I got a guy in my wow guild who is about to take the bar to watch it, wanted to see what a lawyer (or almost lawyer in his case) thought. He said the trail was sketchy as hell and felt the cops just wanted to get the conviction, but he had doubts that Stephen was innocent. From his mannerism (as he said), he felt that Stephen was guilty, but the evidence against him was more that the cops wanted the conviction by any means. Coming from a psychology background I didn't see it that way. He also said he hope Stephens nephew gets out with the help of the innocence project cause that one was just a terrible job.
-
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.
Making A Murderer - Netflix 10-part documentary series - S1 now streaming on Netflix
- Thread starter Armadilo
- Start date
Mannerisms? I felt he and Dassey were the only ones that looked honest. Avery never wavered and still hasnt.
This case just further exemplifies how dumb trial by jury is. I mean in theory it's nice, but in practice the lawyers from the prosecution and defense (but more the prosecution) spent most of their time trying to sway the jury on emotional instead of rational terms.
Now go listen to the Serial podcast. It's essentially the same sort of thing in audio form.
Where are you getting that I said he was guilty? I was saying that the evidence not pointing to him doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it. I have no idea if Avery did it. I don't think he did but I could be wrong. But I'm not going to say I know exactly what happened that night when I wasn't there and any number of things could have happened. I know that Avery had an unfair trail where he was not given that benefit that we are supposed to have under the law and that is the real crime more than anything else. If the media and that slimy DA don't give every salacious detail to the public regardless of it being true or not, he probably gets a fairer trail.
Halcyon
Member
I preferred Serial but I think it's because it distracted me from work.
My wife and I visited my in-laws this weekend. My father in loves watches all these "true life" murder stories on cable TV constantly. My wife told him that he should watch Making a Murderer because it would be right up his alley. His response was along the lines of "I'm not going to watch that, I heard that it was biased and left out some stuff. My mind is already made up-he's guilty."
MMaRsu
Member
Thats very sad to hear. It didnt came across as biased yo me.
Skellig Gra
Member
Eh I wouldn't go that far. Didn't seem like they let the prosecution tell their side at all. Granted that could be because they all refused but every interview they did was in support of Avery.
MMaRsu
Member
What. The prosecution told their side and didnt want to be interviewed afterwards.
I think its clear its in support of Avery because there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he DID in fact kill her lol.
neurosisxeno
Member
They also omitted stuff that painted the prosecution in a really bad light--the entirety of the DNA evidence found under the Rav4's hood. It helps show that just about every piece of DNA evidence was improperly handled by Manitowoc.
Katherine Zellner (Avery's new lawyer) helped release a lot of innoncent men already. There's a documentary (1hr45min) called Dream/Killer from 2015 about one of her famous cases.
http://imdb.com/title/tt4504438/
I'm gonna watch it tonight, and would love someone to discuss it with. PM me if you're interested?
http://imdb.com/title/tt4504438/
I'm gonna watch it tonight, and would love someone to discuss it with. PM me if you're interested?
Just finished watching the series with the wife today. Holy fucking shitballs what the fuck is up with Manitowoc county and Wisconsin DOJ.
Why wasn't Brendan's file to appeal overturned? His fucking sleazeball laywer let him get interrogated without being present? And then they allowed his comments to be used against him?
What a fucking debacle. I saw about the new testing for Luminol that may get Steven a new trail.
If he does somehow gets out of jail a 2nd time and is a free man, they need to name a law or something after him.
Why wasn't Brendan's file to appeal overturned? His fucking sleazeball laywer let him get interrogated without being present? And then they allowed his comments to be used against him?
What a fucking debacle. I saw about the new testing for Luminol that may get Steven a new trail.
If he does somehow gets out of jail a 2nd time and is a free man, they need to name a law or something after him.
Now imagine him being on a jury.
Source: http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/steven-avery-innocent-making-a-murderer
Edit: Don't read too much into it, I guess.
Apparently it was based on this article:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local...364897331.html
I guess reporters are getting overly excited about this all.
Also: WSCCA Case History
http://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHist...Direction=DESC
Fantastical
Death Prophet
Damn, I had a very similar situation with my mom. I was telling my sister about it and how she'd love it and my mom said "I watched a YouTube video and they left stuff out and he's guilty." She hasn't seen the show...
Audioboxer
Member
Here we go!
Awesome.
schlongdog
Banned
Article is from 8 days ago, and I can't seem to find another that supports it...
Mackenzie 92
Member
How would luminol testing the trailer and garage 10 years later prove his innocence? Cast some doubt, sure? But there's already plenty of that.
Apparently it was based on this article:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...s-Plan-to-Present-New-Evidence-364897331.html
I guess reporters are getting overly excited about this all.
