Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Making a murderer (Netflix)

123457

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,224 ✭✭✭PropJoe10


    Katchinsky and kratz are a pair is slimeballs.
    Kratz was putting Steven Avery in prison whether he was guilty or not.
    Kratz has been proven to be a disguating indibidual himself and all his work should be doscarded imo.


    Kratz is an absolute disgrace to his profession. Giving an interview in the actual courthouse where Dassey's appeal was going on in season 2 was a low point, for me. Absolute scumbag.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭demanufactured


    PropJoe10 wrote: »
    Kratz is an absolute disgrace to his profession. Giving an interview in the actual courthouse where Dassey's appeal was going on in season 2 was a low point, for me. Absolute scumbag.

    Yep, if Kathleen Zellner does get as far as opening up a new trial or a retrial, kratz should not be allowed anywhere near it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,908 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    I just saw this short documentary Long Shot (2017) it is on Netflix.
    It has a lot of echoes of the Brendan Avery case where the detectives tried to force a confession.

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7344360/

    However in this case the clients lawyer had to prove his innocence by looking at footage from an LA dodgers game where a 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' episode happened to be filmed on the day.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,840 ✭✭✭dball


    Making a Murderer: Steven Avery wins right to appeal

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47380658


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,506 ✭✭✭✭Mantis Toboggan


    dball wrote: »
    Making a Murderer: Steven Avery wins right to appeal

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47380658

    Interesting, hopefully this could lead to a retrial for Brendan Dassey also.

    Free Palestine 🇵🇸



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭Uncharted


    Interesting, hopefully this could lead to a retrial for Brendan Dassey also.

    The only winner in this will be Netflix.

    Avery and Dassey are whipping boys for the state. They ain't getting out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,506 ✭✭✭✭Mantis Toboggan


    Uncharted wrote: »
    The only winner in this will be Netflix.

    Avery and Dassey are whipping boys for the state. They ain't getting out.

    True, and Zellner although I think she does work pro bono.

    I'd give them a decent chance of getting out.

    Free Palestine 🇵🇸



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,649 ✭✭✭Whelo79


    Interesting, hopefully this could lead to a retrial for Brendan Dassey also.

    Brendan has no chance of a retrial. The only way he gets out is if Steven Avery is cleared off the murder. I'm sure this was stated toward the end of season 2.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I recently finished John Ferak's book "Wrecking Crew". It's not a well-written book, but it contains a bunch of information that isn't in the documentaries. The short version: Manitowoc's police are thoroughly corrupt from the top down, and have been for decades, and Ken Kratz is a disgusting slimeball.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,643 ✭✭✭elefant


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I recently finished John Ferak's book "Wrecking Crew". It's not a well-written book, but it contains a bunch of information that isn't in the documentaries. The short version: Manitowoc's police are thoroughly corrupt from the top down, and have been for decades, and Ken Kratz is a disgusting slimeball.

    This is just about the only thing I'm 100% sure about from the documentary.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    elefant wrote: »
    This is just about the only thing I'm 100% sure about from the documentary.
    One thing about him the documentary does make clear is his utter lack of professional ethics.

    For example: he proposed two completely different theories in the respective murder trials of Dassey and Avery. That means that he knows for a fact that at least one of the theories he proposed is untrue.

    The most basic tenet of prosecutorial ethics is that you don't prosecute someone on the basis of a case that you know to be false.

    What the book adds to his total lack of professional ethics is his deeply creepy attitude to women.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭Uncharted


    Ken Kratz is a vile piece of sh1t.

    An utterly self serving egotistical,morally bankrupt narcicist.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    My understanding is that they are getting a chance to re-examine some bones to prove if they are human or animal.


    It doesn't prove innocence or guilt, just that the case built had a flaw. It's a technicality rather than proof of innocence.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    It doesn't prove innocence or guilt, just that the case built had a flaw. It's a technicality rather than proof of innocence.

    Proof of innocence is a concept that should have no place in criminal justice.

    I'll reiterate a critically important point that I made earlier. The important question is not whether or not Avery killed Halbach; the question is whether his conviction for murder is safe. I don't think anyone who watched the documentaries with an open mind can honestly believe that it was.

