Support NeoGAF

[SaintR]

Fucking hell! Just finished episode 9.

Spoiler

How the fuck could the judge keep a straight face while reading the sentence and his remarks? It's all bullshit!

I'm really at a loss for words here.

dude what about when they're interviewing the kid's cousin in court and she

Spoiler

starts crying and tells the defense that she made up the statement about Brendan talking about seeing body parts in the bin fire

I fucking lost it. Shit was heartbreaking seeing her cry and infuriating all at once. I had to pause the fucking show and walk away.

 

[FlashbladeGAF]

dude what about when they're interviewing the kid's cousin in court and she

Spoiler

starts crying and tells the defense that she made up the statement about Brendan talking about seeing body parts in the bin fire

I fucking lost it. Shit was heartbreaking seeing her cry and infuriating all at once. I had to pause the fucking show and walk away.

Started episode 2 Sunday night. Planned on watching it until I got tired since I had work the next morning. Ended up watching the whole thing, because every new unbelievable moment woke me the $%#% up while the suspense of the trial and the overall outcome left me on the edge of my seat.


And people say real life is boring.

 

[Straight Edge]

Great read.

Stories like this make me think we can't trust juries to bring the correct decisions.

 

[phyrlord]

ummmm... am I watching the same show that everyone else is watching? I put on episode 1 and it was 60 mins of random interviews and news footage. What did I just watch? No narration, no introduction, no production above text on screen once in a while.

I expected a Dateline NBC type Doc, what I got is like B roll from a university students video thesis in a crime class.

Maybe just not for me :/

 

[Big Baybee]

Stories like this make me think we can't trust juries to bring the correct decisions.

Juries really suck for the most part.

 

[Booker.DeWitt]

ummmm... am I watching the same show that everyone else is watching? I put on episode 1 and it was 60 mins of random interviews and news footage. What did I just watch? No narration, no introduction, no production above text on screen once in a while.

I expected a Dateline NBC type Doc, what I got is like B roll from a university students video thesis in a crime class.

Maybe just not for me :/

They are laying facts first on first episode, then it gets much better. I felt it was a hit slow the first episode, but DON'T STOP WATCHING, go back and try episode 2 and 3.

 

[phyrlord]

They are laying facts first on first episode, then it gets much better. I felt it was a hit slow the first episode, but DON'T STOP WATCHING, go back and try episode 2 and 3.

ok I'll check it out some more.

 

[Dalek]

ummmm... am I watching the same show that everyone else is watching? I put on episode 1 and it was 60 mins of random interviews and news footage. What did I just watch? No narration, no introduction, no production above text on screen once in a while.

I expected a Dateline NBC type Doc, what I got is like B roll from a university students video thesis in a crime class.

Maybe just not for me :/

There's not going to be a host that explains things like Robert Stack.

 

[CFMOORE!]

ummmm... am I watching the same show that everyone else is watching? I put on episode 1 and it was 60 mins of random interviews and news footage. What did I just watch? No narration, no introduction, no production above text on screen once in a while.

I expected a Dateline NBC type Doc, what I got is like B roll from a university students video thesis in a crime class.

Maybe just not for me :/

i won't shit on your for wanting something akin to 20/20 or Dateline since I grew up watching those. But I also watched Paradise Lost when it premiered and docs of this nature are just presented better when they are done this way versus the TV way.

stick with it, it is one of the best pieces of documentary film making out there. The directors were entrenched with these people for 10 years! I read an interview where they talked about not really having a plan for distributing it, and that maybe they would have done a 2hr theater type release, but they just didn't know how it would shake out.

 

[phyrlord]

i won't shit on your for wanting something akin to 20/20 or Dateline since I grew up watching those. But I also watched Paradise Lost when it premiered and docs of this nature are just presented better when they are done this way versus the TV way.

stick with it, it is one of the best pieces of documentary film making out there. The directors were entrenched with these people for 10 years! I read an interview where they talked about not really having a plan for distributing it, and that maybe they would have done a 2hr theater type release, but they just didn't know how it would shake out.

