Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

bazermc · 23-12-2016 01:17PM

thesultan wrote: »

When is the second series out?

Unknown according to the last line of this article.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/making-murderer-one-later-life-182950889.html

Agent Coulson · 04-10-2017 10:20AM

'Making a Murderer': Steven Avery Denied New Trial

Wisconsin judge cites insufficient evidence in ruling

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-denied-new-trial-w507008

The Nal · 04-10-2017 10:34AM

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

Apparently a federal court has blocked his release.

Good

Checkmate19 · 04-10-2017 11:04AM

Dassey will get out. It's a very slow process american justice or should i say injustice. Steven will never get out barring a miracle.

The Nal · 04-10-2017 11:57AM

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Dassey will get out.

He has missed a few Wrestlemanias at this stage.

pilly · 04-10-2017 12:42PM

I can believe Dassey won his appeal and he STILL hasn't gotten out. Poor young lad.

retro:electro · 04-10-2017 12:47PM

Steven is guilty as hell.
It's Brendan I feel sorry for.

MadDog76 · 04-10-2017 08:00PM

anna080 wrote: »

Steven is guilty as hell.
It's Brendan I feel sorry for.

He might be guilty .......... but he's probably innocent ......... based on the "evidence" presented at trial we really have no way of knowing either way.

The Nal · 05-10-2017 10:00AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

He might be guilty .......... but he's probably innocent ......... based on the "evidence" presented at trial we really have no way of knowing either way.

He murdered a cat, fúck him, he can rot in prison.

retro:electro · 05-10-2017 11:17AM

MadDog76 wrote: »

He might be guilty .......... but he's probably innocent ......... based on the "evidence" presented at trial we really have no way of knowing either way.

Meh. He did it. He didn't do it in the way they said he did it- but he did it.

Drumpot · 05-10-2017 11:43AM

The police stood to lose a fortune from previously framing Stephen for a different murder, so one of the few FACTS we can say is that the police had framed him before and were capable of framing him again. The murder clearly didn't happen the way the prosecution convinced a Jury to find him guilty. Then his nephew (and his appointed solicitor who got a promotion!) is also convicted of being involved in the murder, but a different story was given how the victim died. The evidence was tainted with local officers who had a motive to frame Stephen FOR A SECOND TIME.

The bigger issue isn't whether or not he is innocent, its how the police and state went about their business in coming to their conclusions. The way they honed in on Avery , the tactics used and their complete lack of interest in any other potential murderer.

How many innocent people are in jail because they "look dodgy" or just don't fit in with normal society ? Its an extension of the likes of the travelling community or an ethnic group with a different culture that has elements that people frown upon (rightly or wrongly).

Its easy to get blinkered into accepting insinuations about somebody you don't like or understand. This is what's happened here. Stephen is not a particularly likable or redeemable character IMO so many people don't want to look at the facts (or lack of) of the case... Reminds me of "Black Mirror" and is an interesting example of how stupidly ignorant society can be in judging people by how they look or act without looking at the facts of the case.

Always makes me think of the plebs of Springfield when they get something into their heads and jump to conclusions without weighing up all angles:

retro:electro · 05-10-2017 11:47AM

I'm not blinkered at all. I used to think he was innocent. My past posts on this thread will attest to that. I've read up a lot on this case and listened to various podcasts about it and it's my opinion that he did it. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I'm just asserting my opinion.

You've made an awful lot of assumptions there and are throwing around insults- "stupid" "ignorant" "plebs", when you know nothing about how I used to actually think he was innocent. Irony.

Maybe people just think differently to you?
Chill out.

Drumpot · 05-10-2017 11:57AM

anna080 wrote: »

I'm not blinkered at all. I used to think he was innocent. My past posts on this thread will attest to that. I've read up a lot on this case and listened to various podcasts about it and it's my opinion that he did it. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I'm just asserting my opinion.

You've made an awful lot of assumptions there and are throwing around insults- "stupid" "ignorant" "plebs", when you know nothing about how I used to actually think he was innocent. Irony.

Maybe people just think differently to you?
Chill out.

In terms of the context of your "Meh he did it", I obviously took your post out of context , my apologies for that. The previous post before yours about a cat probably made me assume you were taking the lazy approach of "he looks guilty therefore he is" bollox.

I don't think the story is whether or not he is guilty, but how he was found guilty and the motives of different parties. he should be released because the whole way the case was conducted was corrupt and a farce.

retro:electro · 05-10-2017 12:07PM

Drumpot wrote: »

In terms of the context of your "Meh he did it", I obviously took your post out of context , my apologies for that. The previous post before yours about a cat probably made me assume you were taking the lazy approach of "he looks guilty therefore he is" bollox.