Also: WSCCA Case History
http://wscca.wicourts.gov/appealHis...set=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=DESC
I've been travelling a lot lately and haven't had the time to watch this and have tried to avoid all spoilers regarding this show as The Jinx was amazing and I thought this was more or less Netflx try on that but that obviously I was too cynical as this was something that really hit me in the feels.
I've binged this so I might've not have a nuanced point of view of this as I just finished the last episode not more than 5 minutes ago but that feels like a good thing if you compare it to the jury or at least people of the community that was bombarded wtih exaggerated or even fabricated evidence and news I'll allow it.
I've people with aspergers in my near family and for several years I was a caretaker for a guy with autism and the "symptoms" is really close to what Brendan Dassey is showing.
To take his testimonial as gospel (even when not counting the disrapencies between the different testemonials) while being pressured by professional interrogators does not feel good at all.
I realize that the filmmakers are more biased at a not guilty verdict with how this is presented but with the evidence presented I agree.
I've read the last couple of pages (as the whole thing is too overwhelming) but is there a GAF-concensus regarding this?
I've binged this so I might've not have a nuanced point of view of this as I just finished the last episode not more than 5 minutes ago but that feels like a good thing if you compare it to the jury or at least people of the community that was bombarded wtih exaggerated or even fabricated evidence and news I'll allow it.
I've people with aspergers in my near family and for several years I was a caretaker for a guy with autism and the "symptoms" is really close to what Brendan Dassey is showing.
To take his testimonial as gospel (even when not counting the disrapencies between the different testemonials) while being pressured by professional interrogators does not feel good at all.
I realize that the filmmakers are more biased at a not guilty verdict with how this is presented but with the evidence presented I agree.
I've read the last couple of pages (as the whole thing is too overwhelming) but is there a GAF-concensus regarding this?
She's going all in. I think Steven Avery will finally be freed. I assume that she'll free Brendan Dassey after that. This is so beautiful.
I think the consensus is innocent. A few people pop in every now and then saying guilty but they get piled on because they have nothing to back it up other than their gut feeling or Kratz's debunked lies.
ProfessorLobo
Banned
My parents were the exact same way. I'm not quite sure what it is, maybe unshakable faith in our justice system?
[/QUOTE]I think the consensus is innocent. A few people pop in every now and then saying guilty but they get piled on because they have nothing to back it up other than their gut feeling or Kratz's debunked lies.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for replying and once again at least your reply reaffirm that often times the concensus of gaf is pretty damned synced with what I feel... However if we feel that this is the case it's really damn unfortunate what has happened (again) and it hurts that judicial system allows things like this to happen and the consequence is what we see...
edit: messed up the quote
Thanks for replying and once again at least your reply reaffirm that often times the concensus of gaf is pretty damned synced with what I feel... However if we feel that this is the case it's really damn unfortunate what has happened (again) and it hurts that judicial system allows things like this to happen and the consequence is what we see...
edit: messed up the quote
H.Cornerstone
Member
I would say the consensus is Not Guilty. It's a small but distinct difference
My mom and sister hadn't watched a documentary but saw Lenk's lying ass on Dr. Phil. They said the same thing. I explained it to them and they came around. Just goes to show how effective their PR campaign has been.
This is the hardest thing to get people to understand.
Has the huge list of prosecution points that were omitted from the documentary been debunked? The ones that stood out for me were:
Steve Avery previously answered the door for the victim wearing only a towel, and she was so creeped out she said she wouldn't deal with him again. When he arranged the appointment on the day of her disappearance he called from a different number, used a different name, and requested her specifically.
He totally glossed over the fact that he was convicted for dousing a cat in lighter fluid and throwing it into the fire, which is straight-up serial killer shit.
Brendan told prosecutors Steve Avery removed the battery from her car after he parked it in the lot, and police found his sweat on the hood release latch, which is not something they had access to in the way they had access to his blood.
The cat thing was mentioned on the first episode. Whatever Brendan says should be taken with 10 sacks of salt, same with police findings by the people being sued by him who locked the place up for a week.
I mean, this last fact alone should have invalidated the whole process even if he was a guy wearing a shirt saying "I like killing people"
I mean, this last fact alone should have invalidated the whole process even if he was a guy wearing a shirt saying "I like killing people"
The first one definitely sounds suspicious. I don't know anything about it though.
The second one definitely happened as we all know. However, it was like 20 years before the Halbach thing and, as wrong as this is to say, the Averys are kind of "trashy". Burning a cat alive is definitely messed up but idk, I kind of feel like that is within the range of something crazy, nihilistic teenagers can do. Like look at the messed up story that Brendan Dassey was able to create as an example. In any case, he confessed to that one and I believe served his time for it. Also, there is a huge difference between throwing an animal into a fire and doing all those things to Teresa. At this point, I wouldn't hold it against him but I can understand if others might.
