Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Making a Murderer Making a Murderer

01-04-2016 , 08:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
The DA and judge essentially colluded to keep them from pointing at any third parties in exchange for not putting the kid on the stand.
I am pretty sure this is apart of Wisconsin law, not the judges decision.
01-04-2016 , 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lateralus Making a Murderer
The most amazing thing to me was actually that the Jury found Brendan Dassey guilty after not even deliberating for a day (the very same night, if I didn't understand the timeline wrong). Just WHAT THE EFFING EFF?!?! How is that even possible? That whole jury process with SA was even weird (like that swing unexplained swing from the initial 3-7 showing of hands), but I could at least remotely pretend to understand. But the BD decision and its speed just blew my mind.
I personally think jury-based justice systems are horse-**** - in light of this case and others were dimwit jurors send innocent people to prison based on "he looks guilty hurrdurr" logic or whatever is going on in their brain when they rely on no evidence whatsoever but stereotypes and prejudices in their own head.
Can some legal expert make some argument on why they think such jury-based justice systems are not fundamentally broken? I really want to understand! I mean, every time I hear stuff like "let's get a jury in county x/ made up by housewives/ white people" - if you have no qualms about openly discussing these things - that proves to me that the system is broken when you actually count on partial jurors, just hoping it will be in your favor ...
His attorneys were not very experienced, he got screwed by his first attorney, and the judge and they had a videotaped confession.

Unfortunately probably was not much to deliberate. The confession should have never been admitted. Then there is probably not even case. A video taped confession is pretty damning evidence even if it is essentially manipulated out of a child.

It is bad though because given the two cases clearly the kid contained the highest level of bogusocity. I believe it is why the documentary spent so little on his case. There just wasn't much there. Plus didn't he testify? If he did that was a mistake and was against the advice of his attorneys. I know some people mistakenly think not testifying is a sign of guilt but I suspect the conviction rate for people who testify on their own behalf is the same or likely higher than those who don't. (If he didn't testify just ignore the last but not sure if I am confusing that with something else).
01-04-2016 , 08:45 PM
in regards to buting and strang, vs kratz.

I have no basis in law but a bunch of experience in leading/trying to get people to agree with me.

If you notice, kratz is a big fat guy. To a bunch of mid 20s to 40 somethings that are on this board this probably does not hold a lot of weight but,
You notice he talks like a complete wuss. That is on purpose, he doesn't come across as angry. The people in the jury are not threatened by him and probably connect with him etc etc.

Strang and buting in court (and i loved them btw) come across as expecting people to make the leap. They say a fact (that you or me would connect and say DUH) but if you don't agree there is an implication that you are kind of stupid. People don't like being talked to this way.


For example: Colborn they ask him about the phone call in 1995 he received and made the report in 2001(i think) . He said well if i made a report on every phone call i wouldn't get anything done. Follow up, well how many have you gotten that said you have an innocent person in jail?

Colbert : (something to the effect) none that I can remember.

Strang I believe stops the questioning on this point. Leaving the jury to wonder what is he getting at.

Strang could have said something: Well why would you write a report 8 years later? Or made the next step so the audience didn't have to leap by being snarky/leading.




i am in the SA is probably guilty (50+%) but was framed on top of guilt/circumstantial evidence camp and thus should have been found not guilty.
01-04-2016 , 08:49 PM
Ehh, quite the oposite. If youre assesment was right than most of the jurors would be on the guilty side right of the bad.


EDIT: oh, you deleted you response. I guess you realized how wrong you were.
01-04-2016 , 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmarky Making a Murderer
in regards to buting and strang, vs kratz.

I have no basis in law but a bunch of experience in leading/trying to get people to agree with me.

If you notice, kratz is a big fat guy. To a bunch of mid 20s to 40 somethings that are on this board this probably does not hold a lot of weight but,
You notice he talks like a complete wuss. That is on purpose, he doesn't come across as angry. The people in the jury are not threatened by him and probably connect with him etc etc.

