Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

the whole year inn

Commanchie wrote: »

You make a holy show of yourself. This case was used in Unis for case study on wrong arrest and conviction.

Theyre wrong too?

Which unis done that? Have you a link.

Uncharted

horse7 wrote: »

Am I the only one falling asleep when it's on,it seems to go very slow.

Yes,you are. It's gripping.

Uncharted

walshb wrote: »

Another defense red herring. Making out that he was so so stupid. Maybe he was, but he still admitted and provided details that were corroborated. Details due to him being involved, nothing else.. should we discount this because “he’s not the brightest spark?”

Do yourself a massive favour and watch the second series.
Youre opinion is utterly outdated and irrelevant in the light of fresh evidence now.

You can thank me later

walshb

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But walshb, Season 2 has a lot more science based evidence.

If you trust in science to provide evidence, then season 2 will provide enough to sway your mind.

I'll reiterate on the DNA for example.

Take an item that is bound to be handled by several people, like a key, or a hood latch.

You would expect to find DNA on these, right ?
You would probably expect to find DNA from whoever touched these items ?
So if 3 people handled a key, you would expect to find 3 types of DNA on it, maybe mixed up, maybe not.

You would expect to find a certain amount of DNA. Like, probably less DNA than what you'd get on a toothbrush, but more DNA than what you'd find on a sheet of paper someone held up for a minute.

The key found in SA's property had only one type of DNA : Steven's.
It did not have Teresa's DNA.

The amount and quality of the DNA was similar to what you'd find on a tooth brush.
To demonstrate how much DNA Steven might have deposited on the key, Kathleen Zellner got Steven to hold a similar key for 12 minutes, then the key was forensically examined. The amount of DNA left on it from the experiment was very slight, whereas the evidence key was loaded with it.

It was not established what kind of DNA landed on the key, because a test to determine whether it was blood DNA or not was refused.

For the hood latch, KZ ran an experiment again, where lots of people handled the latch, and DNA amounts were established. Again, they were less than what was proposed as evidence, and evidence showed one single type of DNA there : Steven's. You'd think there'd be something from Teresa's, or maybe her Dad's, or her mechanic. No.

These are not things Kathleen Zellner can make up. These are just experiments, witnessed by experts in those fields, analyzed by experts or labs that do these analyses, to try and reproduce what the prosecution put forward as evidence.
Reproducing something that you allege happened is really a basic way to show that your evidence is solid.
None of what the prosecution put forward as evidence could be reproduced with the scientific experts presents.

I’ll watch season 2..

This science based evidence? Does it prove they could not have committed the crime? If not, and it just shows that there is another side/theory to it, then there is your red herring..

We all know that any evidence can be challenged...it happens all the time..

But many of these challenges are weak and lacking and desperate..

Essien

walshb wrote: »

Dassey admitted to and provided accurate details surrounding events..

The details he provided were anything but accurate.

You really should watch the second season.

Commanchie

the whole year inn wrote: »

Which unis done that? Have you a link.

I studied in MIT in boston we used it. Trinity still use it in ireland. And Ferragut law have schooling on it.

walshb

Uncharted wrote: »

Do yourself a massive favour and watch the second series.
Youre opinion is utterly outdated and irrelevant in the light of fresh evidence now.

You can thank me later

I will.

Btw, does the prosecution have a film maker to sway their side?

Fresh evidence that needs to be argued and challenged is what I’ll look for.

Evidence not that there is “doubt,” but that the men could not have been involved is what the defense needs...

Commanchie

walshb wrote: »

I will.

Btw, does the prosecution have a film maker to sway their side?

Fresh evidence that needs to be argued and challenged is what I’ll look for.

Evidence not that there is “doubt,” but that the men could not have been involved is what the defense needs...

No what defence of murder is to raise reasonable doubt. THAT IS ALL. Thats defined

walshb

Commanchie wrote: »

No what defence of murder is to raise reasonable doubt. THAT IS ALL. Thats defined

Yes, reasonable doubt. Doubt with actual bite/substance..it’s not here..

Field east

Commanchie wrote: »

Ok so youre sayig he admitted it himself thats enough for you. A federal judge ruled he was coerced into admitting involvement.

So on your logic hes innocent

I have watched both seasons. In one of the interviews ,by the prosecutor side, of Brendan and he was finlally telling the two interviewers re what apparently happened with regards to Theresa being tied to the bed , raped, and other gory actions. He was then asked a question like something along the lines of where did he get the idea of carrying out those actions and he said that he READ IT IN A BOOKand he actually gave the title of the book.
I thought that revelation to be extremely significant BUT that was the first and last time it was aired. None of the court cases ,submissions made ,opinions expressed - especially be Kathleen , etc, referred to it.
Did anyonee else notice that or am I missing something.?

Commanchie

walshb wrote: »

Yes, reasonable doubt. Doubt with actual bite/substance..it’s not here..

You havent watched it how would you know what substance is there you a lunatic. I mever ate mcdonalds but i know what it tastes like. Exact same

retro:electro

walshb wrote: »

Yes, reasonable doubt. Doubt with actual bite/substance..it’s not here..

Why is there no forensic evidence of a crime being committed or any evidence at all of Teresa’s presence in the garage or the bedroom?

walshb

The show kind of reminds me of 12 Angry Men...

Where Fonda argued and ended up getting a killer off. He presented doubt after doubt after red herring...

I remember one of the jurors said it to him about “what if you convince us all and it ends up that he really did kill his dad?”

