You know what's been sticking in my craw about all this? If Steven Avery didn't kill Teresa Halbach, THEN WHO THE FUCK DID?! Are people really under the assumption that the police killed and cremated an innocent woman just to throw a man in jail for SUING THEM? Do any of you here actually believe that? If so, then the documentary has masterfully manipulated you. I will accept that they rushed to indict him and probably planted evidence to make that process go smoother, but he 100% killed her, and Brendan helped. Read the full transcript of His confession with monumentally important tidbits left out of the film. Sorry, but I think we've been duped into caring about these mouth breathing degenerates.
to me, this is a bizarre reaction after having watched all ten hours! i trust that you watched the whole thing, right? why do you feel like you've been duped? i watched with the knowledge that, inevitably, the filmmakers may be omitting certain elements from the story to present their side, so after it ended, i did my due diligence and continued my research. i do wish that the filmmakers were a little more comprehensive in presenting the prosecution's side, but i don't think any of their omissions are especially egregious, especially considering that they're not trying to solve a case, but instead trying to reveal flaws in the system. as such, i've continued to read about the case , and have tried to see it from both sides. considering all of the evidence, i think its very possible that steven avery did it, i still think its very possible that he did not. there are lots of possibilities, but i don't think anyone really thinks that the police killed an innocent woman... i think most people who watch the doc are left to infer a whole slew of possibilities. the one i've heard most often is that steven's family members bobby dassey and scott taydch are responsible.
still, the absolutism of your reaction begs elaboration - how can you say he 100 percent killed her? if there's one lesson to glean from these 10 hours, its the uselessness of this kind of verbiage... even today dean strang, the defense laywer for steven avery, says that he isn't sure Steven is innocent, but he is sure that the case itself is extremely troubling...
I don't want to get into the specifics of the case too much - i would just end up copying and pasting a lot of info from reddit - but the transcript Reelist shared demands context, which the show definitely provides. the above transcript is one of many many "confessions" dassey gave over a period of months, and its definitely not the first. i read the transcript from the first
dassey confession and and watched the video, because i was curious how his "confession" evolved over a series of interviews, and i have to say, after reviewing the materials, i'm no closer to believing anything brendan "confesses" to in the video.
Many I've talked to have concluded that Steven may be guilty, but that Brendan's confessions are definitely wack - the confession was clearly coerced out of him. how can you be so sure of brendan's guilt, reelist, especially in response to all of the information the doc provides about the transcript you shared?
Jeremy, the "cat-in-the-fire" incident has come up a lot for a lot of people... Its true, the filmmakers would have been better served in presenting a "rougher," truer version of the cat story... but this is still something that happened some 20 years before under drastically different circumstances. knowing the whole story obviously helps in understanding avery as a "mouth breathing degenerate," as reelist describes.. but for me i don't know that this type of behavior is necessarily predictive of rape/murder. i trust there are more people out there who have killed domestic pets than have killed humans... shouldn't i be able to accept that there are varying shades of criminality; even homicidal tendencies? it seems tough to me that the "cat-in-the-fire" would necessarily indict him for any other crime he might be accused of for the rest of his life.
that seems like its been a conundrum for people - to accept that steven avery might be a little "evil," or have disagreeable aspects of his character, but still be able to believe that he he did not commit the crime.. or alternatively, that he might actually be evil enough to commit a crime like this, but did not actually commit this one... these distinctions matter, no?
for me the politics of the filmmaking here are much clearer and less problematic than the jinx, in which the filmmakers make themselves central to the narrative, convince the main subject that they're making a movie different from the one they're making, etc.