Making a Murderer on Netflix

Has anybody watched this series yet? I found it very interesting.

I haven't watched it, but I know Nancy Grace has. I see her promoting it with her "Bombshell" promos.
Gawd, she's annoying.

From what I've heard about it the law planted evidence to frame Mr. Avery. This means they would have had to plant a body too.
His nephew admitted guilt that both he and his uncle murdered the woman. I think this documentary makes for good(?) TV.

You have the puzzle pieces scattered about. It is very interesting if you like to watch documentary television.

I live close by, I still think he did it, but I too think they planted evidence. The nephew Dassey should be the main story here, his lawyer should lose his license. Shame on him!

From what I've read, it appears that police planted evidence, and it appears that the guy is still guilty of murder. We should all stay away from movies and shows that portray themselves as documentaries, yet hide certain evidence, and change timelines and so on to make things more interested. This is an example, and JFK was also.

A true documentary doesn't fabricate things that didn't happen.

If you have never watched it how do you know parts are fabricated? Do you believe what you read as truth?

There are no acted out parts or simulations on this show. You see first hand accounts of everything. The film makers could have left something out for sure but I do not think they fabricated real life scenes.

I also agree with Mikey777 that the boy was really done wrong..it was very sad.

Because I've read articles written by attorneys and listened to attorneys who've watched the show and watched and read up on the trial. The Murder show didn't present much important evidence.

JFK, for example, used as ammunition to promote a conspiracy, talked about the importance of the power outage along the Eastern Seaboard, and it's affect on security communications in Washington. The only problem is, that in the movie they changed the timeline by 7 hours from when the power outage took place. Why after they changed the the facts, would anyone consider this movie a "documentary"?

I am only speaking of this 10 episode series. You will see first hand court testimony that can not be fabricated and will leave you asking questions. Do not rely on an article written by a lawyer (you trust lawyers now? Lol). I am not forcing an opinion on this case. I am saying that what you will see first hand with your own eyes on the court room videos and the taped confession of the boy will make your eyebrows raise. It is an interesting series to watch and open up conversation about. You sell yourself short to read the cliff notes (aka - an article written by a lawyer).

ABC Legal Anchor, Dan Abrams, statement after studying the case closely and watching the show.

"Filmmakers Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi have created a compelling and well-produced piece of advocacy intended to lead viewers to conclude that Avery, who previously served 18 years for a rape he did not commit, is innocent of this crime as well, or at least that the system failed him miserably."

An "intent" to lead viewers to a certain conclusion has nothing to do with a documentary. A true documentary does their best to offer all important facts, leaving the viewer to his own conclusion.

I would really value your comments if you watched. Abrams also believed the boy to be innocent. The show offers a great view of some flaws in our court system and by lawyers. Watching the series would open up a better line of discussion. Like Mikey7777 said of the Avery portion of this case- it is likely that some evidence was planted. It is a huge injustice to expect a jury to come to a decision when the water has been mudded up with planted evidence. I feel as if you think

I want you to feel a certain way about the case. I do not care how you feel, I just think you need to watch it before making your comments. Why not watch it and then come back to say it was awful?