I don't think the story is whether or not he is guilty, but how he was found guilty and the motives of different parties. he should be released because the whole way the case was conducted was corrupt and a farce.

Oh so you just jumped in and assumed without knowing the facts. So in other words you did exactly what you accused me of doing...

Yea I don't really care to get into the ins and outs of it. Some really good podcasts out there. You should listen up.

Penn · 05-10-2017 12:18PM

Drumpot wrote: »

I don't think the story is whether or not he is guilty, but how he was found guilty and the motives of different parties. he should be released because the whole way the case was conducted was corrupt and a farce.

Ultimately though, that's what the appeals process is for. What we saw in the show, regardless of whether or not he's guilty, is biased in his favour and presented in that way. We saw the best of his lawyers and the worst of the prosecutors.

He was found guilty, not by the cops, but by a jury who determined to a reasonable degree of certainty after listening to the evidence and testimony for several weeks that he was guilty. Unless they can prove the case was corrupt, he cannot be released. And unfortunately all the signs of possible corruption largely amounts to stuff which isn't going to be provable unless people change their testimonies. Unless one of the cops decides to come forward and say they corrupted the case, there's likely going to be no actual proof they did.

Thepoet85 · 05-10-2017 12:36PM

anna080 wrote:

Yea I don't really care to get into the ins and outs of it. Some really good podcasts out there. You should listen up.

What's their names, I'd love to give them a listen.

retro:electro · 05-10-2017 12:42PM

Thepoet85 wrote: »

What's their names, I'd love to give them a listen.

My favourite would be Real Crime Profile. The host is a former FBI profiler and he makes some excellent observations. They dedicate 6 episodes to MAM.
Generation Why is also good.

Drumpot · 05-10-2017 12:45PM

anna080 wrote: »

Oh so you just jumped in and assumed without knowing the facts. So in other words you did exactly what you accused me of doing...

Yea I don't really care to get into the ins and outs of it. Some really good podcasts out there. You should listen up.

The main point stands and is valid, if not specifically applying to you personally. I suppose the difference between me and most is that I own my mistakes and try to self correct, others belligerently plough through their ignorance! But I see the hypocrisy in my post which highlights that I am not immune from ignorance, I am after all human so will afford myself this defect ! !

Yeh, Ive listened to plenty of podcasts, there is some really good ones. Around the time it was released I binged the f**k out of everything I could find on it. His solicitors said exactly what I thought which is "I hope hes guilty".

Drumpot · 05-10-2017 01:03PM

Penn wrote: »

Ultimately though, that's what the appeals process is for. What we saw in the show, regardless of whether or not he's guilty, is biased in his favour and presented in that way. We saw the best of his lawyers and the worst of the prosecutors.

He was found guilty, not by the cops, but by a jury who determined to a
reasonable degree of certainty after listening to the evidence and testimony for
several weeks that he was guilty.Unless they can prove the case was corrupt, he cannot be released. And unfortunately all the signs of possible corruption largely amounts to stuff which isn't going to be provable unless people change their testimonies. Unless one of the cops decides to come forward and say they corrupted the case, there's likely going to be no actual proof they did.

You could of said the exact same thing when he was found guilty by a jury, for a murder he didn't commit. This isn't amazing because we have a guy found guilty with questionable methods used to find him guilty. We have a guy found guilty who had already been framed by the same police department that was involved in getting evidence to prove his guilt and there are huge issues over the way the police and state handled the case and their own financial/personal rewards for him being found guilty..

The only think we know for a fact is that this police force framed him (at least once) for a murder at least once. .

Penn · 05-10-2017 02:17PM

Drumpot wrote: »

You could of said the exact same thing when he was found guilty by a jury, for a murder he didn't commit. This isn't amazing because we have a guy found guilty with questionable methods used to find him guilty. We have a guy found guilty who had already been framed by the same police department that was involved in getting evidence to prove his guilt and there are huge issues over the way the police and state handled the case and their own financial/personal rewards for him being found guilty..

The only think we know for a fact is that this police force framed him (at least once) for a murder at least once. .

Sorry but that's complete nonsense.

They didn't frame him for the first crime (a rape, not a murder). They believed he was the most likely suspect, and yes, they proceeded on that basis. They found as much evidence as they could to corroborate their theory, it was all presented to a jury, including being identified by the victim from a police lineup, and the jury found him guilty. There are undoubtedly flaws in the legal system and innocent people get sent to jail for crimes they didn't commit, and guilty people get off free because there isn't enough evidence to convict them. But the jury felt there was enough evidence at the time to say Avery was guilty. They were wrong.

