I was talking about Avery's brothers. They have some charges of sexual assault and crimes against women. Around the same time as the Halbach incident as well I believe.
Television Making a Murderer (Netflix Documentary) - Spoilers from Page 2
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
She popped them like tic tacs, she had 2 boxes sure. But she ate them over 2 months. And she has an incredible digestive system.She ate 2 boxes of rat poison and survived and people believe this?
Well it's funny how in the documentary the police seemed to be getting involved in an attempt to stop her getting contact with Avery so they could reduce any people he had on his side. Remember she was done for a being drunk and one of the punishments was not to contact Avery? How is that anything to do with being drunk? This time it will be the same, the state has got to her and probably coerced into coming out like this. It's a PR battle at the moment between the state and Avery.I'm ashamed that I clicked on this link through Facebook but...
http://distractify.com/entertainment/2016/01/12/meg-avery-evidence?bodylink
Also the same site has an 'article' today on Jodi's views on Avery.
http://distractify.com/news/2016/01/14/mariam-steven-averys-ex-speaks?dfyvlm
I included a pinch of salt for all of you as well.
Really wish I hadn't stumbled into that subreddit, could get lost in the amount of information for weeks
If I was on the jury I'd have probably found him guilty on your logic above.
I do appreciate though that would have been based on the lack of any information in court or the media on any other suspects. Someone killed her and it's incredibly difficult not to find the only suspect guilty imo irrespective of how shite all the evidence is. I reckon most will side with putting an innocent man in jail rather than releasing a Murderer, especially when it's your own community and the character in question is of his family background.
Saying that I don't think they did it.
And this is the problem with the justice system. Jurors who decide guilty based on a whim.
During his opening in statement in court when Kratz referred to Halbach as "this little girl....sorry.. this young woman" I just laughed and thought, yeah I see what you did there you sly cnut. It was so transparent.
Conversely when referring to Brendan Dassey he called him a young man, rather than a young boy.
I'm glad he's now getting some sort of comeuppance though it probably isn't anywhere near what he deserves.
Conversely when referring to Brendan Dassey he called him a young man, rather than a young boy.
I'm glad he's now getting some sort of comeuppance though it probably isn't anywhere near what he deserves.
Not suspicious that the defence was never allowed to bring up any other possible suspects?
The best way to defend Avery is to find the killer, but the defence was never allowed that opportunity in court.
Pathetic wasn't it.Which begs the question why the Judge wouldn't allow the defence to propose any alternative suspects.
It was so rehearsed and then badly acted out, typical scummy lawyer tactic. "Oops, I misspoke and inadvertently drove home the image of the victim as a little girl...maybe even YOUR little girl...who was brutally murdered and burned in a fire. Sorry!"I think a whim is unfair as it sounded like they were conflicted. The question of if not Steve Avery then who must have been in their heads but they weren't ever provided with any information to answer that so it left them in a difficult position that leaned towards Avery.
I find it utterly ridiculous and sad that such a situation can happen to be honest. You'd hope the public outcry will at least lend itself to a review of procedure because even those who think him guilty seem to agree that the system and process appeared flawed.
The problem was the case should never have gone to court, I honestly don't think it would have in the U.K. In particular the Brendan Dassey case would have been thrown out very quickly. Based on the evidence presented in court the jury should have returned a not guilty verdict because there was reasonable doubt about what the hell had been going on.
Which is a huge flaw. I'm sure some jurors saw it as a 'if it wasn't Avery, then who did it, and if I don't have any alternatives, then he should be found guilty'. But that wasn't the question put to them, though that's the way the prosecution handled it. The question was: was Steve Avery guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt? On the basis of what was shown to them, no, he wasn't (and even taking into account the evidence left out in the documentary, you come to the same conclusion). All the evidence that incriminates him is at the very least dodgy, and in some cases just complete shit. And you shouldn't be finding someone guilty of a capital crime for the reason that there's no better suspect around.
As I said before and as others said, I'm not sure of Steve Avery's innocence, but I'm quite sure that on the basis of the evidence they did have, I can't say for sure that he's guilty.
I agree but I just don't think the way jury's are supposed to arrive at a decision is in line with human nature here, they'll nearly always go balance of probability. I also have no doubt that the blood led them down the line of thinking it was a choice between his guilt or believing a police set-up? Again people will simply ask which is more likely.
When the scenario of reasonable doubt has to involve a situation where the cops planted evidence then you're in trouble.
Yeah, Avery's lawyers do insist on that, definitely.
