MovieChat Forums > Making a Murderer Discussion > My thoughts on season 2

My thoughts on season 2


The Good:

Zellner destroyed all the forensic evidence brought by the prosecution. She also pointed towards other suspect that were never investigated. All the questions I had after season 1 were answered by her.


The Bad:

Too many clips recycled from the first season. Also, the documentary lingered too long around Avery's aging parents wobbling around.

The Ugly:

The Wisconsin Justice Department and police forces are rotten to the core and it appears little can be done about it. They know their case against Avery and Dassey is utter BS, but they would rather keep reinforcing a tower of lies than admit they ever did a single mistake.

reply

The good:

You're correct.

The Bad:

It was right to show the toll this has taken on the Avery/Dassey family. I don't see Karen Halbach or her brood suffering much. That has all been on the Avery/Dassey side.

The Ugly:

Correct.

reply

Its hard to show the other side when there unwilling to talk to you.

reply

How did Zellner, to you, destroy all of the forensic evidence of the prosecution?

For me, she answered none of my questions from S1. I wish it had, and after finding out recently there was a S2, thought it might and should have done, but there was nothing. It wasn't addressed at all, which leaves me thinking, once again, that S2, like S1, is nothing more than a sensationalist propaganda piece.

reply

What are those questions?

reply

So many questions, and this goes back several years ago, so I don't remember them all.

But off the top of my head:

- Why did SA twice use *67 to disguise his number when he called TH that day, obviously wanting to contact her, and why was this never mentioned in S1? If you wanted to contact someone, as he obviously did that day, can you think of any reasonable reason you'd block your number, thereby preventing them from calling you back?

- Why was it never mentioned that Brendan produced his bleach-stained jeans after admitted SA asked him to help clean up the garage the night of the murder, with bleach?

- Why did SA lie about not having a bonfire that night, when it's been proven he did?

- Why was it never mentioned that SA was serving 6 of the 18 years he was sentenced to (12 of them proven to be because he was falsely accused) because he'd waited for a woman to drive past his place early one morning, run her off the road, and hold her at gunpoint?

This new season does nothing but give me even more questions, and think Zellner has virtually no credibility. Until seeing this, I was willing to be open to her and whatever she discovered. But now, no.

reply

What the fuck are you are talking about. She single handled prove all the forensic evidence that was presented was bullshit. And that was the best shit they had against him. Your probably one of those dumbfucks who thinks everyone guilt and wouldn't believe it. Even if someone innocence was on tape. Fuck head.

reply

I agree the episodes went on a little long but I think focusing on the parents and their continued failing health is a big part of the story. I fear these 2 will be long dead before something positive comes out of all these appeals.

reply

Have you done any research on this? Or have you only watched both seasons and taken it all on face value? Because there are a LOT of facts that were left out of S1, designed to make "poor Steven Avery" look like a good guy who was merely falsely accused once, and now is being falsely accused again, and more of the same in this season.

What does his parents' failing health have to do with his guilt or innocence? It's transparently another manipulation and play for sympathy.

reply

Hear, hear.

reply

❣️🐰

Seems like many people haven't done any research after seeing MaM1 or 2.

I suppose I can understand. After all, it's supposed to be a documentary, and (reasonably) we're used to thinking a documentary is, on the whole anyway, accurate and truthful, even if there is some bias. But this goes beyond the pale, in both seasons.

I started out having only watched S1, expecting it to be, you know, an actual documentary. So like many others, I was at first sympathetic. But there were some things that bothered me, so I looked into it further, and WOW! What an eye-opener that was. It's shocking to me that the makers of it took such liberties with the truth, and hid so much information that's very important to know -- in both seasons.

I'd hoped they'd have addressed these many problems in this second season, but no, they've only made it worse.

reply

Same here, although I'm not even going to give the second season a chance.

❤🐰❤

reply

I was curious enough to start watching S2. Nearly turned it off 3/4s through the 1st episode, and probably should have. I know you're not tempted, but in case there's a 1/100,000,000 chance you are, don't bother 😀

🐰❤️🐰❤️

reply

You're right, I don't know all the facts and I don't think Steven Avery is any model citizen and I do think Zellner has ulterior motives. But this would not be the series it is if the questions being asked were not worthy of discussion. I do think there was a miscarriage of justice in this case and I definitely think Brendan is being punished for absolutely nothing. Things need to be looked at here.

reply

You're right that SA is anything but a model citizen, and that Zellner has other motives. I don't believe that was the case with his other two lawyers, but it's clear this is the case with Zellner.

What questions as a result of MaM worthy of discussion do you feel are being asked?

Without doing research outside of this so-called documentary, which is rife with disinformation, outright lies, and partial-truths that are very misleading, you can't reasonably come to the conclusion that there was a miscarriage of justice.

Brendan absolutely was involved, so he's not being punished for nothing. The question is, how involved was he, and what did he actually do? I'll run out of characters soon, but will post another post to you that's a conversation between Brenden and his mother, Barb, where he admits SA killed Teresa, and that he too was involved. Naturally you'd have no way of knowing this because nowhere in either season is this mentioned!

reply

This is a transcript from a phone conversation between Brendan and his mom.

Dassey: Yeah, but you might feel bad with... if I say it today.
Janda: Huh?
Dassey: About what all happened.
Janda: Huh?
Dassey: About what all happened.
Janda: What all happened? What are you talking about?
Dassey: About what me and Steven did that day.
Janda: So Steven did do it?
Dassey: Yeah.
Janda: Oh, he makes me so sick.
Dassey: I don't even know how I'm gonna do it in court, though.
Janda: What do you mean?
Dassey: I ain't gonna face him.
Janda: Face who?
Dassey: Steven.
Janda: You know what, Brendan?
Dassey: What?
Janda: He did it. You do what you gotta do. So in those statements, you did all that to her too?
Dassey: Some of it.
Janda: But what about when I got home at five, you were here.
Dassey: Yeah.
Janda: Yeah. When did you go over there?
Dassey: Well, I went over earlier and then came home before you did.
Janda: Why didn't you say something to me then?
Dassey: I don't know, I was too scared.

What did he and SA do to Teresa that day? We don't know, he doesn't say. He only says he did "some of" what was said in the statements.

reply

The conversation with the mother is exactly the reason I believe Brendan was involved.

reply

Yep. Before reading this I thought he was involved, as in coerced and threatened by SA to help him clean up and cover up the crime, but admitting to his mom he'd done "some of" what was in the statements (how much and exactly what, we don't know) tells me he was more involved in it than I'd originally thought.

It's one thing for him to be coerced, led, and intimidated when being interviewed or interrogated by LE, which I still believe to a point. It's entirely another thing when he confesses he did "some of it" to his own mother.

My guess is Brendan either went over to SA's on his own and saw what he shouldn't have seen. Or SA called him over there to help. Not sure which, but my guess is the former. Then, to prevent Brendan from talking, he forced him into doing *something* so he too would be incriminated and therefore had reason to not talk about what really happened. Most likely SA also threatened him and/or his family, in an effort to shut him up. SA had a history of that anyway.

reply

[deleted]

Too bad none of the evidence backs any of that up. Also your talking about a person who had the mental capacity of 9 year old and it was in the documentary. Most of the so called evidence that wasn't in the Doc was circumstantial at best. Bitch.

reply