The second time, I agree, there's a lot of fishy things going on with how evidence was found etc. I'm not disputing that. But Avery's lawyers presented all that (as much evidence on it as they could/had) and despite that, the jury still determined that Avery was guilty. We do not know for a fact that the police framed him. We have suspicions, things which weren't done by correct police procedures, and some conflicting stories. None of which are strong enough to say the police framed him.

Pretty much all the items you think mean the police framed him were already part of the trial and the jury still found him guilty. There is a hell of a lot of testimony and evidence we did not see from the show and for the jury it seems it outweighed the suspicions (not facts) of police tampering with or planting evidence.

His only chance of getting out is to prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that he could not have committed the murder, or that evidence was planted to frame him, and they need more than what was featured in the show because it clearly already wasn't enough, and was already addressed in the trial.

serfboard · 05-10-2017 03:00PM

Penn wrote: »

We do not know for a fact that the police framed him. We have suspicions, things which weren't done by correct police procedures, and some conflicting stories. None of which are strong enough to say the police framed him.

But all of which are strong enough to say that guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" was not established.

If the police case was so solid, why did they need to frame the nephew as well? Also, what does it say about police officers who are willing to do that? What else are they willing to do?

The Nal · 05-10-2017 03:05PM

serfboard wrote: »

But all of which are strong enough to say that guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" was not established.

If the police case was so solid, why did they need to frame the nephew as well? Also, what does it say about police officers who are willing to do that? What else are they willing to do?

They're willing to give up their life. Cops found guilty of framing someone for murder are in deep shít. Why would they bother when there was already so much evidence against him?

Anyway he set a cat on fire so he can rot in jail for all I care. Good enough for him.

Drumpot · 05-10-2017 03:21PM

Penn wrote: »

Sorry but that's complete nonsense.

They didn't frame him for the first crime (a rape, not a murder). They believed he was the most likely suspect, and yes, they proceeded on that basis. They found as much evidence as they could to corroborate their theory, it was all presented to a jury, including being identified by the victim from a police lineup, and the jury found him guilty. There are undoubtedly flaws in the legal system and innocent people get sent to jail for crimes they didn't commit, and guilty people get off free because there isn't enough evidence to convict them. But the jury felt there was enough evidence at the time to say Avery was guilty. They were wrong.

The second time, I agree, there's a lot of fishy things going on with how evidence was found etc. I'm not disputing that. But Avery's lawyers presented all that (as much evidence on it as they could/had) and despite that, the jury still determined that Avery was guilty. We do not know for a fact that the police framed him. We have suspicions, things which weren't done by correct police procedures, and some conflicting stories. None of which are strong enough to say the police framed him.

Pretty much all the items you think mean the police framed him were already part of the trial and the jury still found him guilty. There is a hell of a lot of testimony and evidence we did not see from the show and for the jury it seems it outweighed the suspicions (not facts) of police tampering with or planting evidence.

His only chance of getting out is to prove to a reasonable degree of certainty that he could not have committed the murder, or that evidence was planted to frame him, and they need more than what was featured in the show because it clearly already wasn't enough, and was already addressed in the trial.

You don't think there was anything that would suggest the police were looking for reasons to get Avery ? nothing ?

The police were given evidence/information that suggested Stephen's innocence on the rape and they buried it and he remained in Jail. The fact that the second Jury chose to ignore this corrupt actions of the police is not a defence that helps your point. Avery had less provable motive to murder then the police force and the state had to frame him.

And your last paragraph is wrong. It's up to the state to prove the crime, which they clearly didn't, otherwise it wouldn't be such a divisive topic. Anybody watching MAM saw how ridiculous the states explanation of events was and the corrupt actions of the state in pushing hard for his conviction. The defence proved that the murder couldn't of possibly happened the way the state proposed. The defence was also hampered by the judge. there is also a strong suggestion that the jury comes across as tainted/bias, which isn't surprising considering the public statement made by Kratz before the case was even heard.

You seem to feel that because the Jury found him guilty its somehow "justice served" ? I am not really sure what your point is. The state wrongly convicted Stephen, buried subsequent evidence that could prove him innocent and then got him convicted again with a ridiculous narrative of how he did the murder.

I am not implying Stephen is innocent, I am saying that the trial was a farce.

Penn · 05-10-2017 03:24PM

serfboard wrote: »

But all of which are strong enough to say that guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" was not established.

Not to the jury it wasn't.

serfboard wrote: »

If the police case was so solid, why did they need to frame the nephew as well? Also, what does it say about police officers who are willing to do that? What else are they willing to do?