Yeah, got you. Was just expecting something LIKE those shows haha.

 

[SaintR]

Yeah, got you. Was just expecting something LIKE those shows haha.

I was expecting a narrator too, and I think it would've been a plus to have someone like the reporter from Serial talking over the footage but like others said its still a damn good doc despite this.

 

[Deadstar]

I was expecting a narrator too, and I think it would've been a plus to have someone like the reporter from Serial talking over the footage but like others said its still a damn good doc despite this.

I liked it in its current format. You watch the video and you form your own opinions. A reporter would have tainted this. I really like the fly on the wall nature of this documentary.

 

[gutshot]

Just looking at the evidence we do have have, its clear that Teresa was, without a doubt, moved twice. Once, right after she'd been killed, in her own car. The collected pool of blood near a head wound in the back of her own car verifies this. There is no other reason to put her in the trunk unless you're moving her.

The 2nd move is when the ashes were placed at Avery's bonfire pit. The fact that woman's bones can be found at the quarry, and in a burn barrel behind the Janda's house, suggests that the order of events had to have been:

-Teresa is killed by a gun shot to the head. The leftover blood in her trunk reinforces this, as well as the forensic evidence found on the pieces of her skull that were identified in the burn pile.

-Her body is taken to the quarry, where it is initially burned inside the Janda burn barrel.

-The Rav4 is transported to the edge of the Avery property, where it is barely covered up, and left there.

-The perps then transport those ashes to Avery's bonfire, knowing he had ashes there. If the suspects are who I think they are (Steven's brother + Scott), that would explain how they knew he was having a bonfire (they live at the same compound) and that dumping it in those bonfire ashes was a perfect dumping spot. They also had a motive to screw over Steven.

The fact that female bones were found at the quarry and in the burn barrel at Janda's suggests the quarry was the original burn location, and the barrel was the transport method to Avery's bonfire. The bones are basically a breadcrumb trail. The exact timeline doesn't even have to be that very same night, mind you. Some things could've happened over a period of time.

What we do know is that on 11/3, 3 days after Teresa goes missing, Detective Andy Coulbern puts in a dispatch call matching Teresa's car, two days before the vehicle is discovered. He has no explanation for this event. Here's the problem - if Coulbern admits he found the vehicle on 11/3rd on Avery's property without a search warrant, then its considered an illegal search, and the vehicle cannot be used as evidence in the trial. Remember, the vehicle was not found until the Avery's gave their consent that the junk yard could be searched, thus making its discovery legal.
This is where, I believe, two things happen.

1) Coulbern tells someone in Manitowoc Sheriff County's office, most likely Lenk, that he has found Teresa's car on Steven Avery's property. This would explain why when Coulbern leaves to take a look at Steven's property, he never goes to the other place he was destined to go to that night on 11/3rd. Its likely at this point when Coulbern & Lenk decide to crack open the 1985 DNA evidence of Steven Avery's, and plant his blood throughout the vehicle. Again - we know that Avery's 1985 DNA Evidence is at Manitowoc County Sheriff's Office and was opened up illegally and placed back in its container, with a puncture hole on the top of Steven's blood vile - so we have factual evidence that someone accessed it illegally.

2) Someone removes her rear license plate, and stashes it nearby but this happens AFTER Coulbern calls in the car to dispatch on 11/3. This is important because, going by the call to dispatch, I believe the license plates were still on the vehicle, and that he was directly looking at the rear plates (where he can see its clearly a RAV4) when he made that call. Now, whether he took them off or it was removed by the actual suspects afterwards is debatable. If I was a detective, I would want to leave the vehicle alone for a few days and observe who might go to it, hoping i'd catch my suspect.


This is the only timeline I can form given all the facts we do know.

Just wanted to highlight this post, which I feel is the best and most reasonable explanation of what may have occurred. Completely plausible and fits all of the evidence that is given in the trial.

