Result oriented as ****, people who want to make money dont go into documentatry, having the best documentary of 2016 going viral on netflix was unlikely to be their goal in 2005.

They just bought a house for nearly 3 mil so yeah they made money off of it, as in made money from deliberately twisting the truth, so they could make money from it. They're two unethical scumbags with no respect for innocent murder victims or their families as far as I'm concerned, to go with that shyster lawyer scumbag that pig Avery hired.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree eddy.

And lol at "best documentary of 2016" btw.

They made money in 2013 from 8 years of work they financed themselves, a lawyer dont go into documentaries hoping to make bank.

There you go, applying some common sense to corpus vile's kooky konspiracy theory.

Prepare to be put on 'ignore' like everyone else who doesn't subscribe to corpus's special kind of stupid.

There. Fixed. Nor am I interested in your apologia for murderer shills.

Don't be daft. Ricciardi took a JD but never established a legal career. She drifted into Columbia's film school where she met Demos and they made the Avery case their 'thing' and clearly set out to market it, failing with PBS and HBO before Netflix took the bait.

And it's simply a requirement of the format that you argue wrongful conviction, otherwise you haven't got a story.

This user review at IMDB is not entirely untypical. Of course a lot of viewers fall for it, but a lot don't, viz:

Lawyers, of course, are entitled to do what they do, and someone has to do it.

But I'm never going to forget this prosecution witness, in a case regarding her sexual abuse as a teenager by a music teacher and his wife. The witness committed suicide shortly after her cross-examination by the defence QC. (The defendants were convicted. The judge ruled that the suicide must not be reported and the jurors must not be told until they delivered their verdict. After the verdict, the jurors were told, and they took it pretty hard. But not as hard as if they'd acquitted.) On the stand, she'd kindly told the QC, 'I realise you're just doing your job.' Personally, I just wouldn't do that job, though.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ex-abuse-trial

Her husband said:

Oh yeah -- about that particular lawyer:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...iving-ban.html


The outcome:

I'm confused why this point is being so heavily defended. My point initially was that the film was propaganda. Rather than look at and discuss the things I am referring to that make it propaganda we are discussing whether or not the people who made the film believe avery is innocent.

Quite the digression if you ask me. Its clear they edited testimony, lied and omitted facts. Rather than face this possibility the argument has turned into "why would the doc filmmakers make this film unless it were true" this is fallacious. We can look at the film and compare it to things that actually happened to determine its propaganda. We don't need to discuss motive to determine whether or not there are lies in the film.

Nonsense - there's a ton of documentaries about noble cops and detectives who get the bad guys.

Apparently you've never read a book or watched a film where cops and detectives are the heroes.

Or simply prefer to lie since the truth won't advance your agenda.

"Innocent man spends years in prison because of corrupt cops" already is a story. If he were to commit a murder after being exonerated that's only the cherry on top.

There is a lot wrong with this sentence but the bolded is especially disingenuous considering he was proven innocent.

Provide evidence Avery was wrongfully convicted of rape due to "corrupt cops".
Provide evidence he's been wrongfully convicted for murder.

He meant previously accused rapist as Avery's also accused of raping his niece & molesting his nephew, which Dassey himself accuses him of.


He's been proven guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach & zero evidence is there to suggest anyone else.

Nor was 57 being disingenuous as "Guilty man still in prison because of guilt & cops catching the right man" which is the real story behind Making a Killing I mean Murderer won't make a story, or not as juicy as one. Hence the reason the doco twins had to twist and omit and artfully edit in order to peddle their Innocence Fraud, so they could move into that nice 3 mil pad.

He probably isn't talking about the rape of penny bernstein, but of his niece and of his friends wife.

Here are the statements each woman made to investigators:

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...%28full%29.pdf

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...er+1.20.06.pdf

There was nothing wrong with 57OnRed's sentence.

That is not the story that the filmmakers tell. Their interest, sparked by a New York Times article, is in the murder of Teresa Halbach, and their determination is to make the convicted person appear less guilty.

I have no idea what you even mean by that.

I didn't write the review. I can't, obviously, alter the quote, for reasons of intellectual honesty, and I can't answer for the reviewer. You will have to register at IMDB and do your own thing there.

I would suggest that, just as the fact that a person is guilty of one crime does not mean he is guilty of another, the fact that a person is innocent of one crime does not mean he is innocent of another. There are, so far as I know, good and sufficient reasons to believe Avery guilty of the murder of Teresa Halbach and, in law, at the present time, he is indeed guilty.

In the 10 part Documentary called "Making a Murderer", there is documented evidence of police corruption in the form of videod depositions from the very police who both put and kept him in jail.

There's also about 9 episodes dedicated to revealing police corruption to convict SA of murder.

It's really good.

You should watch it.

The legal settlement.

I know you probably have some great explanation as to why the county would pay a heavily-leveraged Plaintiff hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle the wrongful conviction lawsuit, but the fact is they did.

Obviously, that fact alone is not enough to establish this point in a court of law, but it certainly is enough to raise the issue for discussion, or dare I say, a documentary.

Why? I believe the comment had to do with what the documentarians were aiming to explore in the movie. I think the documentary properly raises the issue that because of irregularities, etc. in the process, the trial may not have been proper - thus, it may be the case Avery was wrongfully convicted. You may disagree, but I do not believe the documentary goes any further than that.

And how do you know this? Is it a fact that these "accusations" were publicly known at the time the documentarians became interested in making the film? I would guess that at the very least, it was nott until they began working on the film that these accusations became known to them, if at all. If you have information to the contrary, please share.

In any event, your interpretation of the quote makes no sense: the quote clearly states "rapist" which implies a conviction rather than an accusation.


So, you agree Brandon Dassey was wrongfully convicted.

So, you don't agree with the film's premise. Fine. Obviously the filmmakers believe there are legitimate issues with the trial, you don't. You may hate them personally (for some odd reason), but I believe you will be hard-pressed to contend they did not raise some legitimate issues with:

1. The conviction against Dassey.

2. The means of obtaining the confession from Dassey.

3. The manner of collecting trial evidence.

4. The manner of the investigation.

5. The prosecutor's tactics.

Those alone completely justify the film.

So, is the New York Times reporter also guilty of participating in this "Innocence Fraud?"

LOL nice one.

Aaron Keller, AKA "the handsome reporter" from the series, provided some harsh (but accurate) criticism of Zellner's work today:
https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/in-...-key-evidence/

From the article:

"The bottom line is that the dates make it impossible for either Steven Avery or Brendan Dassey to have any connection to the images allegedly viewed on either April 9, 2006, or April 19, 2006. Avery had been in jail since November 9, 2005, and Dassey had been in jail March 1, 2006."

It's also a fact that Steven had his own computer and AFAICT no such materials were found on his computer.

It makes no sense to go to your neighbor's house to view porn when you can do it in the privacy of your own home.

...not to mention all those appellate judges who overturn convictions.

This conspiracy goes deep! The Founders of the US put 'innocence fraud' in the Constitution!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_jurisdiction

I will have to find it but I saw an interesting breakdown of stevens phone activity with the computer activity on the day TH was murdered. It would appear the two never really seemed to correspond with each other. In other words, when avery was on the phone the computer wasn't being used and when someone was on the computer avery's phone wasn't being used.

It is possible perhaps that when avery made the appointment with AT he was at barbs desk waiting for halbach to call or leave a message and was using the computer during this time in between calls.

I also remember seeing somewhere that avery didn't have internet access for a couple months leading up to the murder at his own home.

Avery was entitled to a settlement whether or not there were corrupt cops. He was wrongfully convicted. I don't see how this is a relevant point.