They didn't frame him. He confessed. Yes, his confession was coerced etc etc and I'm glad it's likely he's going to get out, but his confession wasn't even part of Steven's trial, and they couldn't have known even when interviewing him that he'd confess to something he didn't do. They were also led to Brendan because his cousin had been interviewed by police a few days before and stuff she said led them to interviewing him.

Again, I'm not saying the cops interrogation techniques and practices weren't flawed, illegal and didn't result in coerced false statements, but both Brendan and his cousin's statements are things the detectives couldn't have known they were going to say. They didn't frame Brendan. They pushed hard while interrogating the family and got false statements and confessions which led to them being able to convict Brendan. He confessed to the crime. Regardless of how the confession was obtained, the police did not frame him. He confessed to the crime.

Penn · 05-10-2017 03:35PM

Drumpot wrote: »

You don't think there was anything that would suggest the police were looking for reasons to get Avery ? nothing ?

The police were given evidence/information that suggested Stephen's innocence on the rape and they buried it and he remained in Jail. The fact that the second Jury chose to ignore this corrupt actions of the police is not a defence that helps your point. Avery had less provable motive to murder then the police force had to frame him.

And your last paragraph is wrong. It's up to the state to prove the crime, which they clearly didn't, otherwise it wouldn't be such a divisive topic. Anybody watching MAM saw how ridiculous the states explanation of events was and the corrupt actions of the state in pushing hard for his conviction. The defence proved that the murder couldn't of possibly happened the way the state proposed. The defence was also hampered by the judge. there is also a strong suggestion that the jury comes across as tainted/bias, which isn't surprising considering the public statement made by Kratz before the case was even heard.

You seem to feel that because the Jury found him guilty its somehow "justice served" ? I am not really sure what your point is. The state wrongly convicted Stephen, buried subsequent evidence that could prove him innocent and then got him convicted again with a ridiculous narrative of how he did the murder.

I am not implying Stephen is innocent, I am saying that the trial was a farce.

It's up to the state to prove the crime to the jury, which they did, because the jury found him guilty. I'm not saying the jury wasn't influenced by the news reports and interviews before the trial, and there's only so much either side can do with regards jury selection to try and combat that, but the fact is he was found guilty by a jury regardless of whether he is actually innocent or not, and the only way to overturn that at this point is for him (and whoever he hires/engages) to prove his innocence or that the case was based on false information. And that's a difficult thing to prove.

All I'm saying is we saw small snippets of the trial, and from a show that was fairly biased. We saw small bits of testimonies. Small bits of discussion regarding some of the evidence. What we saw, for most people, wasn't enough to say he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But the jury did see enough to say he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I know there's also claims of coercion within the jury, or some jury members may have had links to some of the cops, I get all that. But it's not proof of anything. It's hearsay and suspicion.

They simply do not have enough evidence to exonerate Avery at this point, and they may never have enough. But the fact remains that whether he is guilty or not, he was found guilty by a jury.

Drumpot · 05-10-2017 04:10PM

Penn wrote: »

Not to the jury it wasn't.

They didn't frame him. He confessed. Yes, his confession was coerced etc etc and I'm glad it's likely he's going to get out, but his confession wasn't even part of Steven's trial, and they couldn't have known even when interviewing him that he'd confess to something he didn't do. They were also led to Brendan because his cousin had been interviewed by police a few days before and stuff she said led them to interviewing him.

Again, I'm not saying the cops interrogation techniques and practices weren't flawed and didn't result in coerced false statements, but both Brendan and his cousin's statements are things the detectives couldn't have known they were going to say. They didn't frame Brendan. They pushed hard while interrogating the family and got false statements and confessions which led to them being able to convict Brendan. He confessed to the crime. Regardless of how the confession was obtained, the police did not frame him. He confessed to the crime.

They didn't frame him, they coerced him . . :P

They didn't frame him (rape), they just buried evidence that proved his innocence. :P

The state stood to benefit more from a guilty decision. They allowed cops who stood to benefit from Stephen's guilt, to investigate the crime and be involved in evidence taking. Some evidence appeared to miraculously show up coincidentally when these cops were searching the premises after independent cops hadn't found anything. They didn't investigate other POI who should of at least been interviewed. Their prosecutions story on how she was murdered was proven to be impossible. The judges would not allow the prosecutions story of events (that Stephen was found guilty of) be used in Brendan's because they were spinning a different yarn on how Brendan was involved!

You don't think there is any corrupt principles or actions in any of this ?

Are you saying "Stephen is guilty so it doesn't matter how he was found guilty"? . I don't understand your stance . .

serfboard · 05-10-2017 04:41PM

Penn wrote: »

They didn't frame him. He confessed. Yes, his confession was coerced

Oh I understand now. Not the same thing. At all at all.