I would also add that while Lenk and Colburn are smearing Avery's blood on the inside of the RAV4, they find the valet key in the glovebox and decide to hold onto it, with the intention of planting it in Avery's trailer at some later point in the investigation. Teresa's actual keys were likely burned up or dumped somewhere off-site by the killer(s), with the rest of the contents of her purse. This valet key had likely never been used and sat in her glovebox for years, either untouched by Teresa or only touched once when she first bought the car and put it in there. Lenk and Colburn, not realizing this, suspected that it would have had her DNA on it already and instead of cleaning it and then putting Avery's DNA on it (a foolish thing to do if you are trying to plant believable evidence), just went ahead and put Avery's DNA on it and hoped/expected it would then have both on it when it was tested.

 

[kavanf1]

I'm not even half way through this and I can't believe how angry it's making me. That poor confused kid, brought tears to my eyes when he was having the conversations with his mother. And his lawyer...what a slimy bastard. So much of this is just completely fucked.

 

[gamz]

ummmm... am I watching the same show that everyone else is watching? I put on episode 1 and it was 60 mins of random interviews and news footage. What did I just watch? No narration, no introduction, no production above text on screen once in a while.

I expected a Dateline NBC type Doc, what I got is like B roll from a university students video thesis in a crime class.

Maybe just not for me :/

No narration throughout the whole show. Which I loved.

 

[KingBroly]

ummmm... am I watching the same show that everyone else is watching? I put on episode 1 and it was 60 mins of random interviews and news footage. What did I just watch? No narration, no introduction, no production above text on screen once in a while.

I expected a Dateline NBC type Doc, what I got is like B roll from a university students video thesis in a crime class.

Maybe just not for me :/

Because it is. They originally went to do a story on Avery getting out after 18 years from a wrongful conviction and it turned into something else.

 

[CFMOORE!]

Because it is. They originally went to do a story on Avery getting out after 18 years from a wrongful conviction and it turned into something else.

yeah, which makes it like Dear Zachary in that sense. The original intent was overshadowed by horrible events that happened during filming.

 

[Dalek]

No narration throughout the whole show. Which I loved.

I know-I can't imagine someone actually seeing that as a turn off.

 

[Killing_Joke]

Kathleen Zellner's tweet:

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/686915077384069121

"Visit w/Steven Avery at Waupon CC. He is identical to the other 17 innocent men we've cleared. Won't quit until he's out. #MakingAMurderer"

This is pretty amazing. I don't think she would waste her time if she didn't have good evidence or a guaranteed fat check for them afterwards. Hopefully the process will go smoother for Brandon once Steve is settled.

 

[psynergylover]

just finished ep 3...

Spoiler

.they fucking railroaded that young kid HOLY SHIT!!! I'm heated right now!!!! so unfucking unfair he was question without knowing his rights!! ARGH!!!!

 

[SaintR]

I'm not even half way through this and I can't believe how angry it's making me. That poor confused kid, brought tears to my eyes when he was having the conversations with his mother. And his lawyer...what a slimy bastard. So much of this is just completely fucked.

I hated that dude man. When the reporters ask him if he thought it was right that

Spoiler

his client was questioned by police without him there and he's all like "ah yuck yuck, yeah I do"

got me pissed with that shit eating grin of his.

 

[PopeReal]

No narration throughout the whole show. Which I loved.

Same. No need.

 

[jellies_two]

He just filed an appeal
unfortunately for him, it isn't looking too clever and doesn't have his new or old lawyers name on it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...er-subject-steven-avery-files-appeal-36249632

 

[CFMOORE!]

I hated that dude man. When the reporters ask him if he thought it was right that

Spoiler

his client was questioned by police without him there and he's all like "ah yuck yuck, yeah I do"

got me pissed with that shit eating grin of his.

there are TONS of people to despise in this, but Kachinsky is one of the worst offenders. The footage of him always being seen with Steven's prosecution was a huge red flag to me before they fully showed how much he wasn't looking out for Brendan's best interest.

 

[Deadstar]

there are TONS of people to despise in this, but Kachinsky is one of the worst offenders. The footage of him always being seen with Steven's prosecution was a huge red flag to me before they fully showed how much he wasn't looking out for Brendan's best interest.