Strang and buting in court (and i loved them btw) come across as expecting people to make the leap. They say a fact (that you or me would connect and say DUH) but if you don't agree there is an implication that you are kind of stupid. People don't like being talked to this way.


For example: Colborn they ask him about the phone call in 1995 he received and made the report in 2001(i think) . He said well if i made a report on every phone call i wouldn't get anything done. Follow up, well how many have you gotten that said you have an innocent person in jail?

Colbert : (something to the effect) none that I can remember.

Strang I believe stops the questioning on this point. Leaving the jury to wonder what is he getting at.

Strang could have said something: Well why would you write a report 8 years later? Or made the next step so the audience didn't have to leap by being snarky/leading."
My point exactly. Kratz pandered, Strang/Buting failed by refraining from pandering.

The point about Kratz's appearance and demeanor is quite insightful. Not something I had thought of, but I think you're right that it plays a part.

Strang/Buting come off as more educated and intelligent. Insanely, that probably hurt them.
01-04-2016 , 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokerisfunny Making a Murderer
Ehh, quite the oposite. If youre assesment was right than most of the jurors would be on the guilty side right of the bad.


EDIT: oh, you deleted you response. I guess you realized how wrong you were.
I deleted my response because I don't get your point and I responded to something different. What is your point, exactly?
01-04-2016 , 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bjørn Making a Murderer
Is this the short clip of her talking about death? Or do they show more (like more context) in a later episode?

It was another moment from the filmmakers that made me turn this off and dismiss it as too tabloid.

Reading this thread I also see that the THE BROTHER DID IT assessment has gained a following among this series cult:



The filmmakers must be proud! Imagine if he had also burned a cat alive! As I was watching I was definitely experiencing him portrayed, shown, edited, whatever is the documenting business here in a negative light. Even if it's almost an automatic mechanism since he is helplessly a rare opposite to the constant and dominating narrative by Avery's lawyers and family. Overall it was another turnoff added to the various misgivings I was rambling about in my earlier post.

Also, about Avery being convincing or not. I read one review where they held it against the show that he was never interviewed (like he never witnessed? Related?) which I think is fair.

Similar to how Robert Durst was interviewed is likely too much to ask for but at least in some kind of journalistic context. In my book it would have given the series a chance to redeem itself somewhat but actually actively judging whether he is trustworthy, or him, or anyone really, as a human being person based on how they were portrayed in this series, and arguably making any sounding judgments on anything based on this piece at all, I have to say strikes me as naive.
The jail would not allow him to be interviewed.
01-04-2016 , 09:07 PM
Quote:
i am in the SA is probably guilty (50+%)
LOL, Now I'm wondering what you saw that I didn't? How could you possibly think this? Think about the probabilities here...If he really did it, it is probable that they would not have to frame him. Here's a group of people that are personally on the hook for $36 mil, their jobs and reputations and possibly criminal prosecution for already doing this to this guy in the past.

Turns out he really was an insane psychopath who would invite a photographer over to his house and kill her and not leave one bit of credible evidence on the scene? You're > 50% convinced of this?
01-04-2016 , 09:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EfromPegTown Making a Murderer
Wait, what?

We do know he wasn't guilty of the rape he served 18 years for. He was exonerated based on DNA evidence.
Think I was pretty clear. Yeah I don't know if he did it or not. All I know is he got let go because of DNA evidence. Problem is DNA is everywhere. Like I said it's not a smoking gun even in a rape case.

But we will be happy to revisit this in 20 years when people are being released from prison because the only evidence against them was DNA.

I literally know almost nothing about his original trial and conviction except he was freed after 18 years because of DNA evidence. That is great and all but that doesn't magically tell me he didn't actually commit the crime. I have no idea one way or another. I don't know enough about it or about the guy whose DNA it was. I suspect you don't either.

