Season 2 confirmd

Honestly, I'm surprised that this show's thread has fewer posts than Game of Thrones and Walking Dead.

While this might not be the best show in the history of television, I definitely feel like this series is the one that most strongly demands lengthy discussion.

What did they leave out?

not really a simple way to answer that. Just like everything presented in the documentary, you have to look at both sides to understand what each piece of info means. The documentary did leave out things that make Avery look bad, but there are also explanations for those things. The more time you spend researching, the more complicated it gets. ( http://www.thewrap.com/making-a-murderer-prosecutor-ken-kratz-steven-avery-9-reasons-guilty/ )



Avery's new lawyer is Kathleen Zellner. She has exonerated 16 people including one guy that was framed by serial killer Edward Wayne Edwards. The author of Edwards' biography is convinced that Edwards set up Steven Avery.

This shit only gets better. I feel like the next season of Making a Murderer is going to be even more dramatic than the first one.

This post was edited by kayeto on Jan 25 2016 04:26pm

So what's the general consensus on this?

It's quite a fascinating case regardless of his guilt isn't it. I can't help but feel that even though the documentary focused primarily on averys defence (and arguably bias towards his framing) the defence did it's jib in exposing many flaws in the investigation and more than enough reasonable doubt as to whether or not he's guilty.

The general consensus is something like this that was said earlier:


The majority seem unable to see past the guilt/innocence question to realize that the real focus of the documentary is the process.


I said the same thing here in post 27, but unfortunately the concept of "supplying evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" seems to go over most people's heads. That ignorance is why I think this series should be getting more attention.

This post was edited by kayeto on Jan 25 2016 05:01pm

The documentary, nor the "evidence" left out of the documentary can logically prove he is guilty.

After watching the documentary, and reading up on the case, I still don't have an opinion on his "guilt." I do however, fully believe that he should not be in jail this day because of all the inconsistencies within the process, the obvious manipulation and complete lack of a prope, law-abiding investigation.

This post was edited by stupidkid282 on Jan 25 2016 05:41pm