I don't get why Kachinsky's behavior wasn't seen as illegal? He was sending his client down the river telling media he's guilty. That's an acceptable attorney behavior? What?

 

[Amory]

Have you guys listened to the podcast series "Rebutting a Murderer"? Some dude basically tearing apart the series in the other direction, trying to show that it almost had to be Steven who committed the murder.

Rather interesting. Apologies if it's been posted in this thread already

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

 

[CFMOORE!]

Have you guys listened to the podcast series "Rebutting a Murderer"? Some dude basically tearing apart the series in the other direction, trying to show that it almost had to be Steven who committed the murder.

Rather interesting. Apologies if it's been posted in this thread already

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

i will definitely listen since while I am on Steven's side, if someone can ACTUALLY provide compelling reasoning as to how it was really him, i am open to that. However, jesus christ at all the red white and blue on that site. that visual alone almost makes me eye roll at what this guy has to say.

 

[Amory]

i will definitely listen since while I am on Steven's side, if someone can ACTUALLY provide compelling reasoning as to how it was really him, i am open to that. However, jesus christ at all the red white and blue on that site. that visual alone almost makes me eye roll at what this guy has to say.

I know, but there's no conservative talk stuff. He just addresses the case/show

if you find it interesting, there are actually 6 episodes so far, with 4 more planned. he covers the documentary episodes one by one

 

[TTOOLL]

Finished it earlier today and this whole thing is just heartbreaking,

Spoiler

Brendan's letter at the end destroyed me, really. I loved that Kratz got fucked over sexting but he deserved worse than that, the guy is pure trash.

About the judges....hoyshit! Judge Willis saying Steven's crimes got worse over time and because of that he would have to stay in prison for the rest of his life, I mean, the guy just ignored all the evidences, he had already decided Steven was guilty and should spend the rest of his life locked up. He also ignored that Steven had been cleared from all previous charges by saying that.

Brendan's trial was a joke, as was Steven's, but I pity Brendan more because fucking cops abused his mental condition, it was one of the saddest things I've ever watched.

I don't know man, I don't think they will ever be free again and that's plain terrible.

 

[CFMOORE!]

if I win the powerball, i will fund a mercenary force to break them out of prison and put them up on some island somewhere forever. little by little, my mercs will get their family to the island/s

 

[gamz]

He just filed an appeal
unfortunately for him, it isn't looking too clever and doesn't have his new or old lawyers name on it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...er-subject-steven-avery-files-appeal-36249632

Because he has to file the appeal himself. If he gets the appeal then he can lawyer up.

 

[DEAD RABBIT]

2) Someone removes her rear license plate, and stashes it nearby but this happens AFTER Coulbern calls in the car to dispatch on 11/3. This is important because, going by the call to dispatch, I believe the license plates were still on the vehicle, and that he was directly looking at the rear plates (where he can see its clearly a RAV4) when he made that call. Now, whether he took them off or it was removed by the actual suspects afterwards is debatable. If I was a detective, I would want to leave the vehicle alone for a few days and observe who might go to it, hoping i'd catch my suspect.

I hadn't even realized that the plates had to have been removed after Colburn had called them in. This may be the best proof of police evidence tampering.

 

[BronsonLee]

Nah guys I got it

Steven saw Colburn call in the plate, and decided the best way to get rid of the evidence was to get rid of the plate!

..Guys

Guys?

 

[gutshot]

This is pretty amazing. I don't think she would waste her time if she didn't have good evidence or a guaranteed fat check for them afterwards. Hopefully the process will go smoother for Brandon once Steve is settled.

I wouldn't get too excited just yet. Her agreeing to take his case doesn't necessarily mean there is definitely some rock-solid new evidence that once it comes to light will exonerate Steven. It's just as likely she is using this time of increased public awareness to heighten her own name recognition. Already she has garnered a ton of publicity and goodwill for agreeing to take the case.

I'm happy that a high-powered attorney is agreeing to help Steven, and I do think she'll do her best to get him out. But if she loses, well, it will likely be far enough in the future that most people will have already moved on and won't know or care and those who haven't will just continue to blame the justice system. And if she wins, she's lauded as a hero. She really has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

[pooptest]

Have you guys listened to the podcast series "Rebutting a Murderer"? Some dude basically tearing apart the series in the other direction, trying to show that it almost had to be Steven who committed the murder.

