Making a Murderer
11-28-2016
, 06:21 PM
11-28-2016
, 08:45 PM
Looks like well respected legal scholar Dan O'Donnell has published his 'rebuttal' of US Magistrate Judge William Duffin's granting of Dassey's habeas corpus petition.
Highlight of the article? Maybe it is this:
"Dassey was of average intelligence."
Maybe an IQ of 70 is the average intelligence of Dan O'Donnell's readership, but that does not seem to obtain outside of that special sub-culture.
Perhaps this explains why corpus vile and others seem to imagine Brendan is some sort of evil genius who was merely toying with police by pretending not to know a thing about Teresa and tricking them into revealing to him what they knew and making it look like police were feeding him 'facts' about the case.
http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair...duration=86400
Highlight of the article? Maybe it is this:
"Dassey was of average intelligence."
Maybe an IQ of 70 is the average intelligence of Dan O'Donnell's readership, but that does not seem to obtain outside of that special sub-culture.
Perhaps this explains why corpus vile and others seem to imagine Brendan is some sort of evil genius who was merely toying with police by pretending not to know a thing about Teresa and tricking them into revealing to him what they knew and making it look like police were feeding him 'facts' about the case.
http://newstalk1130.iheart.com/onair...duration=86400
11-28-2016
, 10:20 PM
11-29-2016
, 05:57 AM
We are members of both forums.
No need for any of your conspiracy bull**** about me 'following' you anywhere.
Quote:
Here it is again verbatim seeing as you must have missed it the first time round.
In it you beg me to 'leave you alone' and so I didn't keep kicking you while you cried hot tears of frustrated rage when you realized you couldn't back up your grandiose claims.
Quote:
And I stand by every word of that. We'll see how Duffin does and then we'll see how Ms Zellner's magical tests work out..
Quote:
Until then there's nothing viable to talk about.
Last edited by proudfootz; 11-29-2016 at 06:16 AM.
Reason: clarity
11-29-2016
, 06:11 AM
Which is more likely to be correct on a matter of Constitutional law, a Federal magistrate judge?
Or a guy whose job is to think of new ways to entertain adolescents with movies about young women who expose their breasts and get stabbed with a big knife?
I've already explained why I think the statements elicited from Brendan are unreliable at best, and in any case coerced - this was well before the Duffin ruling on the writ of habeas corpus.
Again, the facts are on my side.
11-29-2016
, 07:31 PM
Here's a taste of the sort of nonsense Dan O'Donnell has written about the award-winning documentary (all excerpts quoted from O'Donnell's first installment of his series of blogposts entitled 'Rebutting a Murderer' unless otherwise noted):
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/co...de-1-14260554/
Within the first two sentences we can see the narrative of the article is established.
I suppose it’s one of those ‘do as I say, not as I do’ sort of situations, AKA rank hypocrisy.
And how is it that a man who served 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit not a sympathetic figure?
What kind of person just dismisses such a travesty of justice with a shrug of the shoulders?
And why shouldn't we hear from Steven's family? Would Ken Kratz, drug addict and rapist, be a better person to quote?
Obviously the filmmakers cannot force people to participate in a film. Many who are hostile to Steven Avery chose not to appear. How this is the responsibility of the filmmakers isn’t made clear.
The point of the documentary is not that Avery was a ‘good man’ – it is about whether law enforcement learned anything from their mistaken prosecution of Steven Avery between 1985 and 2005. This author doesn’t seem to be able to make this distinction.
For a documentary that is supposed to be so slanted and one-sided, you have to wonder why they included this cat story at all. But taking note of this inconsistency would spoil the story the author is trying to tell.
As for the alleged significance of something that happened more than 20 years before Teresa Halbach disappeared, it is only prejudicial to Avery and not evidence of much of anything.
Moreover, the notion that animal cruelty is an accurate predictor of later criminal behavior has been debunked already. But people are still inclined to believe fables they've been taught:
So it would appear this alleged 'connection' between this one isolated cat incident a generation ago and the disappearance of Teresa Halbach via a psychological theory used by FBI profilers like John Douglas is just a convenient urban myth. We might as well put our faith in the notion that having a black cat 'proves' someone are a witch.
