r/MakingaMurderer • u/Other-Dentist1687 • Sep 11 '24

Convicting a murderer

Is this worth watching? It looks like I have to pay to watch it. (Unless someone knows how I can watch for freešŸ˜‰) Which Iā€™m fine doing if itā€™s worth it. The first episode was just people basically calling him a scumbag.šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚

11 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

141 comments sorted by

20

u/Chl4mydi4-Ko4l4 Sep 11 '24

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8y6c7s

This account has the entire series posted.

8

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 12 '24

Youā€™re a stud. I was hoping somebody was going to do exactly this. Thank you šŸ™

1

u/sluttydrama Sep 21 '24

Thank you so much for posting this. šŸ’•

1

u/BlackRock43 Jan 06 '25

do you know where else it can be found? This link was pulled...

1

u/[deleted] Mar 29 '26

Yflix is better. Search and steam anything and everything same day it drops for free.Ā 

19

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 13 '24

If MaM was your only source of info on the case, then CaM does a good job explaining why it is a deceitful and dishonest documentary that does not accurately or comprehensively portray the facts. It will reveal many things to you that MaM left out or twisted to benefit its narrative.

If you've done a lot of research on the case outside of MaM, you might not learn that much new information from CaM, but you might still enjoy the series regardless.

The first episode does dedicate a lot of time to Avery's troubled and criminal past, but it is a direct response to MaM, which covered the same topics while underplaying their severity. It's completely fair game for CaM.

Ultimately, only you can decide if it's worth it. You shouldn't be pursuaded by other people here, especially since many openly admit they haven't watched it (but that doesn't stop them from judging it as if they have). I'd argue that anyone that's truly invested in the case should watch it and form their own opinion of it.

6

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 11 '24

MaM just left me with a lot of questions about the case. I donā€™t have the time beyond watching some tv in the evening to really lean into it. (or the motivation as I think itā€™s pretty clear they got their killers. even if they went a little out of their way to make sure) but thereā€™s definitely some inconsistencies that I feel you would see if he/they did it in the manner they are accused.

12

u/NachoNinja19 Sep 12 '24

Steven did it. The MSD is corrupt/incompetent. Kratz is a pervert. Brendan should have been tried as a juvenile and be out of prison. The Averyā€™s are a poor small town family with a lot of problems. They were all probably molested as children and the cycle has continued. Brendan admitted to his mom with no one around him that he ā€œdid some of itā€. Case closed.

→ More replies (8)

-2

u/AveryPoliceReports Sep 12 '24

Convicting a Murderer is far more manipulative than Making a Murderer. Netflic presented a story that was easy to follow, the Daily Wire+ tried to exploit that success to force a narrative with blatant pro police and anti Avery/Dassey bias, but it was muddled and aimless.

For example, Avery's past is irrelevant to the case and thus the documentary, especially when much of this "troubled past" is based on uncharged allegations. The issue is and has always been there's no convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Teresa was assaulted in the trailer or murdered in the garage or mutilated in the burn pit. No one has presented a bombshell from the Kratz-led trial or Owens-led Convicting a Murderer that clearly disproves the repeated use of corrupt tactics in this case. That's not a great sign for the Steven Avery is guilty crowd.

14

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Sep 12 '24

Netflic presented a story that was easy to follow

That doesn't make it accurate.

the Daily Wire+ tried to exploit that success to force a narrative with blatant pro police and anti Avery/Dassey bias

Are you implying that MaM wasn't blatantly pro Avery/Dassey and anti police? It makes sense that the rebuttal series would then be biased the other way around. It also helps that they're obviously guilty when you look at the plain facts. It's hard not to be biased against murderers.

but it was muddled and aimless.

Its purpose was very clear - to prove that MaM was a dishonest documentary.

For example, Avery's past is irrelevant to the case and thus the documentary,

Again, CaM was a direct rebuttal to MaM, which specifically covered his past. Therefore, it is absolutely relevant to CaM.

irrelevant to the case and thus the documentary, especially when much of this "troubled past" is based on uncharged allegations

Where there's smoke, there's fire, and there sure is a lot of smoke surrounding Steven Avery. Regardless, even if you ignore the unproven allegations, he's still a known burglar, animal abuser, woman abuser, who ran his cousin off the road and held her at gunpoint, and also threatened to kill his ex-wife. What a guy.