Rather interesting. Apologies if it's been posted in this thread already

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

Listened to episode 1... a little TOO bias the other direction and some FUD. Guy needs to relax a little. Thanks, but I'll probably pass on the rest.

 

[lazybones18]

for anyone that's interested, the makers of the doc will be guests on tonight's Late Show w/Stephen Colbert

quoting as a friendly reminder

 

[neurosisxeno]

just finished ep 3...

Spoiler

.they fucking railroaded that young kid HOLY SHIT!!! I'm heated right now!!!! so unfucking unfair he was question without knowing his rights!! ARGH!!!!

It's important to know, that in the March 1st interview they did give him his Miranda Rights--right at the beginning of the filming. The problem arises from the fact that Brendan does not understand what his Rights actually are. He clearly didn't realize he was a suspect, or that he was under arrest in any way shape or form. This is most painfully apparent when he asks if he'll be done by 1:30 because he has a project at school to present.

The way Wiegert and Fassbender interrogate people should be illegal. It's the most heavy handed bullshit technique there is.

 

[KingBroly]

It's important to know, that in the March 1st interview they did give him his Miranda Rights--right at the beginning of the filming. The problem arises from the fact that Brendan does not understand what his Rights actually are. He clearly didn't realize he was a suspect, or that he was under arrest in any way shape or form. This is most painfully apparent when he asks if he'll be done by 1:30 because he has a project at school to present.

The way Wiegert and Fassbender interrogate people should be illegal. It's the most heavy handed bullshit technique there is.

I think what sucks the most out of it is them going 'yup, totally fit to stand trial. Sane, competent and of sound mind. Not mentally slow at all. No sir.' Just infuriating shit.

 

[Dr.Acula]

One thing I never understood is why the 2nd lawyer defense team for the poor kid decided not to include the last 90mins of the interrogation which where he says "they got in my head"

If the utterly spotless murder scene and the school bus driver timeline didn't sway the jury, that one line wouldn't have helped. They could have spun it as "look, he admitted it, he denied it for hours, but only told the truth after the interviewers skillfully got into his head and made him trip up on his lies."

 

[KingBroly]

If the utterly spotless murder scene and the school bus driver timeline didn't sway the jury, that one line wouldn't have helped. They could have spun it as "look, he admitted it, he denied it for hours, but only told the truth after the interviewers skillfully got into his head and made him trip up on his lies."

Prosecution would've refuted it hard. 'He realized he screwed up by telling the truth and tried to backtrack.' Given that Brendan was declared to be of sound mind by the court, it wouldn't have helped the Defense.

 

[AbortedWalrusFetus]

Just finished this tonight. Holy shit that was a powerful documentary. I'm not going to pass judgment on Steven Avery in terms of whether or not he did it because I don't know all of the facts, but a few things in there like the key randomly appearing and the vial of blood with a needle hole in it are so devastating to my ability to have faith in any of the investigation that I would think he should be free on reasonable doubt alone.

Brendan Dassey though? That was a sham upon a sham. The entirety of how his case was handled was a travesty to the process of justice, and the entire system needs to be torn down and rebuilt based on what happened to him. His original lawyer, Len Kachinsky should be disbarred. Wow.

 

[Pif]

My thoughts after this documentary:

- 'murica


Seriously. No fucking justice, like, at all.

 

[zeioIIDX]

Episodes 3 and 4 are pissing me off severely The entire thing with his nephew has me wanting to jump through the screen and strangle someone. I'm legit upset at the way his nephew is being treated and how that situation is being handled. Even just reading what the nephew wrote and seeing his typos, misspelled words, and grammatical errors made me feel so bad.

"How can I? I'm really stupid mom. I can't help it." That part almost made me break down....

 

[Vyer]

I'm through 5 episodes now.

It's hard to believe there is this strong a concentration of slimeballs in one case.

