• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Brendan Dassey (Making A Murderer) has release blocked by Federal appeals court

Status
Not open for further replies.
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Ayumi said:
There's still hope though, right?

This release was supposed to be while waiting for his main release appeal to come through, at least from my understanding. Or was everything thrown away? :(

This is NOT the way to do things. Please be respectful for Brendan's sake.
Click to expand...

I kind of have to agree. I don't like any of this but as usual mobs going nuts on Twitter never does a thing. Plus as you can see for yourself a vocal minority turn it into a high school like offendathon. Many do not know how to dissent with passion without going to the lowest tier shit-posting and grovelling known to mankind. Case in point, see Twitter remarks already targeting the judges family.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Oemenia said:
We really shouldn't go by the documentary. It can have an agenda but missed some really damning evidence.
Click to expand...

As others have said Brendan's video confession was like 100x more damning for the officers and justice system than it was for Brendan as a suspect.

Alongside that video, him being pretty much instructed what to draw/write later on was also appalling.

You don't need to be biased to see he was utterly abused and taken advantage of due to his learning disabilities. Heck quite a lot of the tactics on show trip up more mentally able people let alone someone who deserves care and protection due to their disability.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
msdstc said:
uhh yes it did. Maybe not in Brendan's case, but in Steven's case it absolutely had an agenda.
Click to expand...

The whole thing was biased to the pair, but it doesn't mean it doesn't show some seriously appaling police work and defense attorney behaviour. Especially in the case of Brendan.

A lot of what shocks most is taped video, not opinion or hearsay. Obviously in regards to Steven the first case that locked him up was an outright disgrace as well, irrespective of the second.
 
M

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
SummitAve said:
Well good thing this thread is specifically about Brendan and not Steven.
Click to expand...

Audioboxer said:
The whole thing was biased to the pair, but it doesn't mean it doesn't show some seriously appaling police work and defense attorney behaviour. Especially in the case of Brendan.

A lot of what shocks most is taped video, not opinion or hearsay. Obviously in regards to Steven the first case that locked him up was an outright disgrace as well, irrespective of the second.
Click to expand...

Ok I agree with that, but it makes it hard to use as a source, simply because of how manipulative it is. Doesn't mean I cant say aww that sucks they did that to him, but some of the stuff they do is downright wrong. The worst case is leaving the "gotcha!" pinhole in the vial moment, which is disgraceful given they knew immediately that those vials all have pinholes in them, but they left that out and for a lot of people that looked so damn bad.

On top of that you have them selectively editing interviews, for instance they use footage of Steven's Ex talking about him in a positive manner... and yet in the very same interview footage there is footage of her saying he was a monster who she believe did it. The film makers said that she didn't have this stance during the making of the documentary, which was outright false.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
msdstc said:
Ok I agree with that, but it makes it hard to use as a source, simply because of how manipulative it is. Doesn't mean I cant say aww that sucks they did that to him, but some of the stuff they do is downright wrong. The worst case is leaving the "gotcha!" pinhole in the vial moment, which is disgraceful given they knew immediately that those vials all have pinholes in them, but they left that out and for a lot of people that looked so damn bad.

On top of that you have them selectively editing interviews, for instance they use footage of Steven's Ex talking about him in a positive manner... and yet in the very same interview footage there is footage of her saying he was a monster who she believe did it. The film makers said that she didn't have this stance during the making of the documentary, which was outright false.
Click to expand...

Sure I can get on board with all of that. The film makers did have an agenda and did create for views and semi-suspense. At the end of the day though I don't think most care about the film makers but if innocent people are rotting away behind bars. Brendan specifically because an actual judge has now cleared him, Steven because if it he does get cleared that is two cases of his life being taken away incorrectly. Plus it would mean some murderer(s) got away with it.

Unlike Steven I think most viewers agree in a loud way that Brendan was utterly fucked under the table for a conviction at any cost. That is not suppose to be how it works.
 
G

gamz

Member
Audioboxer said:
Sure I can get on board with all of that. The film makers did have an agenda and did create for views and semi-suspense. At the end of the day though I don't think most care about the film makers but if innocent people are rotting away behind bars. Brendan specifically because an actual judge has now cleared him, Steven because if it he does get cleared that is two cases of his life being taken away incorrectly. Plus it would mean some murderer(s) got away with it.