That show was lost on most. Most saw it as a film about a writing nerd man in the dock. It wasn’t about that. It was about the right man in the dock, who got off because of a one man crusade, a crusade full of red herrings.

Little Less Conversation

walshb wrote: »

Dassey admitted to and provided accurate details surrounding events..

Kratz held a press conference the day after Dassey's confession. He took his confession as truth but if you had watch the second season, they are meant to investigate what Dassey said. They didn't investigate before holding that press conference.

walshb

retro:electro wrote: »

Why is there no forensic evidence of a crime being committed or any evidence at all of Teresa’s presence in the garage or the bedroom?

You’re back? Being called/implied a gob****e won’t endear you to me..

Anyway, haven’t you better things to be doing than arguing with me? Your words..

adox

Is there any point debating back and forth with someone who’s position is “you are all so gullible if you have any doubts about the convictions. You are sheep. They are definitely guilty. They were convicted in a court of law so they definitely did it.”

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Another defense red herring. Making out that he was so so stupid. Maybe he was, but he still admitted and provided details that were corroborated. Details due to him being involved, nothing else.. should we discount this because “he’s not the brightest spark?”

Sure I can say the exact same about Gerry Conlon. Making out he was tortured so bad he admitted to it, maybe he was but maybe he wasn't.

retro:electro

walshb wrote: »

You’re back? Being called/implied a gob****e won’t endear you to me..

Anyway, haven’t you better things to be doing than arguing with me? Your words..

You literally can’t even answer the most straightforward questions. It’s hilarious.

Field east

Essien wrote: »

The bit I can't wrap my head around is how/why, if he wasn't involved in the murder, did the ex become involved in the alleged cover up?

I believe there was police interference designed to convict Steve, but I just don't get why a civilian would become involved. How does that conversation even begin without someone risking their career?

(1) remember the young chap in cork who killed a younger near Neighbour if his and he got very involved in the search for the poor chap
(2) similar in England over I think 10 years ago a school helper killed two very young chaps in his house and , again got very involved in helping in the search for them until he was found out
(3) similar in the Naul case .

Commanchie

Field east wrote: »

(1) remember the young chap in cork who killed a younger near Neighbour if his and he got very involved in the search for the poor chap
(2) similar in England over I think 10 years ago a school helper killed two very young chaps in his house and , again got very involved in helping in the search for them until he was found out
(3) similar in the Naul case .

1)Robert hoolahan
2)Ian huntley
3)Joe O reilly

Mountainsandh

You need to reframe there for a second walshb.

The prosecution got SA convicted on some evidence.

If this evidence is not solid, if the evidence is patchy/void/faulty, then there can be reasonable doubt, and SA should not be in prison.

That's what KZ is demonstrating.


So, looking at the DNA bit I put above, which is just me recounting stuff that's in season 2.

If the DNA on the key cannot be reproduced, if it is proven to be faulty, inaccurate, inconclusive. Then that's a piece of evidence against SA discarded.

KZ says that she tries to achieve 2 aspects when exonerating a client : show that the evidence was flawed (raise reasonable doubt) and find out who did it.

walshb

Avery is in prison on a lot more evidence than Joe O’Reilly..

Anyone think he’s innocent?

RocketRaccoon

Bobby Dassey said he saw Teresas vehicle outside Averys trailer at about 2.40/2.45 but no sign of Teresa. How is this possible if her phone pinged a tower at 2.41?

He's as guilty as sin, there's no doubt about it in my mind.

Essien

Field east wrote: »

(1) remember the young chap in cork who killed a younger near Neighbour if his and he got very involved in the search for the poor chap
(2) similar in England over I think 10 years ago a school helper killed two very young chaps in his house and , again got very involved in helping in the search for them until he was found out
(3) similar in the Naul case .

The search i can totally understand.

But the cover up, as in moving the Rav4 to Averys, all the calls to the police, somehow getting possession of THs diary etc. I don't understand that bit.

For me, I can't see the motive in him doing that if he's not involved in the murder.

RocketRaccoon

Essien wrote: »

The search i can totally understand.

But the cover up, as in moving the Rav4 to Averys, all the calls to the police, somehow getting possession of THs diary etc. I don't understand that bit.

For me, I can't see the motive in him doing that if he's not involved in the murder.

I would love to see the explanation for how he had her diary.

Uncharted

walshb wrote: »

Avery is in prison on a lot more evidence than Joe O’Reilly..

Anyone think he’s innocent?

GO WATCH THE SECOND SERIES!!!

It's all there for you to see!!!

enfant terrible

Uncharted wrote: »

GO WATCH THE SECOND SERIES!!!

It's all there for you to see!!!

How many parts in season 1 and 2?

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Sure I can say the exact same about Gerry Conlon. Making out he was tortured so bad he admitted to it, maybe he was but maybe he wasn't.

I think you need to let go of this comparison. It’s quite insulting to what Gerry endured before breaking. Dassey’s confession isn’t remotely comparable..

Dassey gave them details and implicated Avery. Why? Easy...because Dassey was involved..

RocketRaccoon

enfant terrible wrote: »

How many parts in season 1 and 2?

10 in each.

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

I think you need to let go of this comparison. It’s quite insulting to what Gerry endured before breaking. Dassey’s confession isn’t remotely comparable..

Dassey gave them details and implicated Avery. Why? Easy...because Dassey was involved..

He gave them details, which, if you would log off and go and watch the second series you would see don't match up at all. This is why you're being argued with, you have no clue what you're talking about until you watch the second series.