Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Mountainsandh

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Nice. It’s lucky he never confided in you.

Coming from the guy who was saying I was playing the "child card" earlier. Now you're playing the sensitive part.

I have never had anything to do with them and I never will, other than commenting on it as a news item, so really your point above is ... what exactly ?

More to the point, he confided in his Mum already before that phonecall, he says so during the phone conversation ("yeah like I told you before" or something to that effect), and she says they were roughing about.


Whether he was molested or not, however sad it is, does not make a blind bit of difference to the rest of the case.


Aside from the above, I find it very sad that his mother deemed it ok to put his name on that computer, when she knew perfectly well what was on it (remember she called in some guy to erase bits prior to having it confiscated).

runningbuddy

There are a lot of accusations of sexual abuse from younger Averys (male and female) by SA.

Most of it dismissed as "rough housing"

Drumpot

One thing I can’t understand is why the police, Kratz or the family don’t actually employ some sort of PR group to balance things out.

I understand the family not wanting to get involved but any of the above three publically stating “you don’t know the full story, he’s guilty” is not really adding anything to the evidence. If anything it actually adds to the narrative that they all believed Avery was guilty and made the evidence and story fit to have him convicted.

Again, I don’t think MAM proves Avery and/or Dassey weren’t involved but they showed that there was most likely incompetence, corruption and non due diligence in this case that leaves many many questions unclear.

Saying “but you have to understand he’s guilty” does your own beliefs an injustice to be honest. Better off saying nothing if you aren’t going to at least challange or respond directly to very questionable things about this case.

jv2000

runningbuddy wrote: »

There are a lot of accusations of sexual abuse from younger Averys (male and female) by SA.

Most of it dismissed as "rough housing"

I think on page 846/847 of this link it describes the so called rough housing in the words of Brendan, whilst it isnt great it is by no means as bad as has been claimed:

https://archive.org/details/CASOInvestigativeReportRedacted/page/n845

This on the other hand is far from rough housing and really doesn't make me feel too bad that SA is currently spending his time in prison. The interviewee is redacted but it is clearly a niece (in-law) of Steven's:

https://archive.org/details/CASOInvestigativeReportRedacted/page/n361

jv2000

Drumpot wrote: »

One thing I can’t understand is why the police, Kratz or the family don’t actually employ some sort of PR group to balance things out.

I understand the family not wanting to get involved but any of the above three publically stating “you don’t know the full story, he’s guilty” is not really adding anything to the evidence. If anything it actually adds to the narrative that they all believed Avery was guilty and made the evidence and story fit to have him convicted.

Again, I don’t think MAM proves Avery and/or Dassey weren’t involved but they showed that there was most likely incompetence, corruption and non due diligence in this case that leaves many many questions unclear.

Saying “but you have to understand he’s guilty” does your own beliefs an injustice to be honest. Better off saying nothing if you aren’t going to at least challange or respond directly to very questionable things about this case.

Seems like there is an alternative documentary in the works that will focus on the other side of things:

https://deadline.com/2018/02/convicting-a-murderer-steven-avery-follow-up-documentary-filmmaker-shawn-rech-1202298462/

Drumpot

jv2000 wrote: »

Seems like there is an alternative documentary in the works that will focus on the other side of things:

https://deadline.com/2018/02/convicting-a-murderer-steven-avery-follow-up-documentary-filmmaker-shawn-rech-1202298462/

That is worth seeing. .

The people saying "hes guilty" are coming across like Trump, effectively saying MAM was "fake news" with no actual information to back it up.

Tipsy McSwagger

Drumpot wrote: »

That is worth seeing. .

The people saying "hes guilty" are coming across like Trump, effectively saying MAM was "fake news" with no actual information to back it up.

Practically everyone who posted in here acknowledge the documentary is biased. I even posted about the blood vial as evidence of bias.

Tipsy McSwagger

jv2000 wrote: »

Seems like there is an alternative documentary in the works that will focus on the other side of things:

https://deadline.com/2018/02/convicting-a-murderer-steven-avery-follow-up-documentary-filmmaker-shawn-rech-1202298462/

Thanks for the link. Kratz is involved so that’s something that would put me off. He’s a gobshyte and a slimeball. His press conference after Dasseys confession was a disgrace.

Mountainsandh

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Practically everyone who posted in here acknowledge the documentary is biased. I even posted about the blood vial as evidence of bias.

But did you see in MAM2 ? Zellner herself dispells that, it's one of the first things to be tackled. Not saying the doc is not biased, the family footage pretty much ensures that we feel sorry for the Averys throughout, but the evidence side is pretty factual.

jv2000

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Thanks for the link. Kratz is involved so that’s something that would put me off. He’s a gobshyte and a slimeball. His press conference after Dasseys confession was a disgrace.