Concerning your first point and human nature, I agree with you and I think this is where the jury system is flawed and should be used with huge care. In France it's used for very little cases, and when it is used, the jurors are given a lot of indications and reminders on their role and on interpretation of certain elements by the magistrates.
In the case shown on Making a Murderer, the judge seems pretty awful and I don't think he really endorses that role of guidance for the jurors (though maybe they're not meant to have that role in the US).
Well there was no evidence at all was there. The conviction was based entirely on his 'confession' which to my mind is utterly abhorrent.
Then that's a major failure of the American justice system. The baseline of the justice system should always be that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail. Balance of probability is a terrible, terrible way to decide upon a life sentence.
From a recent interview with his lawyers.
I just found it kind of hard not to treat the series like a who-done-it.
It kind of felt like columbo should show up in the last episode and say 'one more thing'.
the brother just fit the hollywood baddie, who would have got away with it if it weren't for them pesky kids, cliche kind of well.
Some of this is answered on here - https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...defense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/I'm ashamed that I clicked on this link through Facebook but...
http://distractify.com/entertainment/2016/01/12/meg-avery-evidence?bodylink
Also the same site has an 'article' today on Jodi's views on Avery.
http://distractify.com/news/2016/01/14/mariam-steven-averys-ex-speaks?dfyvlm
I included a pinch of salt for all of you as well.
- Dean Strang also has said that the sweat assertion is entirely fabricated by Kratz and it has not been proven by any other concrete finding.
I am sure people would have said the same thing about his rape conviction. That he probably did not get a fair trial but he is guilty nonetheless. There is no way you can pronounce him guilt if you accept that the key and the blood was planted.
Thanks.
His ex Jodi is turning against him. Calling him guilty, a monster, etc.
There were portions of Dassey's confession that weren't aired, also without a defense lawyer present, that good ol Nancy Grace has decided to share with the Hollywood Reporter
Needless to say, she was so sure of his guilt even when he was on her show in 2005. On top of that, she thinks Dassey is just as bad as Avery, and wasn't coerced at all.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...+Brendan+Dassey+Confession+Viewers+Didn't+See
Needless to say, she was so sure of his guilt even when he was on her show in 2005. On top of that, she thinks Dassey is just as bad as Avery, and wasn't coerced at all.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...+Brendan+Dassey+Confession+Viewers+Didn't+See
Last edited:
Ended up watching this for about 6 hours straight, and lost a lot of faith in humanity in that time. There is so much to reflect on and discuss but at this stage all I can express is how much of a fat greasy piece of scum that Kratz guy is. His voice alone was infuriating.
Stevens two defence lawyers were an impressive breath of fresh air throughout, I was really banking on them saving the day at some point with some new evidence on the blood preservation. Brendan's story was just heart breaking, definitely lost most of my faith in humanity where he was involved, poor kid.
Stevens two defence lawyers were an impressive breath of fresh air throughout, I was really banking on them saving the day at some point with some new evidence on the blood preservation. Brendan's story was just heart breaking, definitely lost most of my faith in humanity where he was involved, poor kid.
Nancy Grace just knows her viewers, she knows what opinion they'll form and she'll do her damndest to please them. She's in the "all publicity is good publicity" a lá Donald Trump and others and as a former sociopath prosecutor herself she puts herself in Kratz' shoes and sees him winning which is what she would do, be it the right thing to do morally or not.
finished it last night, just from an entertainment perspective i thought it ran out of steam a little towards the end, it became obvious SA was going down the only question was whether BD did too. i guess its a shame it wasn't fictional they could've sexed it up a little!
like everyone else says based on the docu there's clearly reasonable doubt in SAs case and at best total incompetence in BDs case (at worst genuine criminality) I'm amazed both trials even went ahead given the shocking press conference at the start and the clearly coerced confession midway through. i really don't see how they could possibly uphold either defendants presumption of innocence, ideally the whole case should've been picked up and tried on the other side of the country. I ended up doubting just about everyone's motivation including both judges. It really did seem like the state flexing their muscles in wake of SAs damages suit.
