Netflix - Making a Murderer

[s0me0nesmind1]

Anyone start season 2? Is it as engaging as the first season? I rented Solo earlier completely forgetting that it was out but I might watch Making a Murder season 2 instead.

Didn't realize there was a second season... Will look into it and watch it fo' sho.

I remember reading rumors that a lot of this stuff in Making a Murderer wasn't as revealing as perceived... indicating that a lot of the "cover-up" that they tried to expose was actually BS on their part. No clue which side is real though at this point.

 

[ultimatebob]

I started watching the second season, but it really isn't keeping my interest. I'm plodding my way through the second episode now, and it really feels like a rehash of the 1st season so far.

 

[jackstar7]

Anyone start season 2? Is it as engaging as the first season? I rented Solo earlier completely forgetting that it was out but I might watch Making a Murder season 2 instead.

It hooked the wife and I last night for a couple episodes. I'd call it pretty compelling and weirdly so given it's still about the same two at this point.

 

[z1ggy]

I started watching the second season, but it really isn't keeping my interest. I'm plodding my way through the second episode now, and it really feels like a rehash of the 1st season so far.

Keep going, trust me. They need to build up a few things first. I believe I am on episode 7 now and I'm at the edge of my seat. As far as I can tell, the series will probably take dates up until almost present time. As of the 6th or 7th episode, they were in June of this year.

And just my opinion here... but after the first season, I was probably 50/50 on if Avery had committed the crime, and probably like 75/25 in favor of him at least being involved in some way. This shouldn't be spoilers because it's just an opinion, but after I think watching 6 episodes, I'm somewhere around 90-95% in favor of him having not done the killing, and maybe 75-85% confident he had absolutely nothing to do with it at all. At the very least, I am 100% convinced that the narrative the Prosecution told is dead wrong. If he was involved and did kill her, it did not happen as they describe.

 

[purbeast0]

I watched the first episode last night and it pulled me in immediately. I don't know when I'll be able to finish it with NFL, NBA, and NHL on but I'm hoping I can get some more episodes watched during the week.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I watched Season 1. Not sure what season 2 is about.

As for season 1, enjoy the ride. Then research the case and well .... I'll leave it at that. Just research what season 1 ignored.

 

[jackstar7]

I watched Season 1. Not sure what season 2 is about.

As for season 1, enjoy the ride. Then research the case and well .... I'll leave it at that. Just research what season 1 ignored.

Sounds like you should watch Season 2... I'll just leave it at that.

 

[z1ggy]

Sounds like you should watch Season 2... I'll just leave it at that.

Yes, do watch it HMJ2004. I was very on the fence after season 1 because it did seem biased, but season 2 comes from a much more fact based perspective. There's really not much room for bias under a microscope.

 

[krumme]

Ended season 2 and It's imo far far more shocking than season one.

Its very inspiring to watch Kathleen work. Especially compared to Brandans noob defense. What a stark contrast. Inspiring from a professional and management perspective.

And I am just floored about the evidence she unravels. Especially at the end. Just wow. She just nails it.

This season definitively changed my mind about the case. It's far more crazy than I thought.

Would be funny if she gets even more new evidense but as I can tell this case is now 80% politics.

I am sure Netflix is happy about how the situation unravels. She is just exposing the entire system by solid facts and yet they just continue. Its like those idiots is funded by Netflix. We are going for season 3. Well I guess I am happy too. Lol.

 

[purbeast0]

I'm only 5 episodes in and this show just depressing, but very intriguing. And Kathleen Zelner is just a god damn badass. As mentioned, it's awesome to watch her work and she is one smart cookie. It's unreal how obvious some of these things are in hindsight. I feel like this season has more of a documentary feel to it or something. Like so far it doesn't seem quite as agenda driven and it's just straight up facts being presented to you, with experts there to back up the facts, and even demonstrations of the facts. And that is very interesting to me, even if it seems like this season is a bit slower.

 

[krumme]

Yeaa the series ought to be 5 episodes.
A lot of the new evidence is drowning in fairly irrelevant stuff.

I was just confused in season one as the prosecutors narrative seemed so complex and far out. I mean no blood. Bones all over. Difficult to understand even when I thought Steven did it. What a mess.

Then comes badass. And lines up a much more easy to understand narrative. And actually far more simple and straight forward. Now I understand far more of what happened.

It might not be right. But it's certainly far far better documented and evidence drivven. She is helped by better technology and experts for sure but as it's shown it's really not about that...

I think also Netflix was very lucky here unless those making the series have some prior insight information we don't get to hear. About the corruption.

I mean. What they waegely insinuate without proof in season one is proved in season two and then some.
And I mean. If this Kathleen havnt shown up nothing would have happened.
Nothing. It's all relying on her and her objective raw evidence focused approach.

 

[Zanovar]

whoa forgot about season 2.Will definitely be watching when i have the time.

 

[z1ggy]

Yeaa the series ought to be 5 episodes.
A lot of the new evidence is drowning in fairly irrelevant stuff.

I was just confused in season one as the prosecutors narrative seemed so complex and far out. I mean no blood. Bones all over. Difficult to understand even when I thought Steven did it. What a mess.

Then comes badass. And lines up a much more easy to understand narrative. And actually far more simple and straight forward. Now I understand far more of what happened.

It might not be right. But it's certainly far far better documented and evidence drivven. She is helped by better technology and experts for sure but as it's shown it's really not about that...