Agree although I do think that between this documentary and MaM we may actually fall somewhere close to the real facts (or 2 vastly biased accounts at either end of the spectrum). I do think Part 2 of MaM is somewhat more balanced than Part 1 though because they went with a more theoretical/teaching approach and could not do this for Brendan's story at least. The additional scientific tests for SA could be a bit more biased however, I am actually a scientist (not forensic) and the approach they took of knowing the outcome they wanted and working backwards is not generally supported in the scientific community, I will admit however that Zellner's desire to find out what actually happened has lead to some more conventional investigative tests that could be a lot more beneficial in any potential appeal.

Tipsy McSwagger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But did you see in MAM2 ? Zellner herself dispells that, it's one of the first things to be tackled. Not saying the doc is not biased, the family footage pretty much ensures that we feel sorry for the Averys throughout, but the evidence side is pretty factual.

All I’m seeing is a bunch of highly paid yes men going along with Zellner’s theory of what happened.

Tipsy McSwagger

jv2000 wrote: »

Agree although I do think that between this documentary and MaM we may actually fall somewhere close to the real facts (or 2 vastly biased accounts at either end of the spectrum). I do think Part 2 of MaM is somewhat more balanced than Part 1 though because they went with a more theoretical/teaching approach and could not do this for Brendan's story at least. The additional scientific tests for SA could be a bit more biased however, I am actually a scientist (not forensic) and the approach they took of knowing the outcome they wanted and working backwards is not generally supported in the scientific community, I will admit however that Zellner's desire to find out what actually happened has lead to some more conventional investigative tests that could be a lot more beneficial in any potential appeal.

Zellner is just accusing everyone rather than Avery. I’m on episode 6 and so far we have had the guy who owned the quarry, then the ex boyfriend and now the roommate. All accused of having a part to play.

Maxpfizer

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Zellner is just accusing everyone rather than Avery. I’m on episode 6 and so far we have had the guy who owned the quarry, then the ex boyfriend and now the roommate. All accused of having a part to play.

That's part her job though, to prove that the investigation was narrowed in on Avery when there are other viable suspects out there.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

Again it comes down to bizarre decisions that the police made surrounding this case.

There are massive question marks around the quarry owner, ex-bf, roommate and also Bobby and Scott.

For me, Avery is still the number one suspect but if she could prove that some of this evidence was definitely planted or if she could prove that the prosecutions story is verifiably false then everything gets thrown open again.

At the bare minimum I would say there is something far wrong with this case and how it was handled and honestly Zellner just reaffirmed that belief.

Even just small things like the coroner not being allowed access to the crime scene? WTF is that all about.

Had the police made different decisions like not allowing Lenk and Colburn into Avery's trailer then maybe a lot of the question marks go away.

Now we've a witness saying the saw the RAV4 by the side of the road and they told Colburn where it was and then you've got Colburn calling in about the plates sounding suspiciously like he is standing by the car as he is making that call.

She would not be doing her job if she isn't fully looking into all of these different things.

Personally I don't think the ex-bf did it. That's a stretch. However, something isn't right there. Was he helping the cops with evidence? How does he end up with the journal, for example?

She really has to ask these questions because they just seem like obvious red flags that something is up with this case.

I think Zellner is at the very least exposing gross incompetence. At worst she's going to prove that the cops maliciously put someone back in prison and allowed a killer to just walk free.

Tipsy McSwagger

Maxpfizer wrote: »

That's part her job though, to prove that the investigation was narrowed in on Avery when there are other viable suspects out there.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

Again it comes down to bizarre decisions that the police made surrounding this case.

There are massive question marks around the quarry owner, ex-bf, roommate and also Bobby and Scott.

For me, Avery is still the number one suspect but if she could prove that some of this evidence was definitely planted or if she could prove that the prosecutions story is verifiably false then everything gets thrown open again.

At the bare minimum I would say there is something far wrong with this case and how it was handled and honestly Zellner just reaffirmed that belief.

Even just small things like the coroner not being allowed access to the crime scene? WTF is that all about.

Had the police made different decisions like not allowing Lenk and Colburn into Avery's trailer then maybe a lot of the question marks go away.

Now we've a witness saying the saw the RAV4 by the side of the road and they told Colburn where it was and then you've got Colburn calling in about the plates sounding suspiciously like he is standing by the car as he is making that call.

She would not be doing her job if she isn't fully looking into all of these different things.

Personally I don't think the ex-bf did it. That's a stretch. However, something isn't right there. Was he helping the cops with evidence? How does he end up with the journal, for example?

She really has to ask these questions because they just seem like obvious red flags that something is up with this case.