 

[Dalek]

EXCLUSIVE: 'We hope you die of cancer,' Making a Murderer fans tell lawyer who was removed from case for mishandling defense then treated for leukemia

Daily Mail link-so the link is blocked. But it's their exclusive interview.

http://www.*****************/news/a...ase-mishandling-defense-treated-leukemia.html

A lawyer who represented the nephew of Making a Murderer's Steven Avery but was dismissed for mishandling the case has told Daily Mail Online how documentary fans have told him to 'die of cancer'.
Len Kachinksy, who represented 16-year-old Brendan Dassey for six months after he confessed to the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach under his uncle's command, denies he was ever disloyal to his client.
Mr Kachinsky, a married father of two who is battling leukemia, told Daily Mail Online that he has been flooded with nasty emails, voicemails, calls and tweets since the 10-part series was released in December.
At the time, Mr Kachinsky was undergoing a seven-week hospital stay to treat his cancer which is now in remission.
Speaking from his home in Wisconsin, the 62-year-old said: 'Most messages said things like, 'Shame on you, you should die of cancer, you've ruined a little boy's life.
'The majority of communications have come from outside of Wisconsin, from foreign countries, the East and West coasts.'
He added: 'I'm not terribly concerned about it. They wished ill upon me but no one's ever threatened to injure or kill me.'

On March 1, 2006, Dassey, then 16, told police he had helped Avery rape, stab, shoot and dismember Miss Halbach on his uncle's orders.
The confession, which Dassey made during a four-and-a-half hour interview with two seasoned police investigators, was made without a lawyer or his mother present.
The teen has an IQ score of 70, which qualifies him as intellectually disabled.
He later said his confession had been coerced. Both he and Avery claim they are innocent.
No physical evidence or DNA was found linking Dassey to Halbach's murder or to support his claims.
On March 2, Dassey was charged with being a party to first-degree intentional homicide, mutilation of a corpse, and first-degree sexual assault.
On March 8, Len Kachinsky was drafted to represent the boy.
The 16-year-old's case was contracted out to Kachinsky's private practice by the state, a typical scenario when there is a conflict of interest for the public defender or there is an overwhelming caseload.
Making a Murderer suggests that Dassey never had a chance at a fair trial because Kachinsky believed he was guilty from the outset, urging him to take a plea deal and testify against Avery.
Kachinsky told Daily Mail Online that he had not watched Making a Murderer and had no plans to.
However based on the messages he has received from disgruntled fans and reading news articles, he believes that his role in Dassey's case has been misunderstood.
He said: 'I get tired of it after a while because so much of it's based on a misinterpretation and incomplete understanding of what exactly happened in the case, and my role in it regarding Dassey.
'What [viewers] are missing is on March 1, 2006, before he was charged or had an attorney, Dassey gave a four-and-half hour, videotaped confession to the police. This was used at Dassey's trial.
'When I got the case, I read the complaint and soon thereafter, I got the four-and-a-half hour video confession and watched it as quickly as I could.
'I was concerned about [Dassey's age and low IQ] so I made a motion to keep it out of evidence but that was denied.'
On May 12, 2006, Manitowoc County Circuit Court Judge Jerome Fox ruled that the prosecution could use Dassey's March 1 statement as evidence despite Kachinsky's argument that the teen had been coerced.
Following the hearing, Kachinsky said he would look at all his options with his client including making a deal with prosecutors.
He said: 'This is an extremely important decision that a 16-year-old is going to have to make. I can give him advice, but ultimately it's his decision.'
Kachinsky told Daily Mail Online that although he never said so publicly, he thought Dassey had a slim chance of getting off and was trying to do his best for him under the circumstances.
'I never explicitly told anybody what my strategy was but it was pretty obvious I think to some people, that I was trying to get a good deal for Brendan. I didn't think he had much of a chance at trial.'
He added: 'But if Brendan wasn't going to admit to being involved in the murder, I'm not going to encourage him to take any type of plea deal.'
The attorney told Daily Mail Online that he does not make a personal call on whether his client his guilty or innocent but focuses on finding the best option for their defense.
Kachinsky said on Saturday: 'I never make a personal judgement on whether someone did something or not.
'But after I had seen Dassey's confession, the main question for me is to whether the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that somebody did it.
'I had the impression that this videotaped statement [from Dassey] would be extremely convincing and if a jury saw it, it didn't appear to be overly leading or anything else.
'Dassey's demeanor on the video tape... he appeared to understand what was going on, it looked that way to me.
'I thought a jury would come to that conclusion as well.'