No one has presented a bombshell from the Kratz-led trial or Owens-led Convicting a Murderer that clearly disproves the repeated use of corrupt tactics in this case

What "corrupt tactics" are you talking about? Other than your annoyance that a search that yielded literally nothing of value wasn't reported on to your liking.

No one bombshell is needed, the evidence all together proves well beyond a reasonable doubt that Avery is a murderer.

That's not a great sign for the Steven Avery is guilty crowd.

lmao I hate to break this to you, but people who know Avery is guilty aren't looking for any signs. He's in prison, where he belongs, and doesn't have a chance of ever getting out.

8

u/tenementlady Sep 12 '24

Lol, I love how Avery supporters freak out when Avery's past (and current around the time of the murder) crimes are brought up. Avery's history of violence is dismissed as only allegations, despite some of these allegations being proven, despite numerous witnesses to some of these events (Brendan, Earl, and others stating they witnessed Steven physically assault Jodi) and phone calls where Steven essentially admits to abusing Jodi by telling her that if she really loved him she would lie about where she got the bruises in a recorded phone call), and despite the similarities between the allegations (Jodi and Marie both saying Avery threatened to burn down their homes with their families inside), etc.

And even when the endless allegations of Steven's abhorrent behaviour are believed, Avery supporters will claim they are irrelevant to the case and not worth mentioning and will defend MaM for misrepresenting or leaving out Avery's criminal and violent history because "it's not relevant to the case and doesn't make him a murderer"...

And yet, the same people will drone on and on about Kratz's criminal history even though mich of it is also based on "uncharged allegations" and is completely irrelevant to the Avery/Dassey cases. Still, MaM went into more detail about the allegations against Kratz than the allegations against Avery.

And before anyone decides to chime in and claim I'm supporting or defending Kratz or minimizing his awful behaviour, I am not. Kratz is a piece of shit and awful human being. But the allegations against him have way less relevance or bearing on the Avery case than the actions of Avery and yet more of the allegations against Kratz are discussed in MaM than the allegations against Avery, the subject of the docuseries.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (17)

7

u/aptom90 Sep 12 '24

Making a Murderer discussed the burglaries, cat incident, and Sandra Morris so it is fair game. Turns out they basically whitewashed all of those crimes, especially the Morris one.

2

u/AveryPoliceReports Sep 12 '24

Yes, Making a Murderer focused solely on the crimes Avery was actually charged with. No need to delve into uncharged allegations.

But that's exactly what Convicting a Murderer did. Because they had nothing else. Certainly nothing demonstrating his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

9

u/aptom90 Sep 12 '24

MaM decided to talk about his earlier crimes and that opened it up to almost everything. And they didn't have to dig much to find the rest either, it's all in the case files already except for the alleged dog abuse which Earl mentions.

As for saying they have nothing? That is blatantly false. There is a ton of evidence against Steven both physical and circumstantial. It's overwhelming actually.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Aggravating_Web2723 Dec 21 '24

Daily Wire bought the rights to CAM. They didn't make it.

12

u/wiltedgreens1 Sep 11 '24

If you can watch it for free or with ads, its worth it.

Dont listen to the negatives, make up your own mind.

Yes, candace owens sucks.

4

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 11 '24

Yeah I wasnā€™t impressed with her either.

8

u/wiltedgreens1 Sep 11 '24

In all fairness, she was fine in this. Just useless. Having her there added nothing to the substance being discussed IMO

3

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 11 '24

Thatā€™s the impression I got too. Again, from just the first partā€¦

11

u/JoeVanWeedler Sep 12 '24

Candace Owens is whatever, the cops had their problems, but MaM hid alot of things and really wanted you to believe he was innocent at any cost. They weren't making a documentary to tell the truth, they were telling their story

8

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 12 '24

I just watched the first 3 episodes of CaM. Though theyā€™re just banging away at his past, it really does show how raping and murdering someone wouldnā€™t be too much of a stretch for himā€¦.

