Making a Murderer

I lose even more faith in humanity that people watch a documentary....on Netflix...and then join up to sign a pardon to let the guy out.....based on a documentary....on Netflix.....

 

There's a reason judges tell jurors not to read or listen to anything about a case and to base their decision solely on the evidence presented at trial. And that's primarily designed to shut out media that are at least presumably trying to cover a case objectively; obviously something presented by a third party producer as a "documentary" or for entertainment purposes is even less likely to be accurate or thorough, as indicated in the "evidence not presented" stories like the one linked by the Captain. I haven't seen the documentary or read much about the situation but anyone who decides based on that alone to sign something advocating releasing the guy from prison is misguided to say the least.

There's a reason judges tell jurors not to read or listen to anything about a case and to base their decision solely on the evidence presented at trial. And that's primarily designed to shut out media that are at least presumably trying to cover a case objectively; obviously something presented by a third party producer as a "documentary" or for entertainment purposes is even less likely to be accurate or thorough, as indicated in the "evidence not presented" stories like the one linked by the Captain. I haven't seen the documentary or read much about the situation but anyone who decides based on that alone to sign something advocating releasing the guy from prison is misguided to say the least.

 

But the exact reasoning in your post is exactly why people feel so strongly about this. Even the judge was sketchy. I don't know that people are sure that he is not guilty just that people are sure it wasn't a fair trial.

I started it. Doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't get behind a movement from a documentary created for entertainment....

 

 

There's a reason judges tell jurors not to read or listen to anything about a case and to base their decision solely on the evidence presented at trial. And that's primarily designed to shut out media that are at least presumably trying to cover a case objectively; obviously something presented by a third party producer as a "documentary" or for entertainment purposes is even less likely to be accurate or thorough, as indicated in the "evidence not presented" stories like the one linked by the Captain. I haven't seen the documentary or read much about the situation but anyone who decides based on that alone to sign something advocating releasing the guy from prison is misguided to say the least.

 

It would be silly to say he's innocent beyond a doubt based off this documentary, however, seeing the depositions, period footage and interviews etc., it's hard to believe he was ever convicted. There are so many instances of conflict of interest, changing testimony by the officials etc. I think thats what we are shocked at. He may have done it, but god damn that whole case is marred with controversy.

 

 

 

 

no one is saying its wrong to question it after seeing this documentary. The problem is trying to take legitimate action about it, because you watched a damn documentary.

 

KONI2012 and the like come to mind.....

What Kevin said. The trial may have been a travesty, and he may be not guilty, or guilty but wrongly convicted because of an unfair trial. But advocating for a new trial is one thing, and advocating for a pardon or for him to be released is another thing entirely.

What Kevin said. The trial may have been a travesty, and he may be not guilty, or guilty but wrongly convicted because of an unfair trial. But advocating for a new trial is one thing, and advocating for a pardon or for him to be released is another thing entirely.

 

If I'm not mistaken, all his other legal avenues for appeals have been exhausted?

If the WI court system were to overturn or admit any fault on part of either County involved, I imagine that would open up the credibility of every case touch by all involved over the last 3-4 decades. I don't see that happening. I haven't signed the petition. I'd like to see a retrial

no one is saying its wrong to question it after seeing this documentary. The problem is trying to take legitimate action about it, because you watched a damn documentary.

 

KONI2012 and the like come to mind.....

I do not understand your line of reasoning. I think we can all agree while the documentary is flawed, it does raise a number of issues that cannot be explained away.

 

The fact that a police radio call on the car calling out the number plate then confirming make, model and year. The officer on the witness stand had no explanation for this when questioned, the same officer years ago that elected to ignore a call from a detective regarding the innocence of one of the inmates i.e. Steven.

The fact that there was obvious tampering on his sealed blood sample from the first case. The evidence tape seal was cut and there was a hole in the top of the blood vial.

The fact the same judge got to hear the initial appeal on the case that he presided is nonsensical.

The fact that Dassey (a minor with an IQ of 70) was interrogated without counsel for hours and basically fed the facts on multiple occasions.

The fact that there was no DNA in the house of the victim after the prosecution alleged she was raped by both of them and murdered there, none. Same goes for the garage.

The fact the car key turns up only after multiple searches found by a Manitowoc County Sheriff (the agency he was suing). I believe it was the same in the case of the bullet found in the garage. Multiple searches and then a Manitowoc Sheriff turns up critical evidence, not the primary investigating body.

The fact that Dassey was basically set up by his first attorney, that attorney was removed because of the misconduct however the evidence produced remained in the record. In the attorney investigator's own words under oath "they had to stop the blood line", seems reasonable.

The fact that only person the police give a video camera too, "finds" the car (out of hundreds) in 10 - 15 minutes on a 40 acre lot. I live on 20 acres and I couldn't walk in a straight from one side of my property to the other in 15 minutes.

 

I could go on...

 

I think both cases definitely warrant another look by a third party with no skin in the game. And this is coming from somebody who thinks they are probably guilty.

