It's been a long time, so I don't recall: did the doc. mention Kratz' drug and sexual harassment issues?

It's hard for people to change their opinion once they've already been indoctrinated with certain beliefs.

It takes a combination of humility and intelligence that a majority of people sadly lack.

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

I guarantee that poster also left the doc 100% sure that Steven was legally innocent, feeling strongly that Steven had an unfair trial and an investigation where corrupt cops planted a bunch of evidence. I guarantee that poster was thus emotionally invested in Steven Avery's corner, regardless of his factual innocence.

This is exactly the fraudulent message that Making a Murderer wanted to embed in its viewers, not that Steven was without-a-doubt factually innocent.

https://np.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurde..._talk/dq8dwhc/

Were you convinced by MAM that there were legitimate issues with the case?

If not, why not?

Right, or the feeble-minded can just block themselves from being exposed to competing ideas to begin with.

So far no one who's been slinging that term around has been able to produce a real quote from anyone in this thread who's approved of murder.

Yes, I left the documentary thinking Steven probably committed some crime, but that he might be factually innocent.

Since then having evaluated the evidence and the arguments on all sides, I have been persuaded that he is probably innocent.

I didn't claim the documentary was 'unbiased' - if you re-read my post you will see what I actually wrote was that it's a poor example of 'innocence fraud' or ''innocence propaganda' when the viewer is left in doubt that the subject is innocent.

I don't think your reckless accusations about other posters accusing them of dishonesty simply because their opinions differ from your own in a complex case that even has experienced and able jurists split helps your cause.

Think about it.

Yes, IIRC this was revealed at the end of the series.

It's really too bad you have this extreme bias against other posters and seem to get off on making up lies about them.

This is the kind of bull**** that persuades me your opinions aren't well-rooted in reality.

Today's entry in analyzing the Making a Murderer series is an old reddit post from the brilliant Fred J Walsh:
"There's More Evidence that MaM Framed Police, Than There is Any Evidence That Police Framed Avery"

Fred subsequently details how the filmmakers' editing choices in episodes 4-6 (ranging from letting viewers know who the baddies are with ominous music to misrepresenting and embellishing key facts of the case to even splicing in incriminating answers the police never actually gave in their testimony) dishonestly created a portrayal of the police (Colborn and Lenk in particular) as corrupt villains.

I consider it a must-read that will probably be ignored by Avery advocates.

Here's a bonus classic from Fred:
"Oh boy... I just figured out how Steven is Innocent."

It doesn't matter how good of a Job the doc does. If it does the things I mentioned (it does) then it is propaganda.

I obviously cannot say anything about you specifically or any other anecdotal example of someone who didn't leave the doc leading toward an innocent conclusion. However, what I can say is the doc clearly convinced a lot of people he was innocent. There were petitions signed before the transcripts came out. What lead these people to believe Avery was innocent if it weren't for the doc?

A few other things I want to mention.

RT testimony, I think this a big one because nobody can argue this was for any honest reason.

When Strang questions him and asks him about his initial interview with police MAM lists it something like this:

" Did you tell police in november the fire was 3 ft high"

In fact what Strang asked him was this

"Did you tell police in november the fire was /at least/ 3 ft high"

IN MAM it cuts cameras during this question to cut out the "at least" part.

Why cut out at least from this question? It completely changes the context. Not to mention, it was police who inserted the 3 ft.. Not ST. Police asked if it was at least 3 ft because Barb mentioned the fire first and said it was big but also said it was around 3 ft. Clearly barb has an issue with determining the size of things because 3 ft isn't big for a fire.

ST never said the fire was 3 ft.


Another good one is ryan. They edit out parts of his testimony and jump around during the testimony to make him answer questions hes not actually answering. Doing this they make it appear as if he was testifying to him and scott hacking teresas computer. When in fact, it was him and 3 other friends. There is a big difference imo between two guys being creeps and two of teresas female friends working with two of her male friends to retrace teresas steps.

It's amazing how many Avery advocates out there suspected people like ST, Ryan, and even TH's brother just because of how a TV show portrayed them.

We should change the title of this thread to:

"Posting links to the Making of a Murderer subreddit."

Yes, it is truly amazing that people question these convictions when, to this day, nobody has explained how two convictions were obtained using separate, mutually exclusive crime narratives that have a mere passing relationship with the physical evidence.

Truly amazing.

I wish someone would show us what people on Reddit think about this outrage because I have no idea how to check Reddit in my own.

There were people who were convinced of guilt or innocence before the documentary - does that prove the prosecution was biased? Or the defense? Was the prosecution putting forth propaganda because they managed to convince some people of their POV?

As to issues that are now before the courts it seems no one has cited the documentary either way, yet experienced and well qualified legal professionals consider the questions to be valid and important. So the issues are very real.

Corpus vile will no doubt inform you that police and prosecutors don't need to have any clue about how a crime was committed and can just keep throwing theories against the wall until they get something that sticks.

It doesn't matter if the narratives are mutually exclusive.

But even though the prosecution can doubt it's own theory of the crime, those of us who observe them waffling back and forth can not express reasonable doubts because.... reasons.

I guess we all have to go to reddit to discuss these issues with the authors.

Sadly, the mods on some of these threads on reddit have a bad habit of blocking any criticism of their group-thionk.

How many are there? Twelve?

More bar raising & repetition from you as this was already covered.
You know the prosecution are allowed to change their narrative as certainty isn't required by a court as we have no way of knowing with absolute 100% literal certainty re innocence or guilt. It's why we have trials to determine such things.
At said trials the Prosecution's job is to pitch arguments that line up with the evidence, to a jury's satisfaction whereas the defence's job is to raise reasonable doubt to a jury's satisfaction. That's it.
As was already pointed out earlier itt, you coulda had five different prosecutors with Avery specifically & each of them could have pitched a different narrative long as the argument lined up with the evidence & you & different jury could have still convicted him on each narrative, so overwhelming was the evidence which isn't suddenly nullified by a changing narrative as to how the crime may have occurred.
A precise blow by blow account isn't required for a murder some murder victims aren't discovered until years later.

You may think that the prosecution shouldn't be allowed to change their narrative for special little guys like Avery & Dassey must have the burden of proof & due process bars raised just for them but again if that's what you need to do then you have no argument here as due process is for everyone & doesn't get changed for certain defendants just because you support them.

Again nobody who agrees with the guilty verdicts have had to lower one bar in order to support their position. Nor have we deemed mere innuendo or speculation sufficient for both like advocates have with Zellner's ever increasing list of alternative suspects.

That says it all about how untenable advocates position is not to mention your rehashing of what was already raised, addressed & covered itt.

Yep - prosecution doubts its own case and changes its story, but we have to believe both stories without question.

Umm, any time you wish to start proving your claim that MAM is fraudulent, we are ready.

Nobody's interested in your trolling any more than they are in your specious arguments & hollow bar raising. Examples were already provided lots of times by several people including very recently yet again by Skillz & I linked a 10 part critique earlier itt specifying the omissions, which you've ignored and I have asked you a relevant question re MAM's portrayal of the blood vial & got yet more crickets from you.
Nor have you addressed any of the objective examples of deception, biased edited statements/testimony & fraudulent narrative that have been provided quite clearly itt.
You have deflected though insisting that I personally provide examples, as if such examples already given were simply made up by other posters, & despite my already doing so with the linked critique & disregarding that several other posters have provided such things.

As was very accurately pointed out to me earlier, it's utterly futile expecting anything remotely approaching honest discourse from you. It's why you're considered a troll & a murderer groupie not to mention a pompous windbag incapable of supporting your worthless opinion if your life depended on it. You're a waste of space & time.