Unlike Steven I think most viewers agree in a loud way that Brendan was utterly fucked under the table for a conviction at any cost. That is not suppose to be how it works.
Click to expand...

The agenda of the filmmakers was to show how fucked up and flawed our system is. They have said that many, many times.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
gamz said:
The agenda of the filmmakers on how fucked up and flawed our system is. They have said that many, many times.
Click to expand...

I know this, I'm just saying I'm open to accept they filmed to be pro-Avery/Brendan. I don't think there is anything wrong with that given the strength of the arguments, but they did setup some unveils and reveals like a series of 24 or something. I get it. Dramatised for viewers. The pinhole needle argument was misleading, as it's not something 98% of the viewers me included know anything about. It should have been cleared up not left like some grand gotcha that most went away thinking till people in those fields said nah, that is quite normal.

As I said the far more important messages do get through to the masses. Someones rights potentially being taken away is far more chilling than some dodgy editing.
 
M

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
Audioboxer said:
Sure I can get on board with all of that. The film makers did have an agenda and did create for views and semi-suspense. At the end of the day though I don't think most care about the film makers but if innocent people are rotting away behind bars. Brendan specifically because an actual judge has now cleared him, Steven because if it he does get cleared that is two cases of his life being taken away incorrectly. Plus it would mean some murderer(s) got away with it.

Unlike Steven I think most viewers agree in a loud way that Brendan was utterly fucked under the table for a conviction at any cost. That is not suppose to be how it works.
Click to expand...

I'm up in the air about it. I agree the system failed him... I also believe he did it, but probably not enough to convict. That being said I would bet my life steven did it, so no sympathy from me there.

Edit-
gamz said:
The agenda of the filmmakers was to show how fucked up and flawed our system is. They have said that many, many times.
Click to expand...

You can do that without selectively editing conversations, pushing false information, etc.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
msdstc said:
I'm up in the air about it. I agree the system failed him... I also believe he did it, but probably not enough to convict. That being said I would bet my life steven did it, so no sympathy from me there.

Edit-


You can do that without selectively editing conversations, pushing false information, etc.
Click to expand...

I mean that is a lessen for the viewer as well. Simply wanting to believe someone is guilty or innocent is not how a system is suppose to be built or work. As much as I can say the makers had their bias, whether intentional or not it pushed self-reflection on the viewers when people started running around shouting "innocent" or "guilty" like it was some sitcom. We have systems of law and many well trained officials who are believed to do a better job than an armchair lawyer at home, but at times in this documentary they behaved no better.

Unfortunately regardless of whether either were guilty here there was far too much guilty until proven guilty, and if not proven, guilty anyway, and not innocent until proven guilty. That isn't a perfect system either but its the best us humans have came up with to supposedly put the onus more on the accuser to prove something in an attempt to stop the lockup of innocent people.

At this point it's more about what the new lawyers manage to do, than what people want. If both walk as free men we'll have to honour that new evidence or a re-opening of either case has proven things were mishandled. On that note Brendan has been cleared to walk, which is why this topic is sparking anger. It's taken all this time for a judge to admit his taped interview and handling of his disability were totally out of line and his statement should have been chucked out.
 
M

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
Audioboxer said:
I mean that is a lessen for the viewer as well. Simply wanting to believe someone is guilty or innocent is not how a system is suppose to be built or work. As much as I can say the makers had their bias, whether intentional or not it pushed self-reflection on the viewers when people started running around shouting "innocent" or "guilty" like it was some sitcom. We have systems of law and many well trained officials who are believed to do a better job than an armchair lawyer at home, but at times in this documentary they behaved no better.

Unfortunately regardless of whether either were guilty here there was far too much guilty until proven guilty, and not innocent until proven guilty. That isn't a perfect system either but its the best us humans have came up with to supposedly put the onus more on the accuser to prove something in a wish to NOT lockup innocent people.
Click to expand...

If that was the intention fine. I don't think it was. It's ironic how the loud majority have come out claiming a grand conspiracy of incredible difficulty to pull off.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
msdstc said:
If that was the intention fine. I don't think it was. It's ironic how the loud majority have come out claiming a grand conspiracy of incredible difficulty to pull off.
Click to expand...