After it was clear the jury would see Dassey's confession, Kachinsky drafted in a private investigator, Michael O'Kelly, to try to figure out the truth about the teen's confession.

Kachinsky said to this day he regrets bringing on Mr O'Kelly in the case.
He told Daily Mail Online: 'I got in Michael O'Kelly because I couldn't get anyone else. I had never heard of the guy before, he was a wild card.
'He was from Chicago I think. He becomes my investigator, trying to figure out what's going on.
'After the motion was denied on the Friday, I told him to go talk to Brendan in the afternoon.
'Apparently he videotaped it but that tape was never released to the state or to anyone else.
'That was only for our internal use – we wanted to find out whether Brendan's position was that he agreed with his March 1 statement or with his subsequent denials.
'O'Kelly's statement was never to be used in evidence. I realize he probably went overboard on some of the stuff he did.
Kachinsky added: 'The guy had been to law school for a year or two and frankly I didn't think he needed close supervision but apparently he did. Looking back, I wouldn't have hired O'Kelly.'
O'Kelly's interrogation of Dassey led to another confession to the murder, and the teen even provided him with a stick-person drawing of Miss Halbach apparently chained to Avery's bed.
Kachinsky said: 'I got a call, at quarter to nine on the Friday night [from O'Kelly]. He said Brendan desperately wanted to give a statement to the police.
'I had Army Reserve drill in the morning so I couldn't be there.
'He [O'Kelly] was going to be there – and if anything was to go awry, he'd call me right away and I had my phone with me the whole day.
'That interview didn't go too well for anybody. I saw the recording a week or two later. It wasn't used as evidence at Dassey's trial.'

Kachinsky continued: 'I was personally criticized for not being there [for Dassey's second police interview].
'Perhaps with 20/20 hindsight, that was a valid criticism, I should have postponed the interview. I couldn't postpone the army drill but I could have postponed the interview.'
Kachinsky wanted to clarify what he said were any misconceptions that Making a Murderer may have given about Dassey's interview by O'Kelly.
'I don't know if the show made it clear but it seems a lot of people have the impression that the jury saw the interview that Brendan gave to Bill O'Kelly, and the second interview with police in May, and concluded that led to him being convicted.
'None of the Bill O'Kelly's interview or information was used at trial. None of Dassey's second interview with police investigators was used at trial. The March 1 interview was all that was used at trial.'
Kachinsky added: 'The state's view of the whole thing was, we have this March 1 confession of four and a half hours, we've got him.'
He was taken off Dassey's case in August 2006 for allowing the teen to be interviewed by police in May without an attorney.
Kachinsky stands by his opinion that a plea deal would have been the best option for Dassey.
He believes there was pressure on the teen from the Dassey and Avery families not to testify at Steven Avery's murder trial.
Kachinsky said: 'They were telling him not to cooperate with the state and drop the dime of Uncle Steve.
'It would have given Brendan the better deal, if he was going to testify truthfully against Uncle Steve.
'Helping the prosecution in their case against Avery would have been a by-product of that.'
Kachinsky said he was convinced Dassey's confession would led the jury to find him guilty.
'In some cases you want to fight the state to the last juror. Some cases are damage control and given the strength of evidence against Dassey and the strength of the confession, this was damage control,' he said.
When asked about the other evidence against Dassey, Kachinsky told Daily Mail Online: 'The confession was basically it.

'There was some other evidence that he was home and in the area, he didn't have a good alibi.
'The March 1 confession was pretty detailed.'