The author misses the point, Avery did admit what he did wrong. And he regretted it.
For the record Avery never claimed to have done any wrong to Halbach.
Steven's testimony is consistent the evidence: Teresa was there, took photographs, and left the scene.
That Teresa did leave is verified by two other witnesses unrelated to either Steven or Brendan (propane truck driver who observed her drive away, and someone who witnessed a woman photographer on a side road away from the Avery salvage Yard). A point often glossed over by Brendan's and Steven's accusers.
So this incident is also included – hardly what anyone would expect from something allegedly so ‘slanted’ and ‘one sided’. Another indication that the charge of bias is rather a weak one.
We have zero evidence that Sandra Morris wasn’t ‘allowed’ to tell her story. As we know, many declined to participate in this documentary.
Again, the filmmakers are being blamed for something out of their control. Perhaps O'Donnell imagines documentary film makers have the power of subpoena and can force people to participate?
The series ‘implies’ something about this? Somehow? We don't even know if her story is true. Indeed, the evidence indicates she exaggerated her tale.
Rather weak ‘evidence’ for the bold claims set out at the outset of this article.
More troubling, a series that is allegedly so over-the-top in its bias only ‘suggests’ something.
Again, weak evidence for a strong claim.
Obviously, if this woman did distort the incident in her report why shouldn’t that be mentioned?
Of course, the documentary isn’t about this incident.
Or about Avery’s character.
O’Donnell is attempting to persuade his readers that it was. Misleading and disingenuous at the very least.
That bad blood existed between Manitowoc Police and Steven seems a very reasonable conclusion based on this prior incident. These are the very same reasons Mantowoc Police were supposed to keep out of the Halbach investigation - their apparent prejudice against the Averys.
O'Donnell conveniently ignores mentioning this little fact.
That Steven was singled out as a suspect in the rape case is absurd, as he has no record at all of attacking random strangers. But Gregory Allen, a violent rapist known to police, did have such a history.
Nice summation of a lot of incidents which have nothing whatsoever to do with the rape case. Looks like a rather pathetic attempt at character assassination when you examine the items in the list one by one.
WTF does killing a cat have to do with a rape? What crack is O'Donnell smoking?
The difficulty with this insinuation is that Steven was nowhere near where the crime was committed, and had a rock solid alibi.
Why should everyone who was with Avery be dismissed? Sixteen witnesses FFS! Plus receipts to verify the facts reported by the witnesses.
Maybe it was because the police were already inclined to believe Avery was a ‘bad man’ who needed to be in jail no matter what the witnesses said. That seems to fit the evidence we have.
So police didn’t trust Charles Avery because they knew three years later he would be accused and acquitted?
They didn’t trust Earl because of something that wouldn’t happen 7 years later?
Do Manitowoc police have a crystal ball? Or do they use a OUIJA board?
Other departments need to know their secrets about seeing into the future!
They sure wouldn’t sound credible for people who can’t add and subtract and don’t realize Time’s Arrow only goes in one direction. More evidence that Dan O'Donnell and friends have an average IQ of about 70.
It seems O’Donnell doesn’t have a helpful editor to point out the blithering stupidity of these passages. It doesn’t indicate readers who think this is a ‘good article’ are very discerning.
Oddly enough, it turns out the police were wrong when they unreasonably decided that Steven 'must be' the perpetrator - and that the Avery’s family were telling the truth when they said they said the knew he was innocent.
So, all this character assassination by Dan O'Donnell is for naught - if you care for the truth of the matter.
But in efforts to attack Steven it’s much easier to evoke the emotions and appeal to people’s prejudices rather than stick to the relevant facts.
Beersten was able to pick Avery out of a photo lineup of ‘suspects’ after she was confronted with a police artist’s sketch based on Avery’s mug shot. This isn’t legitimate police work. This is legerdemain and manipulation of a traumatized witness.
Other than the fact the Manitowoc Police focused on Avery before Beerntsen saw him, and steered her onto identifying him as her attacker.
And, of course, dismissing all of the witnesses who knew Avery was nowhere near the scene of the crime, because they don’t like them any better than they like Avery.