How BD wasn't at least granted a retrial is what's stuck with me the most, especially considering the influence of the additional lawyers at the end. That no court has deemed the circumstances around his confession along with the gross misconduct of his first lawyer AND the contradiction on SAs eventual charges to be reason enough is absolutely baffling and only supports the notion that this was a statewide conspiracy to convict no matter what. He went to jail at 17 and will be 58 when he gets out, that's his best years totally gone, what kind of life will he have had when he eventually passes away, its very sad (if he's innocent of course)
Its a shame no other theory was put forward by the docu. Obviously they have to be very careful about making accusations but as a viewer I became totally conscious of the bias towards the later stages and as such i'm left in limbo regarding SAs case, clearly a lot of very circumspect things happened around the evidence but his personal side of the story felt untold. The BD case was the more interesting one in the second half
like everyone else says based on the docu there's clearly reasonable doubt in SAs case and at best total incompetence in BDs case (at worst genuine criminality) I'm amazed both trials even went ahead given the shocking press conference at the start and the clearly coerced confession midway through. i really don't see how they could possibly uphold either defendants presumption of innocence, ideally the whole case should've been picked up and tried on the other side of the country. I ended up doubting just about everyone's motivation including both judges. It really did seem like the state flexing their muscles in wake of SAs damages suit.
How BD wasn't at least granted a retrial is what's stuck with me the most, especially considering the influence of the additional lawyers at the end. That no court has deemed the circumstances around his confession along with the gross misconduct of his first lawyer AND the contradiction on SAs eventual charges to be reason enough is absolutely baffling and only supports the notion that this was a statewide conspiracy to convict no matter what. He went to jail at 17 and will be 58 when he gets out, that's his best years totally gone, what kind of life will he have had when he eventually passes away, its very sad (if he's innocent of course)
Its a shame no other theory was put forward by the docu. Obviously they have to be very careful about making accusations but as a viewer I became totally conscious of the bias towards the later stages and as such i'm left in limbo regarding SAs case, clearly a lot of very circumspect things happened around the evidence but his personal side of the story felt untold. The BD case was the more interesting one in the second half
I think the editing was too loose, though it might have been done on purpose. The episodes were just too long and they really should have made things tighter and shorter. I saw episode 9 today and I have to admit I was quite bored. It was 66 minutes and could have, should have, been done in 40.
I was left thinking it's entirely plausible that he's guilty but shouldn't have been convicted. I can't see how anyone could say there was no reasonable doubt.
True. I can see how a jury would think otherwise, though. While we were given maybe three hours of the trial, being fed mostly with stuff that dealt with creating that reasonable doubt, some of that might have been lost on them while they had to watch and listen for days. Add the prejudice caused by the publicity and there you go....
Continued in the link....Dead Certainty
How “Making a Murderer” goes wrong.
BY KATHRYN SCHULZ
A private investigative project, bound by no rules of procedure, is answerable only to ratings and the ethics of its makers.CREDITILLUSTRATION BY SIMON PRADES
Argosy began in 1882 as a magazine for children and ceased publication ninety-six years later as soft-core porn for men, but for ten years in between it was the home of a true-crime column by Erle Stanley Gardner, the man who gave the world Perry Mason. In eighty-two novels, six films, and nearly three hundred television episodes, Mason, a criminal-defense lawyer, took on seemingly guilty clients and proved their innocence. In the magazine, Gardner, who had practiced law before turning to writing, attempted to do something similar—except that there his “clients” were real people, already convicted and behind bars. All of them met the same criteria: they were impoverished, they insisted that they were blameless, they were serving life sentences for serious crimes, and they had exhausted their legal options. Gardner called his column “The Court of Last Resort.”
To help investigate his cases, Gardner assembled a committee of crime experts, including a private detective, a handwriting analyst, a former prison warden, and a homicide specialist with degrees in both medicine and law. They examined dozens of cases between September of 1948 and October of 1958, ranging from an African-American sentenced to die for killing a Virginia police officer after a car chase—even though he didn’t know how to drive—to a nine-fingered convict serving time for the strangling death of a victim whose neck bore ten finger marks.
The man who didn’t know how to drive was exonerated, at least partly thanks to coverage in “The Court of Last Resort,” as were many others. Meanwhile, the never terribly successful Argosy also got a reprieve. “No one in the publishing field had ever considered the remote possibility that the general reading public could ever be so interested in justice,” Gardner wrote in 1951. “Argosy’s circulation began to skyrocket.” Six years later, the column was picked up by NBC and turned into a twenty-six-episode TV series.