We already have too many highly falliable guilty locks in the criminal justice system (eyewitness testimony, taped confessions) we don't need more. It's okay if we all expect more from prosecutors then DNA DNA DNA. As someone noted earlier the same person who analyzed the DNA on the bullet compared hair samples in the rape case and testified they were likely Avery. That used to be considered strong physical evidence.

I didn't say he shouldn't have been released from prison I simply said I didn't know if he did it or not. Part of me feels like he should have a gift card for 18 years off any future crime. Which all circles back to what I was talking about to begin with, this documentary is not about anyone's guilt or innocence.
01-04-2016 , 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman Making a Murderer
Think I was pretty clear. Yeah I don't know if he did it or not. All I know is he got let go because of DNA evidence. Problem is DNA is everywhere. Like I said it's not a smoking gun even in a rape case.

But we will be happy to revisit this in 20 years when people are being released from prison because the only evidence against them was DNA.

I literally know almost nothing about his original trial and conviction except he was freed after 18 years because of DNA evidence. That is great and all but that doesn't magically tell me he didn't actually commit the crime. I have no idea one way or another. I don't know enough about it or about the guy whose DNA it was. I suspect you don't either.

We already have too many highly falliable guilty locks in the criminal justice system (eyewitness testimony, taped confessions) we don't need more. It's okay if we all expect more from prosecutors then DNA DNA DNA. As someone noted earlier the same person who analyzed the DNA on the bullet compared hair samples in the rape case and testified they were likely Avery. That used to be considered strong physical evidence.

I didn't say he shouldn't have been released from prison I simply said I didn't know if he did it or not. Part of me feels like he should have a gift card for 18 years off any future crime. Which all circles back to what I was talking about to begin with, this documentary is not about anyone's guilt or innocence.
So the same guy who is currently in jail, did basically the exact same crime the year before and has a long history of sexual assault on top of the DNA evidence doesn't tip you that SA didn't do it on top of the party admitting to the crime? The 33 people who alibied SA in the first case didn't help? The under the nail evidence? Like there isn't one bit of evidence that points to SA other than he kind of looks like the guilty party.

Like there is such a small % (like 0.00001%) chance that SA did the first crime it's laughable. You think the guy wouldn't have given up if he was guaranteed parole a little sooner? The eyewitness account was coerced by the sheriff's department. Did you watch the first few episodes at all?
01-04-2016 , 09:25 PM
Quote:
this documentary is not about anyone's guilt or innocence
I disagree. It's about SA's guilt or innocence in the murder. It's about his innocence in the first crime. Remember, it wasn't about his DNA, it was about them finding an already-convicted-of-rape convict's DNA from a pubic hair in her pubic region. It's about BD's innocence. AND it's about the problems of the justice system as a whole. It's about all of these things all at the same time.