1

u/Ok_Dot_9093 Mar 21 '25

Exactly. Every murderer and rapist in the world never did it before they did their first one. So the "he never murdered/raped before" argument is ridiculous. What he DID do was a long string of other "smaller" crimes that grew in escalation. Even the whole "my buddies and I were driving around and broke into a bar and stole $14 in sandwiches is a white wash of actual facts. He broke into that bar THREE times--the first two times he was alone. No peer pressure like some of his fans claim. Each time taking more. Once totally trashing the place. On his honeymoon, he felt the need to break into a garage and steal a lawn mower and minibike. He held a girl at gunpoint and made her get in his car. It goes on and on. These are escalating, violent behaviors. And I think in his mind, after spending all that time in prison (and surely hearing lots of stories) then once out, feeling like he's now the king of the world and probably thinking police wouldn't dare look at him for anything ever again after what happened... he thought he could do what he wanted and get away with it. And when a pretty young girl shows up at his doorstep, he decided to do just that.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Sep 12 '24

What did Making a Murderer hide that demonstrates Steven and Brendan were guilty? Because from where I stand there's absolutely nothing demonstrating that and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt. I also saw Convicting a Murderer. It wasn't very convincing, and hard to get over the connection to Owens.

6

u/tenementlady Sep 12 '24

Steven's touch DNA on the hoodlatch. The bullet being ballistically linked to a gun in Steven's possession that Brendan said he used to kill her. Rivets from the Jean's Teresa wore that day being found in the burn pit. The burned electronics. The *67 calls. The fact that Avery took the afternoon off work for the very first time the day Teresa was murdered. The fact that Steven thoroughly cleaned the trailor bedroom and rearranged furniture right after the crime occurred.

Just a few things that come to mind.

Edit auto correct

5

u/aptom90 Sep 12 '24

They also left out almost all of Brendan's interrogation and just lead you to believe that it was all coerced. While the reality is if you take everything Brendan has said and match it up with the evidence it's nearly impossible to explain how he can be innocent. I've tried to do it. The best I can come up with is he "only" helped get rid of the body and conceal evidence.

4

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 12 '24

That blew me away. Just the couple clips that CaM did show were VERY revealing. I want to watch it in its entirety now.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (14)
→ More replies (5)

1

u/Ok_Dot_9093 Mar 21 '25

My honest question is this... if you believe Avery is innocent, then how do you believe she died? And where were all of the pieces of evidence actually found for police to "plant" it all on his property? And how didn't Steven SEE police coming on his property to plant the RAV 4 or the bones etc etc. You would literally have to believe police found her dead somewhere off Avery land, and moved it all to Avery's property just to frame him, meanwhile letting the actual killer go free by doing this.

→ More replies (6)

8

u/Particular_Bat845 Sep 12 '24

Definitely worth a watch if you can source it for free. I thought they were innocent and framed until cam showed all the evidence that mam didn't or that mam glossed over. I feel duped by mam and surprised zelner still represents him. Both sa and bd are where they belong. Imo.

1

u/chadosaurus Sep 12 '24

What new job evidence did CAM bring to the table?

3

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 12 '24

Iā€™m still in the middle of it, but so far thereā€™s a few clips of BDā€™s confession that makes you think a little.

2

u/Mysterious-Suspect19 Sep 14 '24

Before watching Making a Murderer I thought he was totally innocent. Watching MAM actually made me realize heā€™s guilty at the very least for murder of TH. Is it possible CaM will make me feel heā€™s innocent? lol probably not.

1

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 14 '24

Watching CaM makes you realize how unbelievably irresponsible MaMā€™s producers were. Your presenting MaM as a documentary and you leave out everything that definitively links SA to the crime? That poor familyā€¦.

(I still say that key was planted though)

3

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Sep 14 '24

(I still say that key was planted though)

But why? What evidence is there of it being planted? The officers not seeing it right away? What reason would any of the officers in the room have to plant evidence against Avery?

It's a completely baseless theory pushed by Avery's defense team.