I think Zellner is at the very least exposing gross incompetence. At worst she's going to prove that the cops maliciously put someone back in prison and allowed a killer to just walk free.

Good post and I can see your point. The thing is though that MaM (wait a minute is that when’re MaM of 4 gets her username from) are making these ‘suspects’ out to be very shady individuals which isn’t right IMO. The documentary is massive and known for everywhere , so I wouldn’t be surprised if these guys are getting tons of abuse. So not Zellners fault then but the makers of the doc should know better.

8-10

In case anyone missed it, Scott Walker the current Republican governor of Wisconsin lost his re-election bid in the midterms last night to the Democrat Tony Evers.

Walker served for 8 years and didn't pardon a single person despite many applications. He refused to entertain the petition on behalf of Steven and Brendan, which you could say is reasonable for a governor but overall he didn't even consider more extreme cases of people incarcerated despite them having the right to have clemency considered.

Tony Evers will now be bound by the constitution of Wisconsin to set up a pardon board. He would of course have the power to pardon either Steven or Brendan but indications are that that would be very unlikely.

In other news, it's still a close race but also in Wisconsin it looks like the sitting Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel who features in MAM2 in a few episodes where he goes above and beyond to keep Brendan behind bars (and also played in the same band 'Alibi' as Ken Kratz), also lost his re-election bid last night.

He's being replaced by Democrat Josh Kaul. Will this help Avery or Dassey at all? Well Josh's mother is the late Peg Lautenschlager from MAM season 1, who was Wisconsin Attorney General in 2003 and played down the role of law enforcement in Avery's 1985 case. She renamed the Avery Task Force bill and authorised Sherry Culhane to use the contaminated forensic evidence in Steven's trial.

So I don't think that will help either!

But overall, interesting that both lost their elections

jv2000

Maxpfizer wrote: »

That's part her job though, to prove that the investigation was narrowed in on Avery when there are other viable suspects out there.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

Again it comes down to bizarre decisions that the police made surrounding this case.

There are massive question marks around the quarry owner, ex-bf, roommate and also Bobby and Scott.

For me, Avery is still the number one suspect but if she could prove that some of this evidence was definitely planted or if she could prove that the prosecutions story is verifiably false then everything gets thrown open again.

At the bare minimum I would say there is something far wrong with this case and how it was handled and honestly Zellner just reaffirmed that belief.

Even just small things like the coroner not being allowed access to the crime scene? WTF is that all about.

Had the police made different decisions like not allowing Lenk and Colburn into Avery's trailer then maybe a lot of the question marks go away.

Now we've a witness saying the saw the RAV4 by the side of the road and they told Colburn where it was and then you've got Colburn calling in about the plates sounding suspiciously like he is standing by the car as he is making that call.

She would not be doing her job if she isn't fully looking into all of these different things.

Personally I don't think the ex-bf did it. That's a stretch. However, something isn't right there. Was he helping the cops with evidence? How does he end up with the journal, for example?

She really has to ask these questions because they just seem like obvious red flags that something is up with this case.

I think Zellner is at the very least exposing gross incompetence. At worst she's going to prove that the cops maliciously put someone back in prison and allowed a killer to just walk free.

I am a little disappointed that the documentary did not really touch on the possibility that the Zipperers could have been involved - they were the 3rd appointment on Teresa's schedule and there is something strange going on there with the CD recording of a voicemail going missing.

Also somebody pointed me towards the mysterious German killer theory from the Convoluted Brian blog earlier today, I do not know how I never heard of this before. What is so very strange is that it was Manitowoc County Detective Dennis Jacobs that "lost the CD" mentioned above and that also dismissed the German killer theory when his wife reported it.

Mam of 4

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Good post and I can see your point. The thing is though that MaM (wait a minute is that when’re MaM of 4 gets her username from)

Dammit , you'd make a great Detective , you have me sussed haven't you ?

The fact that I've had this username since I joined boards , which was before MaM ever came out , obviously isn't a relevant fact ..

Tipsy McSwagger

Anyone listen to the ‘Real Crime Profile’ podcast about the case? It’s pretty good and mostly free of bias (one lady is biased). There’s 3 people talking about the case, ex FBI, Scotland Yard Cop and some other person (biased lady). I’m on Part 3 and they have gone to town on Kratz and the detectives involved. The beauty of it is they are looking at the case from a purely professional capacity.

Thepoet85

Tipsy McSwagger wrote:

Anyone listen to the ‘Real Crime Profile’ podcast about the case? It’s pretty good and mostly free of bias (one lady is biased). There’s 3 people talking about the case, ex FBI, Scotland Yard Cop and some other person (biased lady). I’m on Part 3 and they have gone to town on Kratz and the detectives involved. The beauty of it is they are looking at the case from a purely professional capacity.