Obviously, it's pretty clear that some folks did suspect that the case against Steven did hinge on wrongdoing by Manitowoc law enforcement and this was the basis of a $36 million lawsuit - yet another fact conveniently left out of Dan O'Donnell's story.
Of course, like many would-be critics of the series, the author of this piece glosses over the fact that the series isn’t about Steve Avery’s being a ‘good man’ or even if he is a murderer of Teresa Halbach.
That the series is consistently misrepresented by such hit-pieces is a fundamental mistake that renders much of the criticism so off point to be almost completely irrelevant.
A good journalist would know that. O’Donnell doesn’t.
Funnily enough, none of this jailhouse gossip turned up until long after Avery was accused.
None of these alleged ‘diagrams’ have ever been produced. In the years following Avery’s release on his wrongful conviction and imprisonment he never created any such ‘torture chamber’. Instead he built a fish farm.
Besides which, if the ‘bad Averys’ can’t be trusted -even when they were telling the truth supported by physical evidence - why should we trust these ‘bad men’ in prison with no corroboration whatsoever?
Other than a lot of irrelevant and unsubstantiated attacks on Avery’s character, this installment really doesn’t do much to provide any kind of fair and balanced view of the case or the documentary.
The author doesn’t even seem to know what the documentary was about! But many of Making a Murderer’s critics don’t know, and don’t care either. They have other axes to grind.
No doubt some are inclined to be taken in by this prejudicial material. Others are too smart to fall for it.
This is reminiscent of how Amanda fans tried to distract people interested in the Kercher case by attacking Meredith’s character talking about her love life, how awful her friends and family were, and her pot smoking.
I didn’t buy it then, and I’m not buying it now.
If this is what is considered an 'excellent article' it's pretty clear The Machine is perfectly fine with slanted and one-sided journalism when it suits his prejudices.
http://www.newstalk1130.com/onair/co...de-1-14260554/
Quote:
Making a Murderer is a national obsession—a riveting, visually stunning masterpiece of documentary filmmaking.
But it is also one of the more slanted, one-sided pieces of storytelling in recent memory, establishing its narrative that an innocent man was twice framed within the first two minutes of the series.
But it is also one of the more slanted, one-sided pieces of storytelling in recent memory, establishing its narrative that an innocent man was twice framed within the first two minutes of the series.
I suppose it’s one of those ‘do as I say, not as I do’ sort of situations, AKA rank hypocrisy.
Quote:
"We knew he was innocent," his mother tells viewers. "We knew he was innocent."
"Law enforcement despised Steven Avery," adds one of Avery's attorneys. "Steven Avery was a shining example of their inadequacies, their misconduct."
"I did tell him, 'Be careful.' There was just something I felt," adds Avery's cousin. "I said, 'Manitowoc County's not done with you. They are not even close to being finished with you.'"
Those first three soundbites before the opening theme song is even played set the tone of the first episode, which focuses on Avery being freed after 18 years of incarceration for a 1985 rape that DNA evidence subsequently proved he did not commit.
The audience hears portions of interviews with Steven Avery, his mother, his father, his cousin, his public defender, his post-conviction lawyer, his civil rights attorney, and upwards of a dozen more people who would be expected to stand up for him and portray him as a sympathetic figure.
"Law enforcement despised Steven Avery," adds one of Avery's attorneys. "Steven Avery was a shining example of their inadequacies, their misconduct."
"I did tell him, 'Be careful.' There was just something I felt," adds Avery's cousin. "I said, 'Manitowoc County's not done with you. They are not even close to being finished with you.'"
Those first three soundbites before the opening theme song is even played set the tone of the first episode, which focuses on Avery being freed after 18 years of incarceration for a 1985 rape that DNA evidence subsequently proved he did not commit.
The audience hears portions of interviews with Steven Avery, his mother, his father, his cousin, his public defender, his post-conviction lawyer, his civil rights attorney, and upwards of a dozen more people who would be expected to stand up for him and portray him as a sympathetic figure.
What kind of person just dismisses such a travesty of justice with a shrug of the shoulders?
