraculously after a cop from Manitowoc county shows up. Brandon's coerced confession should also have been thrown out from what we saw of it. Things missing from the documentary included: Avery had bought the chains described by Brandon a few weeks prior to the murder Avery had phoned the girl multiple times and her work asking specifically for her to come out to photograph the car. She thought he was creepy and didn't want to. Brandon's 'coerced' confession wasn't actually as bad as it looked on TV. The full recording and transcripts are available and he volunteers information freely. Whether he is guilty or not, the case should have been thrown out from serious misconduct. The whole process was a shambles. And the fact that 2 members of the jury were related to the Mantiwoc Sherifs department and two members of the jury were said to have convinced the rest to plead guilty, even though seven were originally going to plead not-guilty. I don't know whether he did it. The evidence not included in the programme has since been refuted by the defence for a number of reasons. All I do know is he did not receive a fair trial.
Charlie Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Also, did anyone notice the remarkable resemblance between one of the lawyers and David Wallace from The Office (US)? First thing I noticed when I saw him.
EEVILMURRAY Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 As a legal student I am finding this interesting (only watched the first episode though). However it doesn't seem any different from any of the true-crime programmes you get on Channel Five or Watch or [insert channel here]. Just because it's on Netflix more people than the norm are watching. Because if this was on one of the regular channels most people wouldn't take a second look at it. As a legal student I am finding this interesting (only watched the first episode though). However it doesn't seem any different from any of the true-crime programmes you get on Channel Five or Watch or [insert channel here]. Just because it's on Netflix more people than the norm are watching. Because if this was on one of the regular channels most people wouldn't take a second look at it.
bob Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 I had to take a second look at your post. Which meant I read it four times in total.
Sméagol Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 So yeah, I kept hearing about how good this was, and that you shouldn't google the story.. Well I wasted a lot of time watching all 10 episodes of this. The story is interesting, but really doesn't warrant an 10 episode documentary series. It doesn't help that I really can't stand listening to any of the Avery family, or that Brendan is such a retard I want bash my skull against my desk, or that that guy Len who is so unqualified to be a defense attorney that I want to punch him. To name a few things. The most interesting stuff came from the 2 defense attorneys of Steven. But put me in the camp who thinks both are innocent (although I haven't read anything about stuff that wasn't in this documentary). That phone call Steven makes to his then fiancee while supposedly raping and murdering that woman at the same time, he really didn't sound like he was in the middle of something. I also don't think Steven is competent enough to clean his entire house of all bloodstains and other evidence. Especially while at the same time forgetting to adequately deal with the car. Doesn't add up. And Brendan really doesn't look like he has the character to go through with any raping and murdering.. I think he'd freeze up in that situation. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think they'd have had a case against both Steven and Brendan, if Brendan didn't fuck up his testimonies. It reminded me of this:
FalcoLombardi Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 Completed it last night. Wow was that frustrating.
jayseven Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I watched the whole thing in the space of 2 days in between Christmas and New Year and thought it was incredible. Really great television. I think Avery is guilty. I've done a bit of research and they left a lot of stuff out that makes him look far guiltier than it shows. However, I don't think he would've been given a guilty verdict if the police hadn't intervened and possibly even planted evidence. The blood vial is the biggest one for me. How could that possibly happen? Finding the keys in his house and the bullet in the garage, both miraculously after a cop from Manitowoc county shows up. Brandon's coerced confession should also have been thrown out from what we saw of it. Things missing from the documentary included: Avery had bought the chains described by Brandon a few weeks prior to the murder Avery had phoned the girl multiple times and her work asking specifically for her to come out to photograph the car. She thought he was creepy and didn't want to. Brandon's 'coerced' confession wasn't actually as bad as it looked on TV. The full recording and transcripts are available and he volunteers information freely. I just saw on reddit a (crap) interview with the at-the-time prosecution attorney, and he explained that the puncture is from when the blood was first inserted into the vial. I'm no expert so I have no idea how true this is. I completely agree that there's clear scope for omissions, and perhaps other evidence did enough to build a convincing case (as per other replies in this thread) As a legal student I am finding this interesting (only watched the first episode though). However it doesn't seem any different from any of the true-crime programmes you get on Channel Five or Watch or [insert channel here]. Just because it's on Netflix more people than the norm are watching. Because if this was on one of the regular channels most people wouldn't take a second look at it. As a legal student I am finding this interesting (only watched the first episode though). However it doesn't seem any different from any of the true-crime programmes you get on Channel Five or Watch or [insert channel here]. Just because it's on Netflix more people than the norm are watching. Because if this was on one of the regular channels most people wouldn't take a second look at it. Again it's the amount of contemporary footage that aids this case, as well as the fact that it is fairly unique given Avery's past. If anything, if it's on netflix then less people will watch as they have less access. I understand what you mean though; netflix has been creating a good reputation for itself for decent TV - but it's made bad shows and they've been correctly labelled as BAD.