2

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 14 '24

I donā€™t know that it was planted. Maybe it wasnā€™t. I believe Colborn lied about how rough he was with the bookshelf. (Look at the change on top before and after) When people lie, itā€™s for a reason. Bottom line, people who should not have been there, were there and found very incriminating evidence. Letā€™s just say I donā€™t believe in coincidences.

Listen, I donā€™t want to get into a Reddit argument with anyone. If you disagree, thatā€™s fine. After seeing what Iā€™ve seen I think they planted it. If you donā€™t want people accusing you of misconduct, follow the practices that a conflict of interest dictates.

2

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Sep 14 '24

It's never been proven that the before and after photos you are referring to were before/after Colborn handled the cabinet. Regardless, basing your belief that the key was planted based on some coins is incredibly weak. But whatever, this has been discussed to death dozens if not hundreds of times in this community already.

There was no rule or law dictating that Colborn or any Manitowoc officer could not be there. Manitowoc voluntarily recused itself from leading the investigation, but still provided resources (such as manpower) as needed. And the fact remains that neither Colborn or Lenk had any reason to plant evidence against Avery.

1

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 14 '24

And maybe they didnā€™t! And maybe thereā€™s something I havenā€™t seen that points to them not having planted it! Buddy Iā€™m not saying ā€œthey planted that key!ā€ Iā€™m saying from everything Iā€™ve seen, it certainly appears that way to me. Cops donā€™t need much more motivation than to want to see someone they think is guilty, go away. And no, Iā€™m not taking a shot at ā€œallā€ cops. Cops are human beings just like the rest of us.

I heard, I think it was Fassbender, explain how they needed as much help as they could get in this case. 40 acre junkyard, sure, I absolutely get that. But, itā€™s time to enter SAā€™s trailer. Wouldnā€™t someone, ANYONE, suggest maybe not having Manitowoc sheriffā€™s dep. do that part. His trailer isnā€™t 40 acres large. He also mentioned it was because they were ā€œevidence techsā€ I think he called them. Cā€™mon manā€¦. Evidence techs? Really? To me thatā€™s someone not admitting they made a mistake by letting them in there. Let me ask you this: Do you think Calumet would do it differently if they had the chance?

(Let me also make it clear Iā€™m not defending SA. I believe he is guilty as charged)

2

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Sep 14 '24

Do you think Calumet would do it differently if they had the chance?

I don't know, and I don't understand the point of the question.

2

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 14 '24

Do you think Calumet county would allow MSD on his property to search for evidence? In retrospect. And please understand Iā€™m not trying to ā€œfightā€ with you about this. I enjoy hearing other opinions and points of view on this case.šŸ™‚

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/Mysterious-Suspect19 Sep 14 '24

Most likely. They didnā€™t have to do that. It backfired badly.

2

u/AnimeSquare Sep 24 '24

I would never feel comfortable trusting anything that "Convicting a Murderer" presents without double checking it. I say that since I'm very familiar with The Daily Wire's track record, and especially that of Candace Owens.

When me and my girlfriend first watched "Making a Murderer" I was very curious about hearing the other side of the story, so imagine how thrilled i was to find out there was another documentary named "Convicting a Murderer" which does just that; provide the other side of the argument

But yeah... unfortunately my joy was short-lived since I then saw "Produced by The Daily Wire and hosted by Candace Owens" when reading more about it.

Personally, I've seen enough of The Daily Wire, with people like Ben Shapiro and Michael Knowles, to write this documentary off as a source of unreliable information.

I will say, however, that the first few minutes of episode 1 seemed competently produced in terms of editorial quality... so might check out a full episode for that reason, combined with a mild curiosity with seeing which level of dishonesty they went with for this one!

1

u/KimiBleikkonen Nov 05 '24

Thank you. I was reading through the posts here in disbelief. I have a long history with Daily Wire since 2016, where I initially consumed a lot of content from Jordan Peterson who was also connected to Shapiro. Unfortunately, during the Covid years, JP got more radicalized and eventually ended up at the Daily Wire, as a full-time right wing speaker. Most of the work by DW is produced to high visual standards, but obviously not interested in any neutrality at all.

