Right. And it is just as easy to watch the other scenes in the documentary. One of which has Strang and J.B. discussing the vial and how it physical condition (and the implications therefrom) are not what they had hoped.

That's not the argument epeg was making.

The filmmakers chose to include that scene of them being shocked by the hole and acting like it was a huge break. They did so purely for narrative and it mislead mislead a lot of viewers. To act like it didn't happen is so bad.

Also I don't ever recall them stating the hole was standard for all vials. Simply making a comment that the physical condition of the vial isn't as big as they originally thought doesn't tell the audience much other than they at least over hyped it.

Again either the filmers didn't understand the hole was standard or chose not to include a scene citing this (while including the reacting that it was non standard, making it biased). Either way any look at early posts on the subject tells you all you need to know about the common perception of the vial.

I said the filmmakers accurately documented the scene. Are you saying the surprise by everyone there was faked?

They included another scene with Strang and Buting talking about how the vile wasn't a smoking gun. Maybe they never discussed the hole in the vile.

You're suggesting the discovery of the vile wasn't accurate?

The filmmakers also included film of TH's brother talking about grieving for his sister. Why is that ok, but SA's family grieving isn't.

Again, the filmmakers extended invitations to a lot of people. Some people declined to participate. The fact that you're somehow holding that against the filmmakers is strange to me.

Except this scene didn't happen. The only thing close to it is this:
which does nothing to dispel the hole being suspicious.

So point to another scene or quit your bull**** oski!

Lol at comparing the scenes of THs brother to the scenes of the avery's. You are effectively discounting your entire capability of viewing the documentary with any sort of objectivity.

You can read poor skillz post above for more info on the vial. They didn't include all the stuff they filmed so why did the include want can be effectively chalked up to false evidence? Yes that really happened but their choice to include it shows a clear attempt to make the viewer feel a certain way. It's an emotional pull, that even at best, is loosely semi-unvalidated later.

The filmmakers don't have to dispel anything.

The prosecution could very well have dispelled, or provided their own opinion in the documentary had they participated. They chose not to.

They were more then happy to hold elaborate press conferences though.

You see this often in docs. The side that is made to look bad doesn't particpate because whatever they say is going to be cut and edited to fit the narrative.

I can't believe people watch a series called making a murderer and have doubts about whether or not the film is biased.

.

So, your position is that Kratz knew that the filmmakers were going to spend the next 10 years following the case. And he had the foresight then to opt out of participating in the film, because he knew that he would be made to look bad?

Why didn't he have that same suspicion of the news cameras he flaunted himself in front of on March 2nd?

I'd say that the filmmakers were biased by leaving out the facts that the prosecution served a subpoena on them & the info about the coroner being barred from the investigation. But hey whatever.

Any you guys read or see the video of the cop in Chicago who shot the teenager 9 times? Well it turns out he acted lawfully & because when the 1st 3 bullets hit & killed the teen he was a danger to the public/cops, and since the other 6 shots that hit him(deemed excessive) did not kill him so NO Murder charge.
But Kratz can convict 2 ppl on 2 diff scenario's to the same murder. LOL Now thats The Chicago Way.

I appreciate the common perception and respond by asking you what the documentary could have done differently to prevent this "terrible misconception among the peanut gallery?"

I cannot see any circumstance that would make it reasonable to omit that scene. It was a contemporaneous account of something that is important in the case (the lack of proper evidentiary seal on the evidence box). Once the box was opened, was the scene supposed to be cut? Was is improper to include Dean's telephone comments (to the effect) "that it was a good day for the defense?"

If you you answer "yes" to either, you either are being disingenuous or naive. At the very least, you demonstrate you have no future in making documentaries.

Now, given the fact the film does not use a narrative, what exactly is supposed to happen from there? I suppose we could have a scene where the prosecution explains that the hole is not important, but they did not agree to participate in the film.

Instead, the film shows a later exchange between Dean and J.B. where they admit the vial was not the smoking gun they hoped for; that to make use of it, they would have to take some complicated steps. That was in the documentary. If people can't weigh those against each other, I don't know what to tell you.

To have this presented in "simpler terms" for the casual viewer, I supposed there would have to be footage in order to do that. That there was not can be a result from a number of things - but I think one of the biggest reasons is because the hole turned out not to be a big issue. So there was no footage. If you find it being discussed at length in the trial transcript especially where Kratz argues, "hey, the hole is really a standard occurrence, it bears no importance in this matter," then I would agree they may have been able to present a more balanced view by showing that.