People are left scrambling to try and make sense of perplexing situations. Being incredibly difficult doesn't mean impossible, hence why theories exist. They are just that though, unless new evidence or Stevens new lawyer can prove something it doesn't make theory fact. You do have to admit though his new lawyer ain't some nobody, and has only dealt with cases she and her team have ended up winning. For a while she's teased new evidence, so we'll see...

Brendan is a more clear cut case of mishandling, things went on that never should of and given his mental disability he should have been protected far better. You cannot simply take advantage of someone and their rights for a conviction. Even if they end up being proven guilty without a doubt, you're suppose to reach that conclusion legitimately, not pursue any means necessary because you simply feel they done it.
 
G

gamz

Member
msdstc said:
I'm up in the air about it. I agree the system failed him... I also believe he did it, but probably not enough to convict. That being said I would bet my life steven did it, so no sympathy from me there.

Edit-


You can do that without selectively editing conversations, pushing false information, etc.
Click to expand...

And they've said several times they left a lot of information on both sides. It's not a trial it's a documentary.
 
G

Glass

Member
We're literally experiencing and seeing the twists and turns of season 2 unfold in real time.

Fucked up.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Glass said:
We're literally experiencing and seeing the twists and turns of season 2 unfold in real time.

Fucked up.
Click to expand...

At this point as a meta-comment yeah. It's dark to say it like that, as if this is just a new season of a show/sitcom, but you ain't exactly wrong. I wish there wouldn't be a season 2, but if thing go as many think they might, I'm all for more fuckups being probed into for a widespread audience to see.

People just need to remember they aren't armchair lawyers, but sure, show passion and aim ire at people in powerful places who grossly fuckup and seem to double down. Or in the case of Ken Kratz go and get entangled in shady behaviour yourself.
 
M

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
Hollywood Duo said:
You are talking about Steven right?
Click to expand...

Of course I am. It's absurd to assume a grand conspiracy against Steven and his character. His character is well documented. The documentary did everything they could to make him seem like such a misunderstood guy. Multiple of his ex wives have come out to talk about what a monster he was.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
msdstc said:
Of course I am. It's absurd to assume a grand conspiracy against Steven and his character. His character is well documented. The documentary did everything they could to make him seem like such a misunderstood guy. Multiple of his ex wives have come out to talk about what a monster he was.
Click to expand...

Just so we are clear what he was on trial for (and convicted of) is the murder of Halbach, not how he gets on with his ex-partners.

Yes behaviour in your life can be used against you in a court case, but consider what happened to him the first time around when his behaviour was used against him to help convict for a rape and murder he didn't do?

It all comes down to the fact that to serve time for a crime, we as humans look to convict on certainty, or as close to that as we can get. Not just feelings and ah well, he is an all round troubled shady guy. Someone troubled did this, so we might as well lockup someone who is troubled?
 
M

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
Audioboxer said:
Just so we are clear what he is on trial for is the murder of Halbach, not how he gets on with his ex-partners.

Yes behaviour in your life can be used against you in a court case, but consider what happened to him the first time around when his behaviour was used against him to help convict for a rape and murder he didn't do?

It all comes down to the fact that to serve time for a crime, we as humans look to convict on certainty, or as close to that as we can get. Not just feelings and ah well, he is an all round troubled shady guy.
Click to expand...

I completely understand that and that goes both ways, which again is the irony giveb the way the doc handled it and how fans responded. On top of that i agree about certainty but that's such a dangerous game to play, because you can't prove with 100% certainty most things in life. It's POSSIBLE a grand conspiracy was carried out, but it is incredibly unlikely.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
msdstc said:
I completely understand that and that goes both ways, which again is the irony giveb the way the doc handled it and how fans responded. On top of that i agree about certainty but that's such a dangerous game to play, because you can't prove with 100% certainty most things in life. It's POSSIBLE a grand conspiracy was carried out, but it is incredibly unlikely.
Click to expand...