And why shouldn't we hear from Steven's family? Would Ken Kratz, drug addict and rapist, be a better person to quote?
Quote:
In fact, of all of the people interviewed in Episode 1, only two—former Manitowoc County Circuit Court Judge Fred Hazelwood and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Kertscher could possibly be considered unbiased. Literally everyone else has a vested interest in introducing Avery as a good man targeted by a bad criminal justice system.
Only Steven Avery wasn’t a good man
Only Steven Avery wasn’t a good man
The point of the documentary is not that Avery was a ‘good man’ – it is about whether law enforcement learned anything from their mistaken prosecution of Steven Avery between 1985 and 2005. This author doesn’t seem to be able to make this distinction.
Quote:
"Another mistake I did...I had a bunch of friends over, and we were fooling around with the cat... and, I don't know, they were kind of negging it on," Avery explains. "I tossed him over the fire... and he lit up. You know, it was the family cat. I was young and stupid and hanging around with the wrong people.
The series glosses over that incident and allows Avery to dismiss it as simply an accident while a bunch of kids goofed around. In reality, it was a brutal act of violence. Avery did not, as he claimed, simply threw the cat through a bonfire.
He doused it in oil and gasoline and put it in the fire in an apparent attempt at watching it suffer a horrific death.
Psychiatrists warn that acts of violence against animals are often precursors to acts of violence toward people, and a number of scientific studies back this up.
In other words, an act such as Avery’s could have in fact been the very first makings of a murderer, but Making a Murderer refuses to explore this.
It is also interesting to note that an 18 year-old Avery killed the cat in the exact same manner in which he would later be accused of disposing of Teresa Halbach’s body.
The series glosses over that incident and allows Avery to dismiss it as simply an accident while a bunch of kids goofed around. In reality, it was a brutal act of violence. Avery did not, as he claimed, simply threw the cat through a bonfire.
He doused it in oil and gasoline and put it in the fire in an apparent attempt at watching it suffer a horrific death.
Psychiatrists warn that acts of violence against animals are often precursors to acts of violence toward people, and a number of scientific studies back this up.
In other words, an act such as Avery’s could have in fact been the very first makings of a murderer, but Making a Murderer refuses to explore this.
It is also interesting to note that an 18 year-old Avery killed the cat in the exact same manner in which he would later be accused of disposing of Teresa Halbach’s body.
As for the alleged significance of something that happened more than 20 years before Teresa Halbach disappeared, it is only prejudicial to Avery and not evidence of much of anything.
Moreover, the notion that animal cruelty is an accurate predictor of later criminal behavior has been debunked already. But people are still inclined to believe fables they've been taught:
Quote:
For at least half a century, legend has told of a "triad" of ominous childhood behaviors: cruelty to animals, firesetting, and enuresis [bedwetting], said to predict future violence...
Providing the most definitive exploration to date is Kori Ryan, a former criminology student at the California State University, Fresno who delved into the "evolutionary history" of this tantalizing construct for her as-yet unpublished master's thesis. Her ultimate conclusion:
"Even though the literature on violent behavior contains many references to the MacDonald triad (and its aliases), collectively these studies do not provide sufficient evidence of its ability to predict violence, nor, in fact, of its existence as a bona fide phenomenon."
...
After trying to test his own clinical theory, MacDonald reported in his 1968 book, Homicidal Threats, that he could find no statistically significant association between homicide perpetrators and early problems with firesetting, cruelty to animals, or enuresis.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-or-urban-myth
Providing the most definitive exploration to date is Kori Ryan, a former criminology student at the California State University, Fresno who delved into the "evolutionary history" of this tantalizing construct for her as-yet unpublished master's thesis. Her ultimate conclusion:
"Even though the literature on violent behavior contains many references to the MacDonald triad (and its aliases), collectively these studies do not provide sufficient evidence of its ability to predict violence, nor, in fact, of its existence as a bona fide phenomenon."
...
After trying to test his own clinical theory, MacDonald reported in his 1968 book, Homicidal Threats, that he could find no statistically significant association between homicide perpetrators and early problems with firesetting, cruelty to animals, or enuresis.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-or-urban-myth
Quote:
"Stevie did stupid things," his cousin tells filmmakers. "But he always, always, always owned up to everything he did wrong."