 

The other issue is so much of the evidence and testimony I believe is tainted and would have to be thrown out, I don't think an unbiased prosecutor could make a case of what remained. Christ, the prosecution's own CSI was so sloppy she tainted the blood sample found (on either bullet or car I forget) with her own DNA, breaching their own testing regime, yet she was allowed to testify and the blood sample was introduced as evidence for the prosecution.

I lose even more faith in humanity that people watch a documentary....on Netflix...and then join up to sign a pardon to let the guy out.....based on a documentary....on Netflix.....

 

 

In theory here, you're right, but in this particular case you couldn't be anymore wrong. If you knew NOTHING at all other than the video clip of Dassey's attorney being in cahoots with the prosecutor and private detective in that room , you still have to let that kid go. Guilty or not. Guilt doesn't exclude you from due process and the only way these two will get that is through national attention because Wisconsin isn't going to do right by themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

no one is saying its wrong to question it after seeing this documentary. The problem is trying to take legitimate action about it, because you watched a damn documentary.

 

KONI2012 and the like come to mind.....

 

 

This is an excerpt from episode 3. Keep in mind at this point only the murderer and the cops knew Teresa had been shot in the head.

The nephew, Brendan Dassey, has an IQ of 70 BTW. No lawyer present - i don't think he was given the option.

 

 

Watch the doc, it's good.

 

 

 

 

On another note, is it just me or does Teresa's brother come off as far too nonchalant for someone who's sister is missing/dead?

The takeaway here is to never, ever run outside naked while masturbating. Despite what you may think at the moment, the outcome will never be good.

Watch Harvey Levin eviscerate Dassey's first attorney.

 

Speaks volumes to Kachinsky's lack of competence to do an interview with trolls like TMZ.

I honestly don't understand why the filmmakers left out the evidence discussed in the link Capt posted that points to Avery's potential guilt (which is significant). I mean, they (the filmmakers) don't have a dog in this fight. As far as I know, they're not related to the Avery family or anything. The story/series would have been just as compelling with all the evidence, pro and con to Avery, laid out in full, told in good back-and-forth fashion like any good true crime show, and the doc makers would come away from it with just as big and engrossing a hit but a lot more credibility in the end. WTF? So you just choose a side and show half the evidence??

 

It boggles the mind why they would choose to go that route.

 

A bit more evidence not presented.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_t...dnt-present.php

 

Good info in that link. Thanks

On NBC news today, they said a juror from the case has just come forward stating they wanted to give an innocent verdict, but they gave a guilty verdict because they feared for their life. This could be interesting. I dont honestly know if he is guilty. Either way, I dont see how the case isnt thrown out with the corruption.

 

 

On NBC news today, they said a juror from the case has just come forward stating they wanted to give an innocent verdict, but they gave a guilty verdict because they feared for their life. This could be interesting. I dont honestly know if he is guilty. Either way, I dont see how the case isnt thrown out with the corruption.

 

 

Makes sense. If what we think happened, (the sheriff murdering an innocent woman and going to great lengths of planting evidence to ensure he stays in prison), what would stop them from whacking a juror with an innocent verdict?

 

 

 

As for the nonchalant brother, did he receive any life insurance from the death of his sister?

I do not understand your line of reasoning. I think we can all agree while the documentary is flawed, it does raise a number of issues that cannot be explained away.

 

The fact that a police radio call on the car calling out the number plate then confirming make, model and year. The officer on the witness stand had no explanation for this when questioned, the same officer years ago that elected to ignore a call from a detective regarding the innocence of one of the inmates i.e. Steven.

The fact that there was obvious tampering on his sealed blood sample from the first case. The evidence tape seal was cut and there was a hole in the top of the blood vial.

The fact the same judge got to hear the initial appeal on the case that he presided is nonsensical.

The fact that Dassey (a minor with an IQ of 70) was interrogated without counsel for hours and basically fed the facts on multiple occasions.

The fact that there was no DNA in the house of the victim after the prosecution alleged she was raped by both of them and murdered there, none. Same goes for the garage.

The fact the car key turns up only after multiple searches found by a Manitowoc County Sheriff (the agency he was suing). I believe it was the same in the case of the bullet found in the garage. Multiple searches and then a Manitowoc Sheriff turns up critical evidence, not the primary investigating body.

The fact that Dassey was basically set up by his first attorney, that attorney was removed because of the misconduct however the evidence produced remained in the record. In the attorney investigator's own words under oath "they had to stop the blood line", seems reasonable.

The fact that only person the police give a video camera too, "finds" the car (out of hundreds) in 10 - 15 minutes on a 40 acre lot. I live on 20 acres and I couldn't walk in a straight from one side of my property to the other in 15 minutes.

 

I could go on...

 

I think both cases definitely warrant another look by a third party with no skin in the game. And this is coming from somebody who thinks they are probably guilty.