No you're right, but we should chuck out evidence and statements which are trash, not try and bend them to fit. The pursuit of justice should be done as honestly and impartially as possible. As soon as you start allowing humans to get overly emotional they go to pattern seeking behaviour. I don't mean the good pattern piecing together of clues, I mean wanting to start with a hypothesis (he's guilty) and try to make things fit.

This is why we start with innocent until proven guilty, because serious claims should require serious evidence, even if someone pleads guilty. While that in itself is damning, court cases still go ahead and evidence gets provided. It's our imperfect system but an attempt at trying to prevent people having their rights taken away incorrectly. We don't always succeed at that and that is what is chilling. Being behind bars incorrectly for 15~20+ years is not something anyone should go through, even if you're a dubious lacking in IQ shady dude.

I'm happy to say he's in jail because he was found guilty, but I'm also happy to say he has a very good new lawyer because at the very least there is still worthwhile digging to do.

Night Angel said:
Our justice system is designed only to punish people who are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Having a prosecution team fabricate evidence to remove that reasonable doubt, even in the case of someone's actual guilt, is a miscarriage of justice.

It would be better for a guilty man to be free due to a prosecution's inability to establish that person's guilt than for false evidence to lead to that same person's conviction.

The documentary was obviously biased. I personally believe that Steven committed the crime. Even with that, I don't think the jury reached the verdict absent manipulation and at the very least he should be given a new trial. Unfortunately I don't think they could try him again (double jeopardy), so the only just thing (imo) at this point is to overturn the conviction and punish the prosecutors for breaking the law.
Click to expand...

This is a hard to stomach but true statement. It's as I said above, "you're suppose to reach that conclusion legitimately". That onus is there to try and be a layer of protection for all.
 
N

Night Angel

Member
msdstc said:
I completely understand that and that goes both ways, which again is the irony giveb the way the doc handled it and how fans responded. On top of that i agree about certainty but that's such a dangerous game to play, because you can't prove with certainty most things in life. It's POSSIBLE a grand conspiracy was carried out, but it is incredibly unlikely.
Click to expand...
Our justice system is designed only to punish people who are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Having a prosecution team fabricate evidence to remove that reasonable doubt, even in the case of someone's actual guilt, is a miscarriage of justice.

It would be better for a guilty man to be free due to a prosecution's inability to establish that person's guilt than for false evidence to lead to that same person's conviction because it sets a precedent that could potentially land innocent people in prison.

The documentary was obviously biased. I personally believe that Steven committed the crime. Even with that, I don't think the jury reached the verdict absent manipulation and at the very least he should be given a new trial. Unfortunately I don't think they could try him again (double jeopardy), so the only just thing (imo) at this point is to overturn the conviction and punish the prosecutors for breaking the law. Not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong on something, but those are my feels.
 
M

msdstc

Incredibly Naive
Night Angel said:
Our justice system is designed only to punish people who are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Having a prosecution team fabricate evidence to remove that reasonable doubt, even in the case of someone's actual guilt, is a miscarriage of justice.

It would be better for a guilty man to be free due to a prosecution's inability to establish that person's guilt than for false evidence to lead to that same person's conviction because it sets a precedent that could potentially land innocent people in prison.

The documentary was obviously biased. I personally believe that Steven committed the crime. Even with that, I don't think the jury reached the verdict absent manipulation and at the very least he should be given a new trial. Unfortunately I don't think they could try him again (double jeopardy), so the only just thing (imo) at this point is to overturn the conviction and punish the prosecutors for breaking the law. Not a lawyer, so I'm probably wrong on something, but those are my feels.
Click to expand...

Im going to just stop this convo here because it's mucking up the thread and we'll agree to disagree. If your only source is the documentary, try to view the other side. I believe the evidence overwhelmingly points to Steven. I think most would agree, but where the disagreement comes is wether it was planted or not. I don't believe it was. I think the documentary did an amazing job of making it look that way.
 
S

Skellig Gra

Member
msdstc said:
Of course I am. It's absurd to assume a grand conspiracy against Steven and his character. His character is well documented. The documentary did everything they could to make him seem like such a misunderstood guy. Multiple of his ex wives have come out to talk about what a monster he was.
Click to expand...
I hear you.
 