Actually, he didn’t. He tried to explain his animal cruelty away, as he did with two burglaries, and the series lets him—presenting only his own family members and attorneys to give any of the incidents any context; context which, unsurprisingly, is sympathetic, understanding, and dismissive.
Actually, he didn’t. He tried to explain his animal cruelty away, as he did with two burglaries, and the series lets him—presenting only his own family members and attorneys to give any of the incidents any context; context which, unsurprisingly, is sympathetic, understanding, and dismissive.
For the record Avery never claimed to have done any wrong to Halbach.
Steven's testimony is consistent the evidence: Teresa was there, took photographs, and left the scene.
That Teresa did leave is verified by two other witnesses unrelated to either Steven or Brendan (propane truck driver who observed her drive away, and someone who witnessed a woman photographer on a side road away from the Avery salvage Yard). A point often glossed over by Brendan's and Steven's accusers.
Quote:
Moreover, the show glosses over Avery’s increasingly sexually aggressive and violent behavior towards women.
In January of 1985, his cousin accused him of masturbating in front of her as she drove past his home.
When she told others about this at a local bar, Avery became enraged and chased her down, running her car off the road with his car, then getting out and pointing a gun at her head.
Only Sandra Morris—the victim—isn’t allowed to explain what happened to her. Instead, the series once again allows Avery to explain away a violent incident.
In January of 1985, his cousin accused him of masturbating in front of her as she drove past his home.
When she told others about this at a local bar, Avery became enraged and chased her down, running her car off the road with his car, then getting out and pointing a gun at her head.
Only Sandra Morris—the victim—isn’t allowed to explain what happened to her. Instead, the series once again allows Avery to explain away a violent incident.
We have zero evidence that Sandra Morris wasn’t ‘allowed’ to tell her story. As we know, many declined to participate in this documentary.
Again, the filmmakers are being blamed for something out of their control. Perhaps O'Donnell imagines documentary film makers have the power of subpoena and can force people to participate?
Quote:
The series implies that Avery was somehow the victim here; that because Morris was telling people about an incident in which her cousin sexually harassed her, he was somehow justified in slamming his car into hers and then threatening her.
Rather weak ‘evidence’ for the bold claims set out at the outset of this article.
Quote:
More troublingly, the series also suggests that the only reason that this incident is ever prosecuted is because Morris was married to a part-time Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Deputy; as if running someone off the road and then threatening them with a handgun would and should normally be ignored.
Again, weak evidence for a strong claim.
Quote:
Who is making this allegation? Why Avery’s attorney, of course.
"Steven's actions didn't get what he was hoping," says Avery's public defender Reesa Evans. "Sandy Morris happened to be married to a Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy. And she immediately went to the Sheriff's Department and filed a complaint... that minimized her involvement in provoking the incident and maximized the alleged danger."
"Steven's actions didn't get what he was hoping," says Avery's public defender Reesa Evans. "Sandy Morris happened to be married to a Manitowoc County sheriff's deputy. And she immediately went to the Sheriff's Department and filed a complaint... that minimized her involvement in provoking the incident and maximized the alleged danger."
Of course, the documentary isn’t about this incident.
Or about Avery’s character.
O’Donnell is attempting to persuade his readers that it was. Misleading and disingenuous at the very least.
Quote:
Later in 1985, of course, Avery is charged with raping Penny Beernsten as Beernsten jogs along a beach in Manitowoc County.
Making a Murderer alleges that the only reason Avery was ever a suspect in the first place was because of Sandra Morris’ prior allegation; that her friend, a Manitowoc Sheriff’s Deputy fingered Avery in spite of what Penny Beernsten was saying.
Making a Murderer alleges that the only reason Avery was ever a suspect in the first place was because of Sandra Morris’ prior allegation; that her friend, a Manitowoc Sheriff’s Deputy fingered Avery in spite of what Penny Beernsten was saying.
O'Donnell conveniently ignores mentioning this little fact.
That Steven was singled out as a suspect in the rape case is absurd, as he has no record at all of attacking random strangers. But Gregory Allen, a violent rapist known to police, did have such a history.