Yea I listened to it earlier this year, and found it very good if I recall correctly.

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Anyone listen to the ‘Real Crime Profile’ podcast about the case? It’s pretty good and mostly free of bias (one lady is biased). There’s 3 people talking about the case, ex FBI, Scotland Yard Cop and some other person (biased lady). I’m on Part 3 and they have gone to town on Kratz and the detectives involved. The beauty of it is they are looking at the case from a purely professional capacity.

Enjoyed it also but please remember. Cops neither defend nor prosecute. They bring charges and then its left to legal professionals

Tipsy McSwagger

Commanchie wrote: »

Enjoyed it also but please remember. Cops neither defend nor prosecute. They bring charges and then its left to legal professionals

Ye because cops don’t know how the legal system is supposed to work.

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Ye because cops don’t know how the legal system is supposed to work.

Exactly so to judge 2 cops opinion of a case or participants in the trial is irrelevant.

Tipsy McSwagger

Commanchie wrote: »

Exactly so to judge 2 cops opinion of a case or participants in the trial is irrelevant.

Complete rubbish. These are two experienced cops who know how the legal system works. Jesus you don’t even need to be a cop or lawyer to have an opinion on the trial. As long as you are looking at the facts you can form an opinion. Should Brendan Dasseys confession have been used against him in court, no. Was there any other evidence to tie Brendan Dassey to the crime, no. So if you don’t allow the confession there is no evidence against him and he doesn’t go to prison for life. Thats the trial of Brendan Dassey nicely summed up in 2 short sentences.

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Complete rubbish. These are two experienced cops who know how the legal system works. Jesus you don’t even need to be a cop or lawyer to have an opinion on the trial. As long as you are looking at the facts you can form an opinion. Should Brendan Dasseys confession have been used against him in court, no. Was there any other evidence to tie Brendan Dassey to the crime, no. So if you don’t allow the confession there is no evidence against him and he doesn’t go to prison for life. Thats the trial of Brendan Dassey nicely summed up in 2 short sentences.

Thank **** youre not representing someone in court. My 7 years of study were a waste i should of went wherever you self educated or medicated, cant make out which is more likely.

pixelburp

Mod: bickering posts deleted. Seriously, stop winding each other up.

Kingp35

jv2000 wrote: »

The additional scientific tests for SA could be a bit more biased however, I am actually a scientist (not forensic) and the approach they took of knowing the outcome they wanted and working backwards is not generally supported in the scientific community

This is important. I'm sure a lot of people were swayed by the scientific testing done by Zellner and her team but it's pure conjecture and guess work on their part and they are looking to support and conclusion they've already reached.

"Experts" in criminal trials can really say whatever you want them to say by doing the above and working backwards. it's why you often get "experts" on both the defence and prosecution side who think the exact opposite of each other.

Commanchie

Kingp35 wrote: »

This is important. I'm sure a lot of people were swayed by the scientific testing done by Zellner and her team but it's pure conjecture and guess work on their part and they are looking to support and conclusion they've already reached.

"Experts" in criminal trials can really say whatever you want them to say by doing the above and working backwards. it's why you often get "experts" on both the defence and prosecution side who think the exact opposite of each other.

No thats more the case if using mental health and medical as you can match the symptoms to the end result.

With forensic testing its either black or white. KZL has shown the cracks in a fair trial thats all she needs to do

robwen

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1060999822789042178?s=19

Mountainsandh

Kingp35 wrote: »

This is important. I'm sure a lot of people were swayed by the scientific testing done by Zellner and her team but it's pure conjecture and guess work on their part and they are looking to support and conclusion they've already reached.

"Experts" in criminal trials can really say whatever you want them to say by doing the above and working backwards. it's why you often get "experts" on both the defence and prosecution side who think the exact opposite of each other.

Not really. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. You are trying to duplicate something that has already happened and has been presented as evidence.

It is my understanding that scientists wishing to confirm a theory often use duplication and reproduction of an outcome.

In the case of an investigation or trial where you only have the outcome, it makes sense to attempt duplication with the help of experts in that field.

I don't know how anyone can possibly try and rubbish that.

Kingp35

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I don't know how anyone can possibly try and rubbish that.

Quite easily tbh. There have been countless studies on the validity of forensic "science" in criminal trials and just how unscientific a lot of it is. Working backwards it not scientific, it's pure guesswork. You are taking a conclusion and then guessing as to how that conclusion was reached when in reality there could be thousands of possibilities.

In the case of Stephen Avery, I understand there is no other way of really doing it but the amount of people in this thread taking the testing done by Zellner as "fact" and "proof" of Avery's innocence is a bit mad.