Penn wrote: »

they couldn't have known even when interviewing him that he'd confess to something he didn't do.

If you put down tracks for a train, you've a pretty good idea where the train is going to go.

Penn · 05-10-2017 05:00PM

Drumpot wrote: »

They didn't frame him, they coerced him . . :P

They didn't frame him (rape), they just buried evidence that proved his innocence. :P

The state stood to benefit more from a guilty decision. They allowed cops who stood to benefit from Stephen's guilt, to investigate the crime and be involved in evidence taking. Some evidence appeared to miraculously show up coincidentally when these cops were searching the premises after independent cops hadn't found anything. They didn't investigate other POI who should of at least been interviewed. Their prosecutions story on how she was murdered was proven to be impossible. The judges would not allow the prosecutions story of events (that Stephen was found guilty of) be used in Brendan's because they were spinning a different yarn on how Brendan was involved!

You don't think there is any corrupt principles or actions in any of this ?

Are you saying "Stephen is guilty so it doesn't matter how he was found guilty"? . I don't understand your stance . .

My stance is I don't know if he's guilty or not. I genuinely don't. I wouldn't be hugely surprised either way. The only point I'm trying to make boils down to one word; Proof.

There is no proof, or at least not enough proof, of being framed by the police to have his verdict overturned. There is no proof that the jury was compromised. There is no proof the judge was biased. Not enough to warrant releasing him.

There was enough proof for the jury to consider him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of what you claim about the police tampering with the case etc was part of the defence's case, and the jury still found him guilty.

Is he guilty? I don't know. But my initial point in response to you claiming he should be released because the case was corrupt and a farce is that unless his lawyers can actually prove that (and the burden of proof is on them since he has already been found guilty in a court of law), he cannot be released.

It doesn't matter if any of us think there wasn't enough proof to convict him based on a TV show we watched. We saw a fraction of the whole case. The jury saw it all, and considered him to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Drumpot · 05-10-2017 05:38PM

Penn wrote: »

My stance is I don't know if he's guilty or not. I genuinely don't. I wouldn't be hugely surprised either way. The only point I'm trying to make boils down to one word; Proof.

There is no proof, or at least not enough proof, of being framed by the police to have his verdict overturned. There is no proof that the jury was compromised. There is no proof the judge was biased. Not enough to warrant releasing him.

There was enough proof for the jury to consider him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Most of what you claim about the police tampering with the case etc was part of the defence's case, and the jury still found him guilty.

Is he guilty? I don't know. But my initial point in response to you claiming he should be released because the case was corrupt and a farce is that unless his lawyers can actually prove that (and the burden of proof is on them since he has already been found guilty in a court of law), he cannot be released.

It doesn't matter if any of us think there wasn't enough proof to convict him based on a TV show we watched. We saw a fraction of the whole case. The jury saw it all, and considered him to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

There wasn't enough proof to convict him of murder, that's not actually a fact. The jury was convinced that he was guilty based on the trial. But its just like the jury was convinced he was guilty of rape which was wrong. You seem to think that being convicted of something in a trial means you can ignore the impact that the processes and tactics used to get that conviction had on the jury's decision.

And I don't know if he is guilty or innocent either . . I just think the court case was a farce and don't understand how people think the tactics employed to get the conviction werent at best dodgy as f**k . .

Penn · 05-10-2017 05:48PM

Drumpot wrote: »

There wasn't enough proof to convict him of murder, that's not actually a fact. The jury was convinced that he was guilty based on the trial. But its just like the jury was convinced he was guilty of rape which was wrong. You seem to think that being convicted of something in a trial means you can ignore the impact that the processes and tactics used to get that conviction had on the jury's decision.

No, like I said earlier innocent people are sometimes proven guilty in court and guilty people often get off because there's not enough evidence to convict them. But that's the thing, it comes down to the jury and the evidence they're presented with, and based on the evidence they were presented with in the trial they found him guilty. Whether they're right or wrong doesn't change the fact that for the jury, there was enough evidence to convict him of murder. That is a fact, because he was convicted of murder. And Avery's lawyers pointed out many of the processes and tactics used by the police in the trial, and the jury still found him guilty.

Drumpot wrote: »

And I don't know if he is guilty or innocent either . . I just think the court case was a farce and don't understand how people think the tactics employed to get the conviction were at best just suspicious . .

All I'm saying is that unless it can be proven with strong evidence, no judge is going to overturn his conviction. And it's up to Avery's lawyers to find and present that proof.

Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Comments