Quote:
The show, however, doesn’t focus at all on the fact that Avery and Beernsten’s actual rapist, Gregory Allen, bear a striking resemblance to each other and that when Beernsten was describing her attacker—a man with shaggy blond hair and a beard—she was describing a man with whom investigators were already familiar;
a man who had sexually harassed his cousin and
then violently threatened her when she dared talk about it,
a man who had brutally killed his family’s cat,
a man who had been convicted of two burglaries all within the past few years.
a man who had sexually harassed his cousin and
then violently threatened her when she dared talk about it,
a man who had brutally killed his family’s cat,
a man who had been convicted of two burglaries all within the past few years.
WTF does killing a cat have to do with a rape? What crack is O'Donnell smoking?
Quote:
Steven Avery fit the description that the victim provided and he had been growing increasingly sexually violent. It was entirely logical for law enforcement to suspect him of this crime, which took place near his home.
Quote:
Avery did have a very good alibi, but the series makes it seem as though it was unreasonable for investigators not to believe the family members who said they were with him for the entire day that Beernsten was raped.
Maybe it was because the police were already inclined to believe Avery was a ‘bad man’ who needed to be in jail no matter what the witnesses said. That seems to fit the evidence we have.
Quote:
In yet another example of Making a Murderer minimizing or ignoring anything that would make Avery or his family look at all unsympathetic, the series does not explain that Avery’s brothers, Charles and Earl, were also well known to law enforcement, which would have had reason not to trust them.
Three years after Steven was convicted of the rape, Charles was charged with sexual assault but acquitted. In 1999 [fourteen years after the case in question!], his former wife accused him of sexually assaulting her and wrapping a telephone cord around his neck. A deferred prosecution agreement saved him from serving prison time.
In 1992 [seven years after the case in question], Earl pleaded no contest to battery and fourth degree sexual assault after attacking his wife.
Three years after Steven was convicted of the rape, Charles was charged with sexual assault but acquitted. In 1999 [fourteen years after the case in question!], his former wife accused him of sexually assaulting her and wrapping a telephone cord around his neck. A deferred prosecution agreement saved him from serving prison time.
In 1992 [seven years after the case in question], Earl pleaded no contest to battery and fourth degree sexual assault after attacking his wife.
They didn’t trust Earl because of something that wouldn’t happen 7 years later?
Do Manitowoc police have a crystal ball? Or do they use a OUIJA board?
Other departments need to know their secrets about seeing into the future!
Quote:
Do these sound like entirely credible witnesses? Or would it have been logical for investigators to believe that they were lying to protect their brother?
It seems O’Donnell doesn’t have a helpful editor to point out the blithering stupidity of these passages. It doesn’t indicate readers who think this is a ‘good article’ are very discerning.
Quote:
And their brother, Steven himself, apparently didn’t think too much of them. In an appellate filing in 2009, he suggested that either Charles or Earl might have actually killed Teresa Halbach.
So, all this character assassination by Dan O'Donnell is for naught - if you care for the truth of the matter.
But in efforts to attack Steven it’s much easier to evoke the emotions and appeal to people’s prejudices rather than stick to the relevant facts.
Quote:
Beerntsen was also able to pick Avery out of a lineup. His face looked a great deal like Allen’s, and Beernsten was obviously panicked and under a tremendous amount of stress as she was being raped, potentially making it very difficult to remember precise details of either her attack or her attacker.
Quote:
This is a very common phenomenon, especially in sexual assault cases, which is why forensic evidence is now so important in securing convictions. In 1985, though, such evidence such as DNA testing simply was not available.
Hence, the case against Avery hinged not on Manitowoc County wrongdoing, but almost entirely on Beerntsen’s identification of him, an identification that turned out to be incorrect.
Hence, the case against Avery hinged not on Manitowoc County wrongdoing, but almost entirely on Beerntsen’s identification of him, an identification that turned out to be incorrect.
And, of course, dismissing all of the witnesses who knew Avery was nowhere near the scene of the crime, because they don’t like them any better than they like Avery.