Although it subsequently faded from memory, “The Court of Last Resort” stands as the progenitor of one of today’s most popular true-crime subgenres, in which reporters, dissatisfied with the outcome of a criminal case, conduct their own extrajudicial investigations. Until recently, the standout representatives of this form were “The Thin Blue Line,” a 1988 Errol Morris documentary about Randall Dale Adams, who was sentenced to death for the 1976 murder of a police officer; “Paradise Lost,” a series of documentaries by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky about three teen-agers found guilty of murdering three second-grade boys in West Memphis in 1993; and “The Staircase,” a television miniseries by Jean-Xavier de Lestrade about the novelist Michael Peterson, found guilty of murdering his wife in 2001. Peterson has been granted a new trial. Randall Dale Adams was exonerated a year after “The Thin Blue Line” was released. Shortly before the final “Paradise Lost” documentary was completed, in 2011, all three of its subjects were freed from prison on the basis of DNA evidence.
In the past fifteen months, this canon has grown considerably in both content and prestige. First came “Serial,” co-created by Sarah Koenig and Julie Snyder, which revisited the case of Adnan Syed, convicted for the 1999 murder of his high-school classmate and former girlfriend, eighteen-year-old Hae Min Lee. That was followed by Andrew Jarecki’s “The Jinx,” a six-part HBO documentary that, uncharacteristically for the genre, sought to implicate rather than exonerate its subject, Robert Durst. A New York real-estate heir, Durst was acquitted in one murder case, is currently awaiting trial in another, and has long been suspected in the 1982 disappearance of his wife, Kathleen Durst.
The latest addition to this canon is Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demos’s “Making a Murderer,” a ten-episode Netflix documentary that examines the 2007 conviction of a Wisconsin man named Steven Avery. Like the prisoners featured in “The Court of Last Resort,” Avery is a poor man serving time for a violent crime that he insists he didn’t commit. The questions his story raises, however, are not just about his own guilt and innocence. Nearly seventy years have passed since Erle Stanley Gardner first tried a criminal case before the jury of the general public. Yet we still have not thought seriously about what it means when a private investigative project—bound by no rules of procedure, answerable to nothing but ratings, shaped only by the ethics and aptitude of its makers—comes to serve as our court of last resort.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/dead-certainty?
good read that, cheers
I'm 3/4 of the way through the first episode and even though it's a crazy situation I'm not really sure why this doc has taken off so much (seen it all over Facebook recently)?
It's an interesting and scary case, but it's presented like just another crime documentary (although the effort that must've gone into making it is impressive).
It's an interesting and scary case, but it's presented like just another crime documentary (although the effort that must've gone into making it is impressive).
Cheers for that. A good, interesting read. I don't think anyone in the show ever says something along the lines of "well, he could have done it, but this trial was simply unfair". It's merely presented as him being an innocent man, framed for something he didn't do. They could have certainly gone with a balanced theme criticising the way in which the justice system operated but instead they went with a kind of "Free Steven Avery!" angle.
Personally though, after watching it, my feeling was that yeah, he could be guilty, but this was a worrying trial because of all the obvious conflicts of interest etc. and they did at least deserve a new trial. Despite it's bias in favour of Avery it did still do a good job of showing us just how many problems there are within the current justice system. I think most intelligent people would agree that, of course, Avery could have done it. There's not much to suggest he didn't actually; rather, the evidence suggesting he did seems to be far too tainted to be considered fair.
The problem is that a lot of unintelligent people watch TV shows. Therefore the makers really do have a responsibility to show us the really bad side of Avery during the show too. Throughout the show he was presented as this kind of rogue character - a bit uneducated, sure, and he'd had his trouble like most other people but this was a guy who just wanted to live his life in peace it seemed. It was really hard to understand just why people seemed to think he was such a bad guy. After reading into a bit more afterwards you do get the impression that this was a guy with a much darker side to him than what was presented to the audience.
Because.........keep watching.
I've noticed this becoming a new trend on the caf recently - the pre-emptive review. "I'm 13 seconds into the opening credits and this is clearly the most overrated thing I've seen all year. Is it worth carrying on?"
Seriously, you're not even finished the first episode and you've already made your mind up?
I was more questioning what's got people so into it, as I've never seen a documentary of this nature take off like it has. I would've expected half the people I've seen talking about it to have switched it off at this stage.
I will keep watching though. Got too tired last night hence only watching what I have.
Not made my mind up, just commenting on what I've seen so far.
There's a lot more to come other than what's in the first episode that's all I'll say.
Will watch a bit more tonight and come back with some more unfinished review.
I have watched three episodes and am bored. Eight episodes! It is very slow paced for me. I think it is one of those moments where a lot of people a realising for the first time just how corrupt the authorities can be in a Western country for the first time.