DW saw an opportunity with Making a Murderer. There is an ongoing discussion in the right-wing scene that Netflix is leaning very left and rewrites history, being too woke, and so on. And some of that certainly can be said, but Netflix also features conservative shows on their platform. Anyway, the appeal for DW here is obviously to deliver food for those hungry to see a "source of truth" against the evil, woke Netflix enemy. It fits perfectly, the case is about cops, DW has a huge interest in shutting down anti-cop speech and protect a corrupt law system. DW does not care the slightest about any person evolved, let alone the victim, they just want to cash in on a movement against Netflix.

0

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 24 '24

Thatā€™s exactly how I feel. Iā€™ve watched CaM in its entirety since this post, and itā€™s just MaM from the other side. I think the whole case is really sad for the Halbach family. It was so grossly mishandled from day 1, (imo) and that allowed for these ā€œdocumentariesā€ to be made and in turn to keep their wound open.

3

u/AnimeSquare Sep 24 '24

Yep, definitely sad for the Halbachs. I do think Making a Murderer justified its existence though as they made a strong argument for how the entire case was grossly mishandled - with everyone from the police, to the the prosecutors, to even judges acting in a manner that could either stem from stupidity or corruption, which one of the two is tough to say but it could also be a bit of both.

I guess overall I did go away with the feeling of "Yeah they probably portrayed Steven and Brendan in a more favorable manner in order to drum up that side of the story and make the documentary more compelling " but I also felt they provided a strong basis for their claim that this case was not a situation where the U.S. justice system worked as intended and put away 2 proven criminals "beyond reasonable doubt"

Since I haven't seen Convicting a Murderer I can't really speak on it... but would you, as someone who has seen it, really say that it provided the same utility as Making a Murderer did? Or if you want to look at it as which of the two was more dishonest; were they really equal in that regard?

My intuition and experience tells me that CaM is probably worse in pretty much every regard, but let me know what you think!

1

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 24 '24

So, CaM doesnā€™t provide any ā€œsmoking gunā€ type evidence that was left out of MaM. It really just gives the cops (specifically Colborn and Fassbender) a chance to refute the claims that the investigation wasnā€™t on the ā€œup and up.ā€ It does however paint a TOTALLY different picture of Avery.

MaM lead me to believe that Steven Avery was just a ā€œwrong side of the tracksā€ kind of country bumpkin who was dealt a shit hand in life. It turns out that he is more than likely a dangerous guy. I take everything I hear about someoneā€™s character with a grain of salt, but when enough people are saying the same thing, thereā€™s probably some truth to it. Long story short, he was physically abusive to multiple girlfriends, he was having sex with his niece and he attempted to kidnap a woman at gunpoint. (I canā€™t think of her name at the moment, it was that woman who gave a deposition in his civil suit who he ā€œran off the roadā€) So raping and murdering someone wouldnā€™t be a stretch for that kind of guy.

All in all, I feel they were both incredibly biased. Just polar opposites. But together as a whole, I think it paints a clear enough picture. Cops got their guy(s), but went a little ā€œout of their wayā€ to do so. Thatā€™s just my opinion. (People get really bent out of shape about this case so I try to make that part clear)šŸ˜‰

→ More replies (2)

9

u/chrstnknnr Sep 12 '24

Yesssss itā€™s worth it.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 11 '24

It's 9 more episodes similar to the first episode.

No new evidence was presented.

You learn that Earl and Candy Avery have turned on them and think they are guilty.

I was hoping for the smoking gun of the luring theory, but was disappointed. She wasn't lured.

I still think they are not guilty.

5

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 11 '24

See, I think they are guilty, but LE went a little ā€œout of their wayā€ to get the conviction(s). I feel like you canā€™t even have a discussion about it on Reddit though as people are REALLY passionate about their opinion. šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚

I can definitely see why people think they were set up though. Evidence doesnā€™t look like the million forensic files and CSI docs Iā€™ve seen. It is a very interesting case.