Obviously, it's pretty clear that some folks did suspect that the case against Steven did hinge on wrongdoing by Manitowoc law enforcement and this was the basis of a $36 million lawsuit - yet another fact conveniently left out of Dan O'Donnell's story.
Quote:
While Avery was in prison, the series also glossed over his continued violent and threatening behavior, again allowing him to explain it away.
In one letter to his estranged wife, he wrote, “I hate you, you got your divorce now you will pay for it.” In another, he wrote, “If you don’t brang [sic] up my kids I will kill you. I promis [sic]. Ha. Ha.”
Again, a pattern of threatening behavior toward women emerges, but Making a Murderer refuses to show how it may have made Avery into a murderer.
In one letter to his estranged wife, he wrote, “I hate you, you got your divorce now you will pay for it.” In another, he wrote, “If you don’t brang [sic] up my kids I will kill you. I promis [sic]. Ha. Ha.”
Again, a pattern of threatening behavior toward women emerges, but Making a Murderer refuses to show how it may have made Avery into a murderer.
That the series is consistently misrepresented by such hit-pieces is a fundamental mistake that renders much of the criticism so off point to be almost completely irrelevant.
A good journalist would know that. O’Donnell doesn’t.
Quote:
His fellow inmates said he talked openly about wanting to rape, torture, and kill women, and said he “drew diagrams [of a] torture chamber” that he planned to build once he was released. He also reportedly said that he knew how to get rid of a body...by burning it in a fire pit.
None of these alleged ‘diagrams’ have ever been produced. In the years following Avery’s release on his wrongful conviction and imprisonment he never created any such ‘torture chamber’. Instead he built a fish farm.
Besides which, if the ‘bad Averys’ can’t be trusted -even when they were telling the truth supported by physical evidence - why should we trust these ‘bad men’ in prison with no corroboration whatsoever?
Other than a lot of irrelevant and unsubstantiated attacks on Avery’s character, this installment really doesn’t do much to provide any kind of fair and balanced view of the case or the documentary.
The author doesn’t even seem to know what the documentary was about! But many of Making a Murderer’s critics don’t know, and don’t care either. They have other axes to grind.
No doubt some are inclined to be taken in by this prejudicial material. Others are too smart to fall for it.
This is reminiscent of how Amanda fans tried to distract people interested in the Kercher case by attacking Meredith’s character talking about her love life, how awful her friends and family were, and her pot smoking.
I didn’t buy it then, and I’m not buying it now.
If this is what is considered an 'excellent article' it's pretty clear The Machine is perfectly fine with slanted and one-sided journalism when it suits his prejudices.
keep them coming, as the truth will.
11-30-2016
, 11:05 PM
I've long since grown bored with debunking creationists, and it seems that folks like Dan O'Donnell are pretty much on the same level - throwing out all kinds of ridiculous assertions hoping something will stick.
I've asked some anti-Avery folks whether they agree with O'Donnell that an IQ of about 70 is 'average', the results are the sort of obfuscation you'd expect from someone more intent on making excuses than giving an honest answer.
The best answer? Define intelligence.
So I suppose none of these fellows would be the least bit concerned to find Nancy 'Suborns Perjury' Grace, Dan 'Thinks the Movie Minority Report is Real' O'Donnell, Ken 'The Rapist' Kratz, Harrison 'Titties & Murder' Smith, or any of their other spokespersons scored a 70 on an IQ test.
I've asked some anti-Avery folks whether they agree with O'Donnell that an IQ of about 70 is 'average', the results are the sort of obfuscation you'd expect from someone more intent on making excuses than giving an honest answer.
The best answer? Define intelligence.
So I suppose none of these fellows would be the least bit concerned to find Nancy 'Suborns Perjury' Grace, Dan 'Thinks the Movie Minority Report is Real' O'Donnell, Ken 'The Rapist' Kratz, Harrison 'Titties & Murder' Smith, or any of their other spokespersons scored a 70 on an IQ test.
12-03-2016
, 06:59 AM
12-05-2016
, 03:03 AM
12-05-2016
, 06:03 AM
12-05-2016
, 06:57 AM
12-05-2016
, 01:41 PM
12-05-2016
, 09:12 PM