Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

serfboard · 05-10-2017 06:02PM

Penn wrote: »

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.

This is a well-made point and indeed we did not see all of the prosecution evidence.

However, as you are no doubt aware, plenty of people have been found guilty by juries who have heard the whole case, and have later been acquited.

One of the most famous cases in these islands is the case of the Birmingham Six. In 1980, the head of the Court of Appeal in Britain, Lord Denning, judged that the men should be stopped from challenging legal decisions:

Lord Denning wrote:

If they won [their appeal], it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. ... That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, "It cannot be right that these actions should go any further."

Penn · 05-10-2017 07:13PM

serfboard wrote: »

This is a well-made point and indeed we did not see all