I think also Netflix was very lucky here unless those making the series have some prior insight information we don't get to hear. About the corruption.

I mean. What they waegely insinuate without proof in season one is proved in season two and then some.
And I mean. If this Kathleen havnt shown up nothing would have happened.
Nothing. It's all relying on her and her objective raw evidence focused approach.

The only thing I have to criticize or that I still have questions about with Kathleen is her investigation of motive and how she calls out the other Dassey and also her ex bf. I get that all she needs to do is start to cast reasonable doubt based on the "new" physical evidence, but I think she kind of takes a bit of a leap with those two. Not saying they couldn't be involved somehow (especially the ex, seems odd he and the cop had phone calls so much) but there's no real proof linking them in any way to the actual killing. Kind of seems like she tossed a grenade in there for the sake of doing it.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Season 2 sucked. Mostly because it comes off that they knew they had to make a season 2, and they hoped when they started it something would happen..but nothing did. It is basically just a rehash of season 1, with a new lawyer and some accusations. Basically if you've followed it at all since the first season you already know everything it has. Nothing new to see.

 

[z1ggy]

Season 2 sucked. Mostly because it comes off that they knew they had to make a season 2, and they hoped when they started it something would happen..but nothing did. It is basically just a rehash of season 1, with a new lawyer and some accusations. Basically if you've followed it at all since the first season you already know everything it has. Nothing new to see.

Nothing new...? The new lawyer for SA hired a brand new team of experts who used modern technology to refute or develop alternate theories of what actually happened. None of those things were done or discussed in season 1 as far as I remember.

Literally the exact opposite of what you said, lol.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Nothing new...? The new lawyer for SA hired a brand new team of experts who used modern technology to refute or develop alternate theories of what actually happened. None of those things were done or discussed in season 1 as far as I remember.

Literally the exact opposite of what you said, lol.

I take it you haven't finished watching it? Spoiler: everything they came up with was a dead end or proven wrong...or related to the courts denying anything from happening. Basically it was a pointless season if you paid any attention to the news at all. And even if you didn't, it is a go nowhere season. It just spins in circles, which is expected since nothing new came about.

Sure there are still unknowns, but nothing that hadn't already been considered by the internet after season 1 which is where the experts got most of their ideas from.

 

[z1ggy]

I finished it.

How was everything they came up with "proven wrong"? As far as I recall, her first appeal was shot down by one judge, but that's pretty much meaningless.

Experts get their ideas from the internet? Wha??

 

[ImpulsE69]

I finished it.

How was everything they came up with "proven wrong"? As far as I recall, her first appeal was shot down by one judge, but that's pretty much meaningless.

Experts get their ideas from the internet? Wha??

It's in the doc man. Everything else that sounded new this season was already considered after season 1 (as conspiracy theories before she took the case) and has been in the news. Nothing groundbreaking here and unless she comes up with some hard evidence (after the fact) this is the end. If you haven't done anything but watch the documentary I suppose it might seem new, but it really isn't. It was truly not needed. If nothing else they should have put it off a couple years when they actually had something fresh, but this season will most likely do the opposite of what they hoped. If anything it made me think..well maybe he DID do it.

 

[slayer202]

couldn't you say the same about the first season, then?

at the end of the day it was basically more of the same, one sided and not very factual. the brendan stuff is more interesting but even that was dragged out for way too long

 

[ImpulsE69]

couldn't you say the same about the first season, then?

at the end of the day it was basically more of the same, one sided and not very factual. the brendan stuff is more interesting but even that was dragged out for way too long

Well not really since the majority of the world knew nothing about it at that point. If you had any interest in watching season 2, it is assumed you probably watched season 1.

 

[z1ggy]

It's in the doc man. Everything else that sounded new this season was already considered after season 1 (as conspiracy theories before she took the case) and has been in the news. Nothing groundbreaking here and unless she comes up with some hard evidence (after the fact) this is the end. If you haven't done anything but watch the documentary I suppose it might seem new, but it really isn't. It was truly not needed. If nothing else they should have put it off a couple years when they actually had something fresh, but this season will most likely do the opposite of what they hoped. If anything it made me think..well maybe he DID do it.

Weird, had the opposite effect. They should have held off and did S1 & 2 back to back, because having the time apart made me forget much of the precise details in season 1. I don't remember SA lawyers having too many experts in blood spatter, etc like KZ did, but S1 was fairly one sided for sure. I guess it doesn't help that Katz is kind of seem like a POS in real life though, does form bias to assume he's got an agenda and/or is lying.

All I can say was S1 I left the show thinking SA most likely did it with some doubt. But after S2, I was much less convinced, purely from the fact KZ raised reasonable doubt in MY mind. If the original trial took place after KZ did her thing and I was a juror, I wouldn't have been able to convict based on what she had come up with. Not to mention it's very likely Brandon had 0% involvement... now all you're left with is some questionable evidence, with no confessions from anybody.

I'd certainly be interested in a 3rd party non biased group to investigate and peer review KZ's claims & evidence. Not somebody for the state, or who KZ hires, or who's got gain one way or another. As viewers we have to take what we saw in S2 at face value unless we are actual experts ourselves (or unless we have a bias against SA otherwise).

 

[echo4747]

Steven Avery will have new evidence heard by the court in his case:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...-have-new-evidence-heard-by-court-in-his-case