 

The other issue is so much of the evidence and testimony I believe is tainted and would have to be thrown out, I don't think an unbiased prosecutor could make a case of what remained. Christ, the prosecution's own CSI was so sloppy she tainted the blood sample found (on either bullet or car I forget) with her own DNA, breaching their own testing regime, yet she was allowed to testify and the blood sample was introduced as evidence for the prosecution.

 

 

Youre going beyond my point, RedGTS is spot on with it. I see no issue with questioning it. At all. But to take action and group up to sign petitions because of a documentary is asinine to me. Again, my humble opinion, but sadly social media turns everything into a group think witch hunt.....

 

You didn't investigate the cases yourselves, you are simply taking the word for those who made the documentary, and are assuming they haven't put any slant and have given you EVERY BIT OF VALID INFORMATION, which you CAN NOT say is true. That's my issue. Now if you told me you spent the time and made this documentary yourself...and wanted to take action, then fine...

But once again , there is enough evidence in the documentary to warrant EVERYONE in this country being outraged and wanting to free these guys EVEN IF THEY ARE GUILTY. They didn't get a fair trial and any evidence that was omitted from the doc doesn't matter. Enough was shown that it proves they weren't given fair due process and that's enough. IF there is VIDEO of these two committing the crime, they should still get out because they weren't given a fair trial.

 

But once again , there is enough evidence in the documentary to warrant EVERYONE in this country being outraged and wanting to free these guys EVEN IF THEY ARE GUILTY. They didn't get a fair trial and any evidence that was omitted from the doc doesn't matter. Enough was shown that it proves they weren't given fair due process and that's enough. IF there is VIDEO of these two committing the crime, they should still get out because they weren't given a fair trial.

 

No offense, but that sounds hysterical (not in the funny sense but in the irrational sense). The point of the system after all is to determine guilt or innocence, not provide a perfect trial. If there were video of them committing the crime a jury is going to convict them even if there were also video of the cops planting additional evidence in an attempt to bolster the case, so any misconduct by the cops would be harmless. Maybe they deserve a new trial or maybe they don't, but if all you know about the case is what's in the show you were given only one side of the story from an advocate for the defendants (and I haven't watched the show but the name alone is pretty solid evidence of that).

No offense, but that sounds hysterical (not in the funny sense but in the irrational sense). The point of the system after all is to determine guilt or innocence, not provide a perfect trial. If there were video of them committing the crime a jury is going to convict them even if there were also video of the cops planting additional evidence in an attempt to bolster the case, so any misconduct by the cops would be harmless. Maybe they deserve a new trial or maybe they don't, but if all you know about the case is what's in the show you were given only one side of the story from an advocate for the defendants (and I haven't watched the show but the name alone is pretty solid evidence of that).

 

I suggest you watch it.

 

No offense, but that sounds hysterical (not in the funny sense but in the irrational sense). The point of the system after all is to determine guilt or innocence, not provide a perfect trial. If there were video of them committing the crime a jury is going to convict them even if there were also video of the cops planting additional evidence in an attempt to bolster the case, so any misconduct by the cops would be harmless. Maybe they deserve a new trial or maybe they don't, but if all you know about the case is what's in the show you were given only one side of the story from an advocate for the defendants (and I haven't watched the show but the name alone is pretty solid evidence of that).

 

 

You don't understand the level of railroaded and cheated this near mentally disabled kid was in during this "trial" .

 

 

...if all you know about the case is what's in the show you were given only one side of the story from an advocate for the defendants (and I haven't watched the show but the name alone is pretty solid evidence of that).

 

 

I see the name of the show as being ambiguous. You can read it as how to frame a guy for murder or how to turn a guy into a murderer, IE lock him up for a crime he didn't commit for 18 years.

 

I really don't see the outcome of the show one way or another regarding Avery's guilt, I think the filmmakers took something that was black and white and turned it into grey. Regardless of their guilt, what the show did was highlight how both defendants were cheated out of due process and essentially railroaded by law enforcement with a get a conviction "by any means necessary" mentality.

Saw Jeanine Pirro on FOX tonight claiming it's obvious he's guilty, and calling the documentary unbalanced entertainment.

 

Normally find her balanced. Is she onto something or is this the DA in her sticking to her own?

Saw Jeanine Pirro on FOX tonight claiming it's obvious he's guilty, and calling the documentary unbalanced entertainment.

 

Normally find her balanced. Is she onto something or is this the DA in her sticking to her own?

 

 

I'm very conservative but I have to admit, I don't care for her. She's just a bought out tabloid judge who used to have a borderline comedic courthouse TV show. While I used to like her at first, I slowly got the vibe that she was bought by someone. While there is no doubt in my mind that she is very intelligent and a lot of the points she makes may very well be her own, I don't think she's genuine.

I'm half way thru in 3 nights....

 

My only certainty is "In breeding" is the only law they have broke for sure.

 

 

More later

I'm half way thru in 3 nights....

 

My only certainty is "In breeding" is the only law they have broke for sure.

 

 

More later

 

 

I'll be stating it tomorrow. This thread has sparked my interest...