jayseven Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I watched the whole thing in the space of 2 days in between Christmas and New Year and thought it was incredible. Really great television. I think Avery is guilty. I've done a bit of research and they left a lot of stuff out that makes him look far guiltier than it shows. However, I don't think he would've been given a guilty verdict if the police hadn't intervened and possibly even planted evidence. The blood vial is the biggest one for me. How could that possibly happen? Finding the keys in his house and the bullet in the garage, both miraculously after a cop from Manitowoc county shows up. Brandon's coerced confession should also have been thrown out from what we saw of it. Things missing from the documentary included: Avery had bought the chains described by Brandon a few weeks prior to the murder Avery had phoned the girl multiple times and her work asking specifically for her to come out to photograph the car. She thought he was creepy and didn't want to. Brandon's 'coerced' confession wasn't actually as bad as it looked on TV. The full recording and transcripts are available and he volunteers information freely. I just saw on reddit a (crap) interview with the at-the-time prosecution attorney, and he explained that the puncture is from when the blood was first inserted into the vial. I'm no expert so I have no idea how true this is. I completely agree that there's clear scope for omissions, and perhaps other evidence did enough to build a convincing case (as per other replies in this thread) As a legal student I am finding this interesting (only watched the first episode though). However it doesn't seem any different from any of the true-crime programmes you get on Channel Five or Watch or [insert channel here]. Just because it's on Netflix more people than the norm are watching. Because if this was on one of the regular channels most people wouldn't take a second look at it. As a legal student I am finding this interesting (only watched the first episode though). However it doesn't seem any different from any of the true-crime programmes you get on Channel Five or Watch or [insert channel here]. Just because it's on Netflix more people than the norm are watching. Because if this was on one of the regular channels most people wouldn't take a second look at it. Again it's the amount of contemporary footage that aids this case, as well as the fact that it is fairly unique given Avery's past. If anything, if it's on netflix then less people will watch as they have less access. I understand what you mean though; netflix has been creating a good reputation for itself for decent TV - but it's made bad shows and they've been correctly labelled as BAD.
jayseven Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 EDIT: Oh yeah the fuss isn't about the first episode. Watch more.
DriftKaiser Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Note to self, never visit the state of Wisconsin or get accused of done something.
Shorty Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 That's just one of the things the lawyer says in one ep though isn't it, "It's terrifying to think that in this country, you can live your whole life being good, doing the right thing, but if you're falsely accused of something without a shred of evidence, it can all go away" (ultra paraphrasing)
Zell Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 Watched the first 4 episodes, utterly compelling stuff. Makes me want to study law.
Sheikah Posted January 24, 2016 Posted January 24, 2016 I finished watching this the other day, insane how the conduct of the police did not cause the case to be thrown out.
dazzybee Posted January 26, 2016 Posted January 26, 2016 Did no one else think the defence reminded them of Pachter and Kyle Bosman (just the voice)? Yeah. Incredible series. There are loads of great, frustrating miscarriages of justice docs...
Recommended Posts