Quote:
That is great and all but that doesn't magically tell me he didn't actually commit the crime.
No, but it very scientifically shows that the probability that someone else did commit the crime is near 100%. And from that (and 30+ other witness testimonies that were ignored as well as documented records from other police jurisdictions that SA was the wrong guy), we can deduce that SA almost 100% did not commit the crime. Can we not?
01-04-2016 , 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak Making a Murderer
It was presented as a mystery that was slowly building to... something. There was no something. The actual story could have been told much better and in far less time. Instead we got hours of repetitive, brooding camera pans over a junkyard that served no purpose. The last few episodes didn't tell us anything about anything. Everything had already been said. It was like a 3 hour long anti-denouement.
Well, you can always go back to Dateline Mysteries which wraps up everything nice and tidy in an hour.
01-04-2016 , 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak Making a Murderer
It was presented as a mystery that was slowly building to... something. There was no something. The actual story could have been told much better and in far less time. Instead we got hours of repetitive, brooding camera pans over a junkyard that served no purpose. The last few episodes didn't tell us anything about anything. Everything had already been said. It was like a 3 hour long anti-denouement.
I'm amazed they fit over 20 years into 10 hours myself.
01-04-2016 , 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
Here's a group of people that are personally on the hook for $36 mil,?
They were not personally on the hook for 36 million. They had personal immunity against the lawsuits. The real number was more like 1-4 million as these always settle and the insurance company pays the bill just like they did for the 400k. The documentary said that the insurance company would not cover it, but some attorneys on reddit have stated that is not true. There are at least three different threads over there about this topic.
01-04-2016 , 09:42 PM
If I had to criticize it as TV, only the last episode went a little long.
01-04-2016 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet Making a Murderer
If I had to criticize it as TV, only the last episode went a little long.
I thought 9 and 10 were both a bit long, but I think a lot of that was because the Dassey case wasn't as interesting. We weren't invested in it like we were the Avery case. Avery and his lawyers made for better TV. My complaint would be the one sidedness of the show. Lay both sides out there. The prosecution not wanting to be a part of the series is not an excuse.
01-04-2016 , 10:09 PM
Quote:
They were not personally on the hook for 36 million. They had personal immunity against the lawsuits. The real number was more like 1-4 million as these always settle and the insurance company pays the bill just like they did for the 400k. The documentary said that the insurance company would not cover it, but some attorneys on reddit have stated that is not true. There are at least three different threads over there about this topic.
Fair point. I looked up one that was written by an attorney.

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

"Because they were sued in their official capacities, neither of them had any personal exposure (in other words, even if Mr. Avery obtained a huge monetary judgment in his favor, he was never going to be able to take their homes, cars, etc.)." The attorney doesn't mention what is sources of this info are. I don't remember seeing or hearing anything from the documentary or otherwise that confirms this fact about them only being sued in official capacity and therefor not liable. Seems like a pretty obvious fact that would have been easy to confirm and thereby a pretty big error on the producer/editor's part to leave that in there.

Also, jobs and reputations at risk for sure.

Also, the insurers MUST have some kind of clauses that state what they will and will not cover. And they certainly would not just take the county's word for it. It's probable to me that had Avery won the lawsuit and the County made the claim to the insurers to cover their loss, the insurers would have sent an army of investigators to figure out what happened before cutting a check for 7 or 8 figures. I'm guessing the people involved would not have been too excited to be investigated and further exposed?
01-04-2016 , 10:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by razorbacker Making a Murderer
They were not personally on the hook for 36 million. They had personal immunity against the lawsuits. The real number was more like 1-4 million as these always settle and the insurance company pays the bill just like they did for the 400k. The documentary said that the insurance company would not cover it, but some attorneys on reddit have stated that is not true. There are at least three different threads over there about this topic.
Oops, my bad. I guess I should have read further into the comments:


[–]Dlynne9 54 points 6 days ago
I am also an attorney, although I do civil trial work and not criminal work. I just looked up Avery's civil rights lawsuit, and Avery most definitely did sue Sheriff Thomas Kocurek and District Attorney Denis Vogel in their individual capacities. Case number 1:04-cv-00986-LA, Eastern District of Wisconsin. If Avery won this case, both of these men would have had their personal assets at risk. Does this change your assessment of motive?
01-04-2016 , 10:19 PM
Feel like they pushed the narrative too far in his favor. This story is fascinating even if he is guilty. You don't need to bend the narrative. No doubt something shady happened with them finding the SUV.

Reminds me of a Deathrow stories where the DA stitched up a guy who ended up getting out because the misconduct was so bad. Later they found out the DA had essentially framed the guy who committed the crime.

Does anyone know if the license plate was on the SUV when they found it? Seems like a key piece of information.
01-04-2016 , 10:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8rysh Making a Murderer
I deleted my response because I don't get your point and I responded to something different. What is your point, exactly?
We can delete responses on 2+2? What about threads created?
01-04-2016 , 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lateralus Making a Murderer
I personally think jury-based justice systems are horse-****
Of course. The problem is that (arguably) everything else is worse. Just like the famous quote about democracy.
01-04-2016 , 10:56 PM
Quote:
Feel like they pushed the narrative too far in his favor. This story is fascinating even if he is guilty. You don't need to bend the narrative. No doubt something shady happened with them finding the SUV.
They tried to get the prosecution to be a part of the documentary but they declined.

