Making a Murderer

Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
Not sure of what everyone's opinions are on documentaries, but I love them. The Jinx was one of my favorite series of last year (and if you haven't checked that out do it! Its an HBO series in the vein of Serial podcast). Netflix is dipping their toes in with the series Making a Murderer. It looks like all 10 episodes will drop on December 18th. Below is a trailer--it looks really excellent.



  • DrewDrew indianapolis
    Looks good, thanks for the heads up. Between Serial last season and The Jinx I've been down for some more true crime mysteries.
  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    Yeah, I seriously can't get enough of stuff like this. Since you liked The Jinx, did you ever check out what the director did before that? He did pretty heavy documentary about this mild-mannered family man who had allegations of molesting kids. Its called Capturing the Friedmans. Its definitely worth a look if you can find it somewhere.
  • DrewDrew indianapolis
    I heard about it when The Jinx was airing but I'll have to check it out.
  • This looks really great! I love documentaries. Werner Herzog has got some excellent ones in all kinds of topics (both series and feature length ones). Another all-time favorite is The Imposter, it's unbelievable stuff.
    While not crime themed, I'm also super looking forward to Believer on CNN, which is Reza Aslan's documentary series about religions around the world. Not sure when it comes out though.
  • I'm all for docs as well. Netflix usually has a good variety to choose from. This looks interesting for sure.
  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    Reni said:

     Another all-time favorite is The Imposter, it's unbelievable stuff.

    I just read the brief synopsis for this and it sounds fantastic.
  • I am also a lover of documentaries, and I am very interested in Making a Murder, however I sincerely hope it is nothing like The Jinx which I found to be both morally and journalistically unethical in the extreme. I am hoping that Netflix realizes that documentaries are supposed to be informative, and not necessarily purely entertaining. The case in Making a Murder is intriguing, and I am interested in getting to know the facts.
  • DrewDrew indianapolis

    The Jinx which I found to be both morally and journalistically unethical in the extreme.

    How is that?
  • edited December 2015

    I don't really feel like constructing a whole argument about it, but from my perspective I feel like the documentary filmmakers went for ratings over substance, and made a lot on unethical moves (like withholding evidence from the police) in order to get there. The filmmakers said they just wanted to get to the truth, and get justice for the people that Durst murdered (and lets remember that these are real people who lost their lives in horrific ways, and this should not be seen as entertainment, but as informative documentary film-making) but withholding evidence and questioning Durst themselves might make his confession inadmissable, whereas if they had done what they were supposed to do, the police may have gotten a sworn confession from him, which could be used in court. Maybe the police wouldn't have gotten a confession, maybe Durst would have lawyered-up at that point, but we will never know because the filmmakers made a frankly, stupid and self-serving decision. 

    This is just an assumption from me, but I would bet that the filmmakers withheld that evidence from the police until the final episode of The Jinx aired, so that Durst would be arrested on the same day the episode was airing. If true, that means that the filmmakers withheld that evidence through the production and post-production of the show, which was probably months of Durst walking free when he could have been arrested. I wonder how the murder victim's families feel about that? 

    There are a ton of articles from the New York Times and other reputable places that describe just what could be considered unethical within The Jinx series, if you're interested in looking into the subject further. 

    I have heard a lot of people say that The Jinx did what Serial couldn't do, because Serial ended without any real answers. My rebuttal to that is if you want a finished, complete story at the end of something, then documentaries are not the genre for you. They are based on real life, and real life very rarely has such neat and fantastical endings as The Jinx series. Serial followed all of the ethical guidelines, and gave, in my opinion, a compelling and informative story about truth versus perception, and about race and religion in within the American justice system. At the end of it, Adnan will be getting a new hearing. It may seem like a small step in the right direction, but that is what real life is like. Small steps. And in the end an innocent man might walk free. 