G

gamz

Member
msdstc said:
Of course I am. It's absurd to assume a grand conspiracy against Steven and his character. His character is well documented. The documentary did everything they could to make him seem like such a misunderstood guy. Multiple of his ex wives have come out to talk about what a monster he was.
Click to expand...

So not true. They mentioned all of his past fuck ups and burning a cat. The point is all his past fuck ups he admitted and served his time. Which makes it more truthful that he would not admit the first murder and he was right. Even when they offered him a plea for less time.
 
J

Jay Sosa

Member
msdstc said:
Of course I am. It's absurd to assume a grand conspiracy against Steven and his character. His character is well documented. The documentary did everything they could to make him seem like such a misunderstood guy. Multiple of his ex wives have come out to talk about what a monster he was.
Click to expand...

Why not?

It's better than for an entire county to go bankrupt.

It's not like it would have been the first time police planted evidence to get a conviction. And it certainly won't be the last.

But even besides that, the point was to show that even if they manage to proove that basically 99% of the 'evidence' was bullshit...if they want to convict you...they will convict you.

Or did you watch some other show?

I'm also absolutely sure if Steven Avery was a good looking, eloquent 25 year old Yale student he would have never ever been sentenced to life in prison.
 
K

Kill3r7

Member
Okay for those of you interested in reading what happened here you go http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Motion-to-Extend-Time-to-File-Reply-Brief.pdf

Brendan's release was predicated on the state not filing an Appeal within 90 days. Both sides jointly agreed to extend the filing deadline however the District court judge issued an order for his release. So in order to prevent the order from going into effect the state filed an injunction. The court of appeals granted the injunction largely based on the joint motion to extend (assumption on my part).
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Kill3r7 said:
Okay for those of you interested in reading what happened here you go http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...Motion-to-Extend-Time-to-File-Reply-Brief.pdf

Brendan's release was predicated on the state not filing an Appeal within 90 days. Both sides jointly agreed to extend the filing deadline however the District court judge issued an order for his release. So in order to prevent the order from going into effect the state filed an injunction. The court of appeals granted the injunction largely based on the joint motion to extend (assumption on my part).
Click to expand...

Even if things are a bit more messy than what they seem, it was also said he is a danger to society and should remain behind bars, so the reasoning for the judges/appeals decision is still lighting a fire. Considering the judge who granted release pointed out they felt it was unsatisfactory how Brendan was coerced, a follow up seemingly ignoring that is causing rage.
 
LQX

LQX

Member
I guess those behind this watched the first season and wanted season 2 to to be even better. Seriously, they are doing this for Netflix. This is like the most perfect fucking thing producers of this series could ask for.
 
F

FlowersisBritish

fleurs n'est pas britannique
Jay Sosa said:
Why not?

It's better than for an entire county to go bankrupt.

It's not like it would have been the first time police planted evidence to get a conviction. And it certainly won't be the last.

But even besides that, the point was to show that even if they manage to proove that basically 99% of the 'evidence' was bullshit...if they want to convict you...they will convict you.

Or did you watch some other show?

I'm also absolutely sure if Steven Avery was a good looking, eloquent 25 year old Yale student he would have never ever been sentenced to life in prison.
Click to expand...

You should check out The Jinx on HBO. Its this story but on the other class side. Super recommend it, one of the best ends I've ever seen in a documentary, but my exposure to them is low.
 
R

RedShift

Member
PumpkinPie said:
How can this happen? In the UK when a judge says something, that's it. How can people just go against the ruling of a judge? It could just go in circles forever. Can he (Brendan) appeal their appeal to block his release?
Click to expand...

I mean this just isn't true. For example the recent high court decision on whether Article 50 can be invoked using royal perogative, which has been appealed to the supreme court.

I think the UK and US court systems are reasonably similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The FTC’s noncompete agreements ban is blocked
News
1
571
GHG replied
  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
3K
ManaByte replied
Joe Exotic resentenced to 21 years in prison for murder for hire plot against Carole Baskin
2
50
4K
Winter John replied
Your civil rights weren’t violated when you were muted out of a video game, U.S. court tells angry player
Cringe
4
1K
EDMIX replied
Being 'muted' in a game does not violate your civil rights, US federal court declares
Cringe
33
3K
PleaseDontBanMe replied
Top Bottom