Anyhow, the show is about the unfairness of the system, the bigger point of the blood is that the prosecution had access to the FBI to put a lot of resources into producing a special test for the case on short notice. Did you not see that, either?

At the end of the day, the defense concedes the hole is irrelevant; we linked to their brief stating as much.

I am sure Eddy posted this article but its worth a read, mind you Poor,Fraley & revots33 would say otherwise, but since we don't know what experience in law these posters have they very well might be correct....

http://www.postcrescent.com/story/ne...case/79065166/

#

Really good article

WARNING!!! site StevenAvery.org is being investigated finally.

http://youcancallmekarma.blogspot.co.uk/

Some ppl itt think that the fire pit outside SA was the actual place were TH was burned, still think so after looking at this photo.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...hair-frame.jpg
Yup That's a propane tank.

#

Didn't read that one before. Most of it is very redundant with the documentary but not bad overall

That's a lot of words for basically no reason. All I said was that, in the way the story was told and edited together(which is the narrative, doesn't need an actual narrator),the viewer is CLEARLY lead to believe that it is an important clue for the defense and that the puncture hole has a great chance of being part of a frame job. I am also almost certain that the filmmakers got a scene on camera(court room or otherwise) that talks about how the hole is standard in all blood vials that are like that. This was not included. (And I mean a scene that clearly states that)

I think the finding of the dial scene needs to be in the doc, but I was simply laughing at the absurdity that epeg said the narrative of the doc doesn't mislead the viewers, when it does. The reason people were mislead was because the kawyers were misinformed at the time of discovery, but that doesnt change it. And it does a less than responsible job of closing that, hence why so many people had questions about the vial at the end.

You can save the hundreds of words next time and simply understand the discussion you are responding too.

Lostinthesaus- I.ve been trying to find a geology test on the Dirt in the Pit/Quarry but found nothing.
Was a geochemical test on the dirt found on the bones ever performed to your knowledge?


#

Why were Lenk and Colborn even there if it wasn't to plant evidence?

Whether or not all this investigating ends up with SA getting free or a new trial, I sure hope it ends up with the trials of some of the police.

Stop the madness!

Farley do you think K.Kratz should have been barred from practicing Law for his unethical behavior in telling the media about unfounded details of the case?

#

There's no doubt that the dpcumentary is "biased" to a certain extent, though not overwhelmingly so. Pretty much every documentary ever made is biased. Documentaries tell a story, they aren't investigative news pieces sworn to telling an impartial story.

There's a huge difference between "biased", and "Deceptive and manipulative" that I don't think a couple people in here understand.

As a point of reference, if the doc is biased in favour of Steven Avery, Poorskillz and Fraley are clearly "deceptive and manipulative" in opposition of Steven Avery.

He told the media what BD confessed to. Is that the unethical behavior you are referring to? If so, no. But I do not think he should hold a position of power because of how he treated some of the women who were victims later.

Can you give insight into the documentary purposes of all the family interviews outside of the case then, especially the one with the father in his garden at the end? Or even the entire story arch of the new girl Steven started seeing?

These are very common techniques to humanize the main character by showing people that care about them. They serve no purpose in providing proof of the justice system failing steven (which the doc did an amazing job with imo).

The very act of humanizing Steven creates an empathetic audience which means objectivity is harder. The filmmakers can tell me all day they were not attempting to tell the story of Stevens framing and innocence, but it's hard to believe. They may not be a whore, but they are wearing whore's clothing.

Now note, I don't think this is bad. It just annoys me that people act like it doesn't exist. I actually prefer documentaries that are able to get you to care. I love dear zachary. I think a lot of docs are better served by humanizing the subject. And I don't think biased docs are bad.

I don't think the filmmakers made a concious effort to include or exclude certain scenes favoring the belief that Avery is innocent, I think their years spent with the defense team caused them to watch all of their footage through a certain lens which created a biased doc when it came time to editing because they believed certain things had more weight than others due to their involvement. It's an unavoidable problem.

If you add in S.T to this theory because he worked at a aluminium plant & paid a $9k debt soon after the murder of TH plus his comments/lies it sound plausible.

Prob not exactly what happened but many ppl were involved in this case IMO.
I mean its crazy to think that they did not have him under surveillance.(enter lenk).

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...framing_avery/

#