Ooh, so snarky and dismissive. Because this case doesn't bring up a lot of valid points that can be discussed like adults, like whether rape accusations should allow persons to get out of contracts or whether that may lead to unintended consequences. It's an interesting area for law to be sure.

Lawrence of Arabia wasn't a Joss Whedon movie.

No, if he is not guilty that wouldn't be the right thing to do. Because then he incentivized extortion. Not saying he isn't guilty, but if he isn't…..the worst thing for him to do would be "hey, you accused me of rape so here's everything you want"

PETA is the NRA of animal rights. It boggles my mind to see people supporting one of those organizations and despise the other when they're two sides of the same coin. There are a lot of sane people that are forced to live under the umbrella of extremist lunatics.

Chain of custody only applies after the property was seized by the officers. Otherwise, it becomes a matter to be weighed by the jury. Which means that the defense can argue that it's been tampered with and the prosecution can argue that it hasn't. Which is what happened. The laws you cite would have no bearing on…

I believe this argument can be solved by a simple question.

But don't you see that the very improprieties that you suggest can be picked apart in the same manner that you just did for Avery? You made that conclusion on not one piece of evidence, but a series of pieces of evidence. Yeah, those may not be damning pieces of evidence in themselves. Nobody is arguing they…

The point isn't that those acts should be held against him. They clearly shouldn't as far as proving he's a murderer. The point is that the filmmakers were going out of their way to paint Steven Avery in a certain light. If the filmmakers are going to let Steven Avery excuse that conduct that has nothing to do…

You could do that with every piece of evidence ever. In very few cases are you going to have 'conclusive' proof as in a video tape of someone committing the murder. In most cases, you take the evidence and you make your deduction based on the evidence. So small things all play a role. The fact that he was trying…

They included that stuff with Avery providing narration on how it wasn't so bad. Burning the cat was just fooling around when he was a kid (married with kids himself). Pointing a gun at his relative was just him lashing out because he had an IQ of 70 and thought that would stop her from telling lies about him. He…

They implied it hardcore in that second movie. And the third movie, they implied it was another person after they had to determine the first guy wasn't a suspect because the evidence forced them to do so.

Might want to skip Paradise Lost 2 where they spend half the time trying to convince viewers that Jon Byers is guilty because he's a weirdo.

The Innocence Project is indeed great. As much as I'm bothered by this upswell of outrage based on people getting their info from a Netflix TV show with an agenda, if it spurs more people to devote to a project that actually does exonerate innocent people based on, you know, actual facts and evidence and a full…

After watching the documentary, the only thing I knew for sure was that attorney failed in his duty to his client. Letting your client, after being appointed counsel and without some sort of agreement in place, talk to the police and make more incriminating statements without you being there is unconscionable. I am…

Shut up and elect Steven Avery President.

I agree the police should be in jail for creating a circumstantial case against a man they had a motive to frame on the basis of an even weaker circumstantial case made by a guy with a motive to frame them.

According to the film, Dassey didn't testify. You can't use his confession to convict a co-defendant if he doesn't testify. And Dassey has 5th Amendment rights to protect his own interests and cannot be compelled to testify at Avery's trial against himself. So the confession would be almost certainly be…

In addition to the things that Making a Murderer points out that should be eyebrow raising to people, I also find it eyebrow raising how people have been blatantly manipulated by a show and how many people don't realize how one-sided the documentary was because they lack an understanding of our legal system and how…

Maybe they should do a 10 hour documentary series that explicitly and rather manipulatively takes the position that Steven Avery is innocent?

"Hey, there is a chance this guy might not have raped; murdered and burned a woman's body? We should probably write a song supporting him!"