Had there been a narrative, perhaps it would have seemed in SA's favor, especially without the prosecutions involvement.

That being said, I agree, there's no need to bend the story and I don't think they did. There's clearly bad people doing bad things here and also good people doing or (trying to do) good things. Just because each of those things is documented here doesn't mean it's being bent. Bending a documentary to make innocent cops look like they framed an innocent man who is actually a sick and twisted murderer who really does phone order his victims and then burn them in front of his nephew is worse than cops who frame an innocent man for self preservation.

As I stated before, if it turns out that he really did do this, it would be one of the sickest, twisted and incredible stories of all time.
01-04-2016 , 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
LOL, Now I'm wondering what you saw that I didn't? How could you possibly think this? Think about the probabilities here...If he really did it, it is probable that they would not have to frame him. Here's a group of people that are personally on the hook for $36 mil, their jobs and reputations and possibly criminal prosecution for already doing this to this guy in the past.

Turns out he really was an insane psychopath who would invite a photographer over to his house and kill her and not leave one bit of credible evidence on the scene? You're > 50% convinced of this?
yeah, i mean, i think he was a guilty guy who got evidence planted against him much like strang said. Key was a plant, bullet was a plant, bones are on his property, car is on his property. It was a big space. Is it not possible he killed her outside of his trailer? In addition, there was no "grid" set up for the crime scene so i am wondering how much the bones were "moved" as opposed to not properly administratively kept track of. There are definite holes in my theory, but there is no greater suspect than SA.

That being said, I would still vote not guilty.

Though i am not sure what my threshold for guilt would need to be "guilty". I defaulted saying 99% in my mind. Then i thought that 1% of the time i would be putting an innocent man in jail and thought i was an *******. But then I thought , well that would mean that there was really sloppy police work to get the guy if i was 99% and the guy was innocent. Then i just thought about how many people have gotten Jury duty that i work with recently and how i have never had it in my life (30+ y/o) and how i really don't want to get it.
01-04-2016 , 11:05 PM
I just have a hard time seeing him as innocent here. You have a guy who is clearly a sociopath who had a record of run ins with the law and burned a cat alive. You have a photographer who was creeped out by him. He is her last known contact with a human. Her body is found in a burn bit in his yard. Several people saw him having a massive fire right after her presumed time of death. His blood is found in the car, which is found on his property.

He either did it, or there was a vast conspiracy to frame him. His own attorneys, who are some of the best attorneys money can buy, admitted that a defense suggesting the police framed him was a last ditch effort that no attorney ever wants to make (OJ Simpson). You would have to believe that the police engaged in this massive conspiracy AND no actual evidence ever came forward to implicate the true murderer AND no person got drunk and revealed anything, etc. And SA is clearly very low IQ. The shocking stupidity of his keeping the car there doesn't particularly seem inconsistent or anything.

The kid is a more interesting case. I'm not sure about him. I certainly think a kid who is borderline ******ed shouldn't be in prison for most of the rest of his life unless you can prove without doubt that he actually killed her. We don't really hear much about the evidence against him. It was a 2 week trial. Presumably there was plenty more.

I'm pretty sure the DA's office and Sheriff's office in that county are both wildly incompetent and quite possibly corrupt, but I don't see how you can really think he didn't do it.
01-04-2016 , 11:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostinthesaus Making a Murderer
That being said, I agree, there's no need to bend the story and I don't think they did.
Most of the "bending" happens subtly, with eerie music for the bad guys and the emotional scenes of the good guys.

The one thing that really bothered me with the series is the revelation of the blood vial being tampered with, with the syringe hole. I've seen that this is standard practice, and if that's the case, then the way they showed that vial was quite biased and about as bendy as it gets.

      
m