    At the end of day, I am glad that Making a Murderer was inspired more by Serial and less by The Jinx, and I sincerely hope that the filmmakers and investigators of Making a Murderer stick to journalistic ethics, because when you start to play in the grey area with documentaries, you are playing with peoples lives and loved ones. 
    DrewpavlovsbellDeeDemicJosh B.
  • I recommend The Staircase for anyone who hasn't seen it and is a fan of Serial season 1 & The Jinx. It's an 8 part docu-series following the trial of a man accused of murderibg his wife. It's fascinating. I watched the whole thing in YouTube. I believe it was originally aired on Sundance.
    hypergenesbElisaJosh B.
  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    Awesome, thanks for recommending The Staircase. It sounds really interesting.
  • Did anyone watch it yet? This Guy's situation is so completely F'd up and the system completely corrupt yet I struggle because the guy is obviously not a good guy. It's interesting that it makes it difficult for me to feel any sympathy for him. I guess it just shows how easy it is to convict someone of something they didn't do when you're pretty certain they've already done or will do something. This guy is definitely no Adnan.
  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    Dang--I am in the middle of a move, and despite starting this thread, it completely slipped my mind that this was released.
  • Man, this is really good. I'm on the 9th episode. What a crazy case.
  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    I hear the trailer spoils some of the story points. Nothing major from what I understand, but if you haven't watched the trailer yet--maybe abstaining wouldn't be the worst move ever.
  • pavlovsbellpavlovsbell Brooklyn, NY
    I just started the third episode.  The main title music reminds me vaguely of The Leftovers Season 1 main title music.  Not a complaint; I love the eerie plaintiveness of both.  
  • giardinellogiardinello Long Island, NY
    I just finished watching the entire 10-part documentary --I don't even know where to start. I went into it not knowing anything about the cases. When I heard Netflix was producing this documentary a month or so ago, I made it a point to not look into anything; I wanted to experience it without any preconceived notions. 
    This was the most compelling, stirring, and terrifying documentary I've ever seen. I've never watched a documentary and felt a spectrum of strong emotions on dozens of occasions. The most powerful, and most frequent, emotion I felt was anger. 
    I think this documentary deserves the Bald Move treatment. If Jim and A.Ron don't plan to do a podcast on it, I would definitely contribute to a commissioned podcast if other people are interested. I'm going to check to see if there's a specific discussion thread for Making a Murderer on the forum. If there's not, I'll create a thread specifically for people who have watched the entire documentary to prevent people from spoilers. 
    Looking at it from a critical perspective, I think it's the greatest documentary of its kind I've ever seen. It's in the same category as The Jinx, The Staircase, Serial, and especially The Thin Blue Line. If anyone's seen The Thin Blue Line, which won an Academy Award for best documentary, it's subject matter is in the same ballpark, but the blatant injustices are exponentially higher. 
  • BlanchBlanch Tempe, Az
    This series was insane. I still don't know how I feel regarding guilt vs innocence.... Of anyone! The storytelling is captivating, totally binged watched it and may watch it again.
  • I'll say this. It would be so much easier to make up my mind about this if Brendan Dassey didn't tell a different story every single time he opens his mouth.
  • With each episode I am just dumbfounded by what is going on here! Just finished E4 ... How is this real life?
  • aberry89aberry89 California
    I think I enjoyed this more than the Jinx. To me, it was more shocking and more important because it showed the sever faults in our justice system. 

    My gut says Brendan is completely innocent, and that Steven most likely is too. The evidence is just not there to convict him, and something that was strangely not brought up, motive. There was absolutely no motive behind this murder and alleged rape. It's kind of insane how much that was left out. 

    Serial was a complicated, always gray, never quite put together puzzle where I felt there was just never enough provable evidence to free Adnon. But the enormous lack of evidence from the prosecuting side, and the obvious spite that drove the prosecution was unbelievable. That would be my takeaway from this whole thing, that it was just unbelievable. I cant understand how a jury unanimously decides guilty...did i just watch the same trail they did???? How did Robert Durst walk free of out of a trail with SO much more damning evidence? It just boggles my mind. 

    I cannot say 100% that Avery had 0 part in the crime, but I can say that the justice system in Lackawanna county is utterly corrupt. 

    I hope maybe during a BaldMove TV episode they talk about this, or maybe do a whole episode about it, I would love to hear their discussion.  
  • ZinzanZinzan ATL
    edited January 2016
    @aberry89, I haven't watched Making a Murderer, but stumbled on recent news about how the show did not reveal some pretty damning evidence. Google MAKING A MURDERER EVIDENCE and you'll find motive.

    If this article from Pajiba doesn't come up, check it out. Looks pretty bad for Mr. Avery.

  • @Zinzan some of the stuff that was left out is compelling, but the LEO malfeasance sure seems to leave heaps of reasonable doubt just laying around everywhere. I'd encourage you to check it out if you find that article interesting.

    there there is this from yesterday...
  • A_Ron_HubbardA_Ron_Hubbard Cincinnati, OH
    I don't want to see spoilers, so I'm just posting this here. I'm on episode 3, it's 1230am, and I can't stop. I'm so jacked up on adrenaline watching this thing. I'll have more when I'm finished watching cause I'll be damned if I'm getting spoiled, haha.
  • aberry89aberry89 California
    On episode three you say...ohh oh you sweet summer child....

