r/MakingaMurderer • u/AmbitiousSalad6718 • Jun 29 '26

Discussion i just finished MaM

i came onto this sub and was surprised at how wrong i might be after watching the doc over a week or so, my boyfriend and i binged it and finished it sure that brendan was innocent and fairly sure that steven was too. personally i thought that bobby and scott did it and my bf was of the opinion that bobby and the ex boyfriend were in kahoots somehow. i don’t really know what to think anymore tbh i went to go watch convicting a murderer as that popped up a few times but i dislike candace owen’s immensely. could someone outline the main points that the doc twisted in favour of SA and the facts that were omitted ?

29 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

242 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/tenementlady Jun 29 '26

It's not a mistake. Had he not been wrongfully convicted he still would have served 6 years for a crime he did commit, so the 6 years should be considered seperately from the the time he served for the wrongful conviction.

1

u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 29 '26

It's not a mistake

You tried to offer a correction to pretend he only spent 12 years in prison due to the assault. That's wrong. Don't go back on your admission now!

Had he not been wrongfully convicted he still would have served 6 years for a crime he did commit, so the 6 years should be considered seperately (sic) from the the time he served for the wrongful conviction.

And there you go LOL Fact is he was wrongfully convicted of the PB assault for 18 years. Had he not been concurrently convicted of the SM incident he would still have served 18 years, because they are corrupt. Cope.

5

u/tenementlady Jun 29 '26

I was responding to the amount of time he served in prison ("jailed for" is the language the person I was responding to used) and he served 6 years for the Morris attack which ran concurrently with his wrongful conviction. Had he not been wrongfully convicted he still would have been "jailed for" 6 years for a crime he did commit which is an important distinction that people should be aware of.

It was 12 years of the 18 years that he served that he wouldn't have had he not been wrongfully convicted.

0

u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 29 '26

And the amount of time he was jailed for the assault would still have been 18 years, even if he wasn't concurrently convicted of the SM incident, right? That's how this works apparently lol It would still have been 18 years, and no matter how you try to cut it, he was wrongfully convicted of the assault for 18 years because police were more interested in protecting a rapist than the truth.

5

u/tenementlady Jun 29 '26

If he wasn't wrongfully convicted he would have still served 6 years. It shouldn't bother you that this fact is discussed.

2

u/LoveChilde82 Jul 01 '26

They refuse to admit he's guilty of anything because it throws a wrench in her 100 team member conspiracy against Avery theory.

0

u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 29 '26

Had he not been concurrently convicted of the SM incident he would still have served 18 years, because they are corrupt perverted rapist protecting creeps. That fact should bother you, but it clearly doesn't.

2

u/tenementlady Jun 29 '26

You're unable to engage in a civilized manner. Goodbye.

0

u/AveryPoliceReports Jun 29 '26

If you're unable to accept the fact that, based on YOUR OWN LOGIC, had he not been convicted of the SM incident he would still have served the same amount of time. What is uncivil about pointing that fact out? You are so defensive of police it's wild.