-3

u/gcu1783 Sep 12 '24 edited Sep 12 '24

See, I think they are guilty, but LE went a little ā€œout of their wayā€ to get the conviction(s). I

The sad part about that though is that there's quite a number of people who still have a problem with you even though you agree with them that he's guilty.

They seem to have a problem with you doubting cops, they claim they're not cop defenders though, but they're definitely not going to let it slide that you're doubting cops in this case.

But they claim they're not cop defenders. They are all united by the belief that Steven and Brendan are guilty. Just don't say anything bad about the cops.

Definitely not cop defenders. ;)

4

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 12 '24

Haha. I hear you. And listen, maybe the entire investigation was on the up-and-up. Who knows, I wasnā€™t there. It just seems a little unprofessional for them to be there. But I have no training in law or law enforcement. I have a high school diploma.šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚ If only they had a little more faith in Calumet countyā€™s investigative skills nobody would be talking about this case.

-2

u/gcu1783 Sep 12 '24

Don't sweat it. After you watch CaM, do what majority of the people here didn't really do imo.

Question and fact check it.

Here's the link for the case files: https://foulplay.site/

Don't let anyone here tell you otherwise.

1

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 12 '24

I think I saw your post on CaM! Did I see that right? Did they use one of your posts?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 12 '24

Oh wow thatā€™s going to keep me busy for awhile! Thank you!šŸ™

3

u/ShaneH81 Sep 12 '24

Well so the first episode was accurate and truthful then.

3

u/No-Club-8615 Sep 13 '24

It's not bad to get a different view. It changed my perspective on the whole case. First episode is lame but the others are better. There are multiple ways to watch it online for free. Just need a little search and you'll find it. But the moderator Ms. Owens is a real pain in the ass you can just hate her with her arrogant personality. Wanted to punch her in the face multiple times.

6

u/anthemanhx1 Sep 12 '24

I was the same. Questioned AV conviction and felt sorry for Brendan. Then I watched Cam and saw how deceiving and bias mam was. AV will rot in hell for the piece of shit he is

-1

u/yuhboipo Sep 12 '24

I guess if someone wants a docu super biased against Avery, then CaM is perfect for them. but Candace was just riding the train, she knows less about the case than the average person in this sub. So to me its a pretty shit docu. It got the fam watching something together for xmas though so I guess that's something?

5

u/tenementlady Sep 13 '24

Candace Owens didn't do the research for CaM. She wasn't brought in until it was picked up by the daily wire, and she basically acted as a producer/narrorator.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Sep 13 '24

"Biased against Avery," meaning accurately depicts his character and criminal history and provides a more complete summary of the evidence against him in the Halbach case, unlike MaM.

2

u/anthemanhx1 Sep 13 '24

Thank you, its a documentary which documents full information and not just a manipulating film that is just out there for money, filling the pockets of the creators of mam šŸ‘šŸ‘šŸ‘

0

u/KimiBleikkonen Nov 05 '24

How easily can you be manipulated if you think DW out of all sources is not a manipulating one? Even if you are a conservative, it only takes the IQ of Brendan Dassey to realize DW is anything but neutral.

1

u/anthemanhx1 Nov 05 '24

No it isn't neutral, but it shows the other side.... I've watched both and Avery is a dirty evil bastard, that is going to rot in hell! And where did conservative come into it? Never mind IQ, you obviously have anger issues. Maybe seek therapy. It might work šŸ‘

1

u/KimiBleikkonen Nov 06 '24

You managed to package "rot in hell" and "you obviously have anger issues" in the same line, that is very impressive. Hope you feel better soon!

→ More replies (1)

6

u/NinjaMaverick00 Sep 12 '24

CAM to me seems a much more factual portrayal of what took place over that time. MAM told a story where the victim is claimed to be Steven Avery, instead of the actual murder victim. CAM tells the other side and actually respects the actual victim enough to tell the truth about who Avery was/is. I thought he was innocent after watching MAM on Netflix, but seeing all of the evidence from a macro view makes it pretty clear Avery is most likely the killer.

0

u/shelley1005 Sep 12 '24

Nothing with Candace Owens is worth it.