  • aberry89aberry89 California
    edited January 2016

    I did read that article about what the documentary left out, and I find it pretty frustrating they would leave out stuff like that. Inflammatory or not, all evidence needs to discussed. One of my big problems is that no motive is ever talked about, but if was Steven was acting inappropriately toward her, calling her with a hidden number that would start to solidly a motive to something nefarious. However, the evidence and how it is found is so murky. How can I trust anything the police found or allege happened? Do I think Steven is stupid enough to try to commit a sexual assault and or murder after spending years in jail falsely accused of that????  The waters are just so muddy and its infuriating never knowing what truly happened to this woman...
  • amyja89amyja89 Oxford, England
    edited January 2016
    Thought I'd copy and paste my thoughts from over on the other Making A Murderer thread as this one seems to be the chosen one! ...

    I thought it was great, but if it had been only eight episodes like The Jinx then it would have been perfect. In my opinion, all of the shocking revelations and exposition were laid out early on and the show got a bit carried away with giving us every second of the trials, to the point where they were going over things that we had already learned.

    Crazy, crazy story, ultimately frustrating because although I don't have a strong enough opinion to say guilty or 'innocent', there was absolutely enough argument from Steven's lawyers for the jury to reach a reasonable doubt verdict of not guilty, exactly the same situation that had me dumbfounded by Adnan's guilty verdict in Serial.

    A few scattered observations from me:

    • That Ken Kratz is a real piece of work. A horrible man whose ego overpowered the jury in my opinion. The story telling press conference he held the day after Brendan's 'confession' was outrageous.
    • Why the fuck wasn't more made of the fact that that cop phoned in the license plate of Teresa's car and confirmed what model it was before he was supposed to have seen it?
    • I don't know anything about the American justice system, but I can't believe that there were no special circumstances for Brendan who was clearly quite a mentally handicapped individual. Watching his long silences scrambling for the words that he thought people wanted to hear was physically painful to me.
    • Why exactly wasn't the court allowed to see the portion of Brendan's first interview where he tells his mum that the police 'got to his head' etc. Surely that is vital evidence in his favour?
    • Seeing Teresa's brother blindly follow the influence of the police and the state was kind of sad. Sure, he wanted justice for his sister, but I think that sometimes clouded his mind to real courtroom facts that were being revealed right in front of him.
    • As soon as the court seemed to accept that woman's explanation that 'God' guided them to the car on the Avery lot, I knew it was going to be an utter shit show. So 'God' guided you, but you don't think there is anything note worthy about the fact that you were given a map by the roommate and ex-boyfriend (can't remember if it was one or both), and you just happened to be the only person whom they gave a camera to? Come on, that needs further examination.

    I took a dislike to Steven since the very first episode when he talked about how he threw his own cat into a fire, and although I am 100% satisfied that he did not rape the woman in the 80s, there is clearly more to him than the documentary chose to show. Just the little glimpses of those letters to his first wife vowing to kill her etc. were enough to contradict the passive, cheerful chap vibe that came across in a lot of his phone conversation.
  • jarrodtb said:

    @Zinzan some of the stuff that was left out is compelling, but the LEO malfeasance sure seems to leave heaps of reasonable doubt just laying around everywhere. I'd encourage you to check it out if you find that article interesting.

    there there is this from yesterday...
    Yeah, it seems like there was definitely shady stuff going on by law enforcement. They crossed the line, no doubt.

    But it could still be a case where they got the right man.

    I will watch it sometime this year. I let my Netflix expire at the end of the year, will pick it up again when Daredevil comes back.

  • edited January 2016
    @amyja89, I had the same question about the tape of Brendan's interview being cut short. Then in that same episode (or the next one) the prosecution played a damning recording and a defense lawyer told the filmmakers there was a "gentleman's agreement" between the legal teams that the prosecution would not introduce that recording into evidence. I assumed the agreement was "you don't introduce this and we won't introduce that," and the defense had agreed to not play that last bit of Brendan's interview. They held up their end but the prosecution didn't. Pretty foul if my inference is correct.
  • edited January 2016
    @jarrodtb, you're absolutely right, and thanks for that link.

    Funny enough, this very thread highlights the problem with the assumptions we make about a jury of one's peers. We assume that jurists are rational, that they all understand the instructions, and that they will come to decisions only after weighing the evidence. But there are jurists who will say "I don't know anything about those 10 hours of reasonable doubt everyone's talking about, but I read this one article, so I'm voting guilty and I stand firm in that position." This is what a jury of one's peers can really consist of, and you can go to prison because of it.
This discussion has been closed.