    He should have been afforded the presumption of innocence when going on trial. Instead, the prosecution deliberately concealed exculpatory evidence and fabricated a narrative they knew to be untrue in order to secure a conviction.

    Even if Avery killed Halbach - and, on balance, I don't believe he did - his trial was an egregious miscarriage of justice, and he should never have been jailed. If the state genuinely believes he killed her, let them prove it in a fair trial.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭seligehgit


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Proof of innocence is a concept that should have no place in criminal justice.

    I'll reiterate a critically important point that I made earlier. The important question is not whether or not Avery killed Halbach; the question is whether his conviction for murder is safe. I don't think anyone who watched the documentaries with an open mind can honestly believe that it was.

    He should have been afforded the presumption of innocence when going on trial. Instead, the prosecution deliberately concealed exculpatory evidence and fabricated a narrative they knew to be untrue in order to secure a conviction.

    Even if Avery killed Halbach - and, on balance, I don't believe he did - his trial was an egregious miscarriage of justice, and he should never have been jailed. If the state genuinely believes he killed her, let them prove it in a fair trial.

    Super post.

    Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

    The burden of proof in a criminal trial is onerous.

    The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Steven Avery is guilty NOT that he is innocent.

    IMO they failed dismally in the case of both of the defendants.

    A profound miscarriage of justice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Boom_Bap wrote: »
    My understanding is that they are getting a chance to re-examine some bones to prove if they are human or animal.


    It doesn't prove innocence or guilt, just that the case built had a flaw. It's a technicality rather than proof of innocence.

    This is waaaay bigger than that.

    The prosecution presented evidence to the jury that showed TH had been killed on Avery's property, and burned in the firepit, same location.

    Zellner's current motion that is being remanded to Circuit Court concerns the other bones, recovered from Manitowoc County Gravel Pit.

    These "other bones" included a pelvic bone fragment, and other bones that were "possibly human", DNA analysis not having been conclusive at the time.

    In his closing statement, Kratz dismissed these bones to the jury by saying "I will spend 20 seconds on these bones" since they could not be proven to be human, let alone Teresa's.

    With the statement above, he reinforces his case that everything happened on Avery property, therefore Avery is the killer.

    In 2017, Zellner is curious, and wants to retest the bones, to see if it could be determined whether they are in fact human or animal, and if human, possibly Teresa's.
    She is told by AG Fallon that they have the bones, and if all legal procedures are satisfied, she'll be able to test them whenever.
    That drags on, and the court denies Zellner's motion so that puts a stop to that for a bit.



    Fast forward to a few weeks ago :

    - Zellner is getting ready to file a massive brief, she's trying to get somewhere with this case, and re-states what bones she wants re-examined.

    - some online sleuths obtain new files from Freedom of Information request. These police files show that a number of bones have been handed back to the Halbach family in 2011. The list of bones includes bones Zellner wanted to retest. Avery's lawyers at the time were never informed.

    So, the bones that Zellner wanted retested for Avery have been handed back to the Halbachs.

    Handing back bones to the family would be fine if not for some big problems :

    ... are these bones human or animal ? are they even Teresa's ? At trial, it was stated that this was unknown.

    Law Enforcement either :

    - gave the family back some possibly deer or chicken bones.


    - knew that the bones were Teresa's and/or human, gave them back to family and violated their own law that requires evidence that could potentially be retested to be retained for as long as someone is emprisoned.

    This law was established some time back in WI, and is basically a way to save evidence from destruction in case a defendant may be able to retest and prove their innocence thanks to progress in science/technology.

    Zellner's new motion to the court was that the State acted in "Bad Faith" when they handed back those bones to the family :
    - they either knew whether bones were human or not at trial and misrepresented evidence to the jury,
    - OR they got them retested on the sly in the meantime,
    - OR they handed animal bones back to family.

    In either of the above propositions, the outcome is that the evidence has been destroyed, and Steven Avery is unable to have them retested now that Rapid DNA technology might get more definitive results (not as performant back then).

    Law Enforcement/the State have destroyed evidence that could have swayed the jury in favour of reasonable doubt (showing that some bones were out of Avery Salvage Yard, therefore killer could be anyone).
    The State broke the law.