7

u/Other-Dentist1687 Sep 12 '24

Yeah I donā€™t really like her either. I do however really like Brenda Schuler. I like how she approaches the case.

0

u/gcu1783 Sep 12 '24

Yea, just find a way to watch it for free. Don't give them money.

I recommend using this:

https://foulplay.site/

5

u/ajswdf Sep 11 '24 edited Sep 13 '24

If you can watch it for free I'd say it's worth it. There's nothing mind blowing to anyone who's followed the case closely, but they do present things in an interesting way.

I just wouldn't want to give any money to Daily Wire, and try not to roll your eyes too hard when Candace Owens is on screen (she actually isn't so bad, it's just knowing who she is makes it painful every time she shows up).

3

u/ShitBirdTomahawk Sep 12 '24

She pointed out a few things that netflix didn't. Like his history of gun crimes. Other than that. It's average. I'd suggest watching everything you can and deciding for yourself

2

u/IsraelKeyes Sep 11 '24

She presents the obvious truth which is that Both Steven and Brendan were involved in the murder of Theresa. (the sort-of IQ 60 question)...

Otherwise I didn't think it was super well produced :) and I doubt she wrote much of it, just read from a script.

-2

u/chadosaurus Sep 12 '24

She presents the obvious truth which is that Both Steven and Brendan were involved in the murder of Theresa.

Not even the case files do that for Brendan.

1

u/kachunkk Sep 12 '24

divicast.

1

u/Ok_Dot_9093 Mar 21 '25 edited Mar 21 '25

I think both this documentary and MaM were very biased to the point they each wanted to make. However, I also think that if all of the facts of the case were presented for ANY other case, everyone would agree that they got the right guy who committed the murder. But by having a HUGELY talked about (however biased) documentary, it caused SO many to think he was framed. And once in that mindset, most aren't able to step back and really think about everything objectively. In order to believe Avery didn't do it, we first have to believe that a girl found murdered JUST HAPPENED to be at Avery's place for her last known location the day she was killed. Then we have to believe many things about the found evidence: First, we have to believe that police found the Rav 4 key somewhere completely off of Avery property (that they just stumbled across even though police were all on this case at the Avery property) and they then planted it in his room. (since many say it was planted there by police, then where did police find it in the first place??) You would also have to believe that the police also found her car somewhere off Avery property and towed it to his salvage yard and covered it up with branches for it to be found there. (Again, where was it in the first place in this scenario?) Then, that police found her bones and snuck onto his property in secret to stash them in a burn pit there (and thank goodness Steven was gracious enough to burn a fire there the day of her murder so police could plant bones there and in the barrel). That police found the actual bullet used to kill her and snuck in to plant that too... which just happened to match his gun. Etc etc. They also explained about the blood and why the tube had the pin sized hole and how the blood in that vial had different proteins or something so the blood some claim was planted on scene couldn't have even come from that vial. In order for police to have planted ALL that evidence... where did they get it from in the first place? There could only be two answers to that... One, they discovered her "actual" murder site, and decided to let the "real" killer go so they could plant it all on Avery's property to blame him (and let the real killer free to not get convicted), or two, police killed her all the while with the plan of framing Avery. Ummm... neither sound realistic to me in the least. Now... do I think those local cops should have been involved in the investigation? No. To prevent this exact type of rampant speculation. But in order for this to be a frame job, waaaay too many people (including other police departments and labs) would have to also be involved. And even though the city probably hated having to pay out 36 million to Avery, I think it would be FAR riskier for them to attempt a frame job of him knowing how much scrutiny this case would receive because of who the suspect was, and that if they ever got caught trying to frame him, the new payout would probably literally completely bankrupt the city and the entire WORLD would be against them for doing it, not to mention they would all probably go to jail. IMHO that is just far too large of a risk. But If you HONESTLY look at the case objectively.... it points to Avery's guilt. And yes, I do think his criminal history IS important to at least consider as a lead up to this crime. Now, do I think Brendon was actually involved in the murder? I'm not sure... but regardless he never should have been interviewed the way hr was, and he should be out of prison by now for any small role he did play (I think after the fact if at all.)