Kachinsky denies suggestions made by the documentary and Dassey's current defense team that he was disloyal to his client.
He said: 'If you labelled a defense attorney disloyal every time the client says "I'm innocent" and the attorney says back, well I don't think the evidence is very helpful to us, then every attorney out there has been disloyal at some point.
'There is nothing that I did in the course of the case that made life any more difficult for his subsequent attorneys.'
Kachinsky said that he followed Dassey's trial in the local newspapers. In April 2007, Dassey was found guilty of Teresa Halbach's murder and sexual assault, and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of early release in 2048.
His former attorney said: 'I wasn't surprised by the verdict or the length of sentence.
'Part of the reason for the length of the sentence I'm sure was that the judge was aware that Dassey knew he had alternatives.
'That's why he got more time than he would have done otherwise had he been willing to testify against Steve.
'Testifying against Steven Avery would have taken a certain amount of personal bravery.'
Had Dassey taken a plea deal, Kachinsky estimates that he could have been released sometime in the 2030s when he is in his early forties.

With his current sentence Dassey will only be considered for parole at 58 years old.

Now 26, he is serving his sentence at Green Bay Correctional Facility in Wisconsin.
A lawsuit for Dassey has been taken to federal court in Wisconsin by Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth.
The suit claims that Dassey was illegally imprisoned in 2005 and asks that Dassey be granted a writ of Habeas corpus, meaning his case must be re-examined.
A decision is likely to be made in the next year.
Kachinsky said he had never considered whether Dassey may have been wrongfully imprisoned as Making a Murderer suggests.
He said: 'Personally, I never make any judgement on that. I could understand how the jury came to the verdict they did.'

 

[BronsonLee]

Len Kachinsky sounds like the most incompetent goddamn lawyer in the history of the world.

He clearly doesn't want to accept any blame for his actions. And he basically throws O'Kelly under the goddamn bus.

 

[HardRojo]

Finished it earlier today and this whole thing is just heartbreaking,

Spoiler

About the judges....hoyshit! Judge Willis saying Steven's crimes got worse over time and because of that he would have to stay in prison for the rest of his life, I mean, the guy just ignored all the evidences, he had already decided Steven was guilty and should spend the rest of his life locked up. He also ignored that Steven had been cleared from all previous charges by saying that.

Spoiler

Yeah, that's exactly what went through my mind when the judge gave his speech during the sentence reading. That's why I don't know how he could keep a straight face, it was all fucking bullshit. I mean, I don't know if Steven really did it or not, but what the judge said about him was all pure crap.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

Have you guys listened to the podcast series "Rebutting a Murderer"? Some dude basically tearing apart the series in the other direction, trying to show that it almost had to be Steven who committed the murder.

Rather interesting. Apologies if it's been posted in this thread already

Episode 1

Episode 2

Episode 3

Despite the Rush Limbaugh ads I made it about 3 paragraphs.

 

[royalan]

The idiot should watch the damn documentary before commenting on why he thinks people regard him as scum.

People aren't mad because they think the jury saw the interview between Brendan and O'Kelley. People think you're piss because you allowed that interview to happen in the first place. People are mad because that interview demonstrated, from top to fucking bottom, that Brendan had not a single fucking person in his corner even attempting to defend besides his own damn mother.

 

[Zomba13]

EXCLUSIVE: 'We hope you die of cancer,' Making a Murderer fans tell lawyer who was removed from case for mishandling defense then treated for leukemia

Daily Mail link-so the link is blocked. But it's their exclusive interview.

http://www.*****************/news/a...ase-mishandling-defense-treated-leukemia.html

Of course idiots are being absolute shit heads to people they've never met =/

'There is nothing that I did in the course of the case that made life any more difficult for his subsequent attorneys.'

I absolutely disagree with that. All the stuff where he let the kid be interviewed without him or his mother absolutely made it harder for the subsequent defence attorneys! They stuff he said there likely would not have been said had his mother or Kachinsky been there. If the mother was there it's likely that he might've been more comfortable and stick to what he said where "nothing happened" instead of altering his story multiple times trying to get the "right" answer and if Kachinsky was there then maybe he'd be all "you can't say that, you're leading my client".