Making A Murderer
5 / 5
The documentary and case that everyone is talking about!
Before I go into the details of the Stephen Avery case, I will talk about the making of this documentary. To compress decades of footage, hundreds of hours of trial and interviews with key figures into a 10-part documentary was an achievement in itself, but to create a good timeline of events which was interesting and gripped viewers throughout the series is testament to the makers of the programme.
An aspect of the programme that I found very helpful, especially in the early episodes, was the subtitles and the captions of the people involved accompanied with their professional or personal role in the case. (Not often you can praise the use of subtitles and captions!) I also felt the music and cutaway or closeup shots were very well done, and it helped to establish the mood of a particular situation and to also convey the person’s emotions.
Now on to the case…
I think I am with the majority with the opinion that there is reasonable doubt to say that Stephen Avery did not commit the murder of Teresa Halbach. I won’t profess to say that I can expertly say who is guilty and who isn’t but there are plenty of issues in Stephen’s and Brendan’s cases to say that they are not guilty. It was interesting to hear that more jurors thought Stephen was innocent in the initial vote.
One aspect which the prosecution had no answer to, which featured in the trial was the fact that there was no Teresa DNA evidence found in the garage except a bullet with Teresa’s blood on (found 6 months after the initial searches), yet there was no other DNA evidence found in the garage which is very unusual considering there should be some blood or hair on floor following a bullet to the head.
Where was Teresa’s DNA in Stephen’s bedroom if he and Brendan had supposedly tied her up, raped and cut her? Surely there should be something in the bedroom in the form of DNA, sweat or hair that belongs to Teresa if what the prosecution had argued happened.
The whole business with the discovery of the Toyota Rav4 is extremely fishy. The testimonies given by Colburn and Lenk respectively were both questioned by Buting, with no definite or convincing answer given by either of them. The fortuitous circumstance of the discovery of the car and the poor logging system, combined with the phone call from Colburn (not radio) suggests that both Lenk and Colburn were aware of the location of the car before it was even discovered by the search party. And to top it off, there were irregular blood stains in the car, which would seem a pointless move by Avery as he didn’t take the body to a different location. He wouldn’t drive a body 10 yards would he?!
Some things “not case related” that came out of watching this documentary;
1 : We all hate Ken Kratz
2 : Despite the situation, I found myself being annoyed by Mike Talbach.
3 : Even though they lost the case, Jerry Buting and Dean Strang are two brilliant lawyers.
Kathleen Zellner, a respected lawyer who specialises in rectifying false convictions, has said she will take Stephen’s case, and she has taken to Twitter over the last month or so to publicly say that she won’t rest until justice is done. Zellner is joined by Tricia Bushnell. You can follow any update of theirs on Zellner’s Twitter, as well as through the news undoubtedly.
Let me know your thoughts on this controversial case and television series. Did Stephen do it? Was Brendan there? Was the programme too one-sided? If Stephen is innocent, do you have your own theory?