For the third one, I read that you cannot get DNA out of sweat like you can with blood. I don't know what they did to come to their conclusion but that was something that I recall being debunked. Also, Brendan definitely doesn't know anything and doesn't have the capacity to consistently lie like that. I would just ignore everything that he says. He's the one that I am 100% sure is innocent.
Many times.
Allegedly. Clearly, she did deal with him again, for one thing.
I don't believe he called from a different number, he used his sister's name (that was her car they were trying to sell) and it's a bit hard to believe that was an attempt to hide his identity (he doesn't sound like a woman, and since the appointment was at the Avery Yard on Avery Road, really...), and why not deal with someone he already knows?
Other have already replied about the rest.
The cat thing was mentioned only in Avery's own words, when he made it sound like they were just screwing around and he threw the cat over the fire and it accidentally caught fire. The actual report on the incident paints it in a very different light.
The fact that there are potential alternate explanations for his calling the victim out to his house and the sweat DNA stuff doesn't excuse the fact that they were completely cut from the documentary. They definitely stacked the deck in his favor, which really undermines what they were trying to achieve.
The fact that there are potential alternate explanations for his calling the victim out to his house and the sweat DNA stuff doesn't excuse the fact that they were completely cut from the documentary. They definitely stacked the deck in his favor, which really undermines what they were trying to achieve.
I wasn't pointing out an alternate explanation, there. Kratz was.
I don't think that stuff you mentioned and that wasn't included (you're saying "cut" as if they could have included everything) was all that convincing, but yeah, the documentary is clearly sympathetic to Avery.
What exactly do you think they were trying to achieve? I believe the goal was to show how the system had previously (for years, and when it mattered the most) stacked the deck in his disfavor. How he didn't get a fair trial.
A lot has happened since I last posted here.
Steven Avery has gotten a new lawyer - Kathleen Zellner, who has helped exonerate 17 people.
I know she was mentioned here before, but I really wanted to say it again, because things are starting to look very bright for Steven.
Also I wanted people to read the below paragraph in her Wiki since it really shows how talented she is.
(Read more about Kathleen's previous exonerations here, extremely interesting stuff, some are VERY similar to Steven's/Brendan's case.)
This new article kind of sums it up:
'Making a Murderer' convict Steven Avery's lawyer is confident he'll be exonerated by new evidence in 'months'
http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-exoneration-2016-3
Steven Avery has gotten a new lawyer - Kathleen Zellner, who has helped exonerate 17 people.
I know she was mentioned here before, but I really wanted to say it again, because things are starting to look very bright for Steven.
Also I wanted people to read the below paragraph in her Wiki since it really shows how talented she is.
(Read more about Kathleen's previous exonerations here, extremely interesting stuff, some are VERY similar to Steven's/Brendan's case.)
This new article kind of sums it up:
'Making a Murderer' convict Steven Avery's lawyer is confident he'll be exonerated by new evidence in 'months'
http://www.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-exoneration-2016-3
CrankyKong
Member
If they actually pull it off, I hope the whole thing has been filmed so they can come back and do a follow up series.
Really hope so too. MaM season 2 has been talked about, so I hope we get to see that stuff. It's 2016, I'm QUITE positive we will though. But there has been talk of exoneration without a trial, so we gotta keep in mind that that might happen too.
Anyway, I use this subreddit to keep myself updated (as well as the official Facebook group even though it has some annoying power/fame hungry admins).
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/
Just finished the series up to his conviction. His face when the judge announces the verdict... That was hard to watch. One can literally see him break mentally, just awful. I agree with others that the series was rather one-sided, however, I thought the defense did an amazing job anyway and I am not at all convinced that the evidence supported the case of the prosecutor. All of these concerns have already been raised, I am not going to repeat those. I am just hoping for his sake that his new attorney can help him.
Mackenzie 92
Member
Anyone catch the updates by Zellner in Newsweek
Interesting stuff.
Interesting stuff.
figadapaura
Member
I'm amazed this stuff wasn't looked at before. That's some serious evidence.
Aarglefarg
Member
There was a segment last night about the lack of efficacy of some interrogation techniques including torture, on an Australian news show called Lateline. I just happened to turn the TV on and saw familiar footage at the moment I turned it on: of Brendan Dassey being interrogated.
It's probably IP-restricted to Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/what-it's-like-to-sweat-under-the-interrogation/7290550
There is an article that follows the video's basic structure: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/under-interrogation-does-torture-work/7287552
It's probably IP-restricted to Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/what-it's-like-to-sweat-under-the-interrogation/7290550
There is an article that follows the video's basic structure: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-31/under-interrogation-does-torture-work/7287552
LizardKing
Member
Last paragraph continues to show Dean Strang is awesome. No ego.
Yeah, what a bro.
Similar threads
- Locked