    Zellner presented all this to Court of Appeal, who ruled that yes indeed, that all needs to be checked out, and so the case for this particular motion is being directed back to the circuit court (the lower, original court).

    Problem being, the judge in question is Angela S. (nicknamed "Flowers"/long story), and she is a bítch (long story).

    Sorry long post, complicated situation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Sorry to be back on, and I don't normally go for these things, but there is a harmless petition online that supporters of Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery might like to sign ?

    This is simply to ask that the lady judge I mentioned earlier (long story, nicknamed Flowers) be removed from his case and switched with another judge.

    Info about the lady for those interested. The link below is dated, there's more to her having a conflict of interest/negative bias since, best place to find out if interested would probably be Reddit.

    https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/angela-sutkiewicz-judge/

    The petition is here :

    https://www.change.org/p/governor-anthony-steven-evers-remove-angela-sutkiewicz-from-steven-avery-case?recruiter=46619863&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=tap_basic_share

    A different judge might finally serve rightful justice for Steven. The Department of Justice is a quagmire with a lot of people whose interest is to keep him in jail.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,233 ✭✭✭MonkieSocks


    Kathleen Zellner reveals...............Reward offered

    https://twitter.com/zellnerlaw?lang=en

    =(:-) Me? I know who I am. I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude (-:)=



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,231 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kingp35


    
    
    Kathleen Zellner reveals...............Reward offered

    https://twitter.com/zellnerlaw?lang=en

    She's certainly good and drumming up attention anyway. He'll never get out, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,717 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    That's such an anticlimax.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kingp35 wrote: »
    He'll never get out, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

    It's a very bad thing. You may have a strong gut feeling that he's guilty, but the burden of proof isn't "a strong gut feeling", it's "beyond reasonable doubt".

    Anyone who thinks there's no reasonable doubt about Avery's guilt hasn't been paying attention.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,506 ✭✭✭✭Mantis Toboggan


    Yeah it's rough, he's 32 years in jail now possibly for 2 crimes he didn't commit. Brendan Dassey is jail 14? years and almost certainly innocent and not a shred of evidence against him. Sad state of affairs.

    In fairness the Zellner she has to try and keep people interested.

    Free Palestine 🇵🇸



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,231 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kingp35


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's a very bad thing. You may have a strong gut feeling that he's guilty, but the burden of proof isn't "a strong gut feeling", it's "beyond reasonable doubt".

    Anyone who thinks there's no reasonable doubt about Avery's guilt hasn't been paying attention.

    Oh I agree completely. My comment was more in reference to the fact that I would be leaning towards guilty rather than innocent.

    On a purely legal basis, he never should have been convicted in the first place. However due to the fact he is far from clearly innocent, I would not be so quick to jump on the free Avery bandwagon.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Kingp35 wrote: »
    Oh I agree completely. My comment was more in reference to the fact that I would be leaning towards guilty rather than innocent.

    On a purely legal basis, he never should have been convicted in the first place. However due to the fact he is far from clearly innocent, I would not be so quick to jump on the free Avery bandwagon.

    If he's guilty, let the prosecution prove it in a fair trial rather than the clumsy frame job they're quite clearly guilty of. The only question that should determine whether or not he remains in prison is: was he safely convicted?

    He wasn't. He needs to be released. Then, if the authorities are convinced that he's guilty, they can give him a fair trial and prove it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,767 ✭✭✭Scotty #


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He wasn't. He needs to be released...
    ...which will quite likely (eventually) bankrupt the county. Hard to find a judge willing to do that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Just a heads up that Kathleen's brief to the Court of Appeal is due next week . There will be some stirring around that, although as far as I understand there is no time frame for the COA to respond, so things could take months to move if they do.

    Meanwhile Laura Nirider and Drizin have petitioned Governor Tony Evers (WI) for clemency for Brendan Dassey.
    The previous governors had refused to pardon prisoners, but gov Evers is starting that again. Brendan does not fit the criteria, but Nirider and Drizin are asking for deviations and an exception in his case.

    Also meanwhile, Kratz is re-releasing a book of drivel, with 2 extra chapters. He has also been interacting with people on Twitter and spreading more lies about the case.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    Also meanwhile, Kratz is re-releasing a book of drivel, with 2 extra chapters. He has also been interacting with people on Twitter and spreading more lies about the case.

    Just because they were omitted from the documentary, presumably because it doesn't add to the picture of innocence they were trying to paint, it doesn't make them lies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,506 ✭✭✭✭Mantis Toboggan


    Ah poor old brendan dassey, not a shed of evidence against him and locked up for what 14 years now? Some waste of a life.

    Free Palestine 🇵🇸



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    492765.png492761.png
    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Just because they were omitted from the documentary, presumably because it doesn't add to the picture of innocence they were trying to paint, it doesn't make them lies.

    Yes lies. I'm not necessarily talking about the daily platitudes he tries to argue the documentary avoided.

    edit : I realize I should explain this somewhat. 3 lies below. There are many more lies by omission, or attempts to derail people interacting with him to irrelevant material, rather than answer questions.
    For example : Ken argued a few days ago that Brendan's confession videos had fooled us all, because the Youtuber who put them online had cut out some segments. He posted with a link or screenshot to said videos. To assert that he pointed to time stamps. This came back to hit him in the face when the Youtuber in question (more than likely someone on his side by the way, as posting in a guilter's group) wrote an angry message explaining that the videos had been received in state (with the segments cut) from a Freedom of Information Act request, directly from LE.

    He also posted that the jury had seen all of Brendan Dassey's interview. This is not true. The jury were not shown how Brendan told his Mum "they got to my head" as soon as Wiegert and Fassbender were out the door. He clammed up again the minute they came back in (swiftly, since they more than likely had some way to check from the other room what he was saying to his mother).

    And a third lie for good measure : Kratz stated that BD said Avery had driven the golf cart into the quarry to dump some bones. Nowhere does Brendan say anything about the golf cart being used to dump bones in the quarry. Brendan says first that SA shoved some of the bones a few feet away from where the fire was, and buried them, at the burn pit/back of garage (this dug out bit with bones in it was never found, as far as we know). Brendan also says that his uncle told him he had scooped some in a bucket and fired them over the ditch at the end of his back garden, that is, on Radandt property, not in the quarry where all the bones were found.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Ah poor old brendan dassey, not a shed of evidence against him and locked up for what 14 years now? Some waste of a life.

    It is so sad. And Kratz still is trying to fight this case with character assassination and lies. I am in the process of checking out lab reports (I did mention on boards before I believe that I went full on with this case and I'm still obsessed with it, it's kind of a past time now...). So far I have found that the bedroom in trailer crime scene had not in fact been checked for DNA. I'm well aware it's not a "finding" as such by the way, it is something that has been plainly visible ever since the BD trial, simply another fact of the case Ken wanted to go unnoticed.
    Why would he want this to go unnoticed ?
    Well, his narrative is and was always that Avery had 4 days after the crime to clean up, that he forensically cleaned the place with a "Rug Doctor", and so not a single drop of blood or DNA was found in there.
    He recently posted on Twitter that no DNA of Jodi's, Teresa's, or Brendan's was found in that room, and that showed how well Steven had cleaned up. It peeked my curiosity that he would mention Jodi, since her DNA sample was never collected to compare evidence to. (Another lie !)
    While checking lab reports used at trial I also realized that Sheryl Culhane (hair lady) had not in fact checked swabs from that room for DNA, because none of these had any trace of blood.
    As per trial transcripts, there were too many hairs collected in the vacuum and that room to check, so hair wasn't tested. In fact, there were 8 hairs lifted specifically from the bedside locker and headboard that could possibly have been tested, it could have yielded precious info since in confession BD said they cut Teresa's hair and placed it on the locker. These 8 hairs are tagged and bagged and locked away in evidence, and not sent to lab that I can see.

    So yeah. No evidence to corroborate Brendan's confession, a suspicious crime scene processing protocol, and a narrative that the supposedly sterile room was due to Steven's diligent cleaning skills (you should check out newly released photographs of the place to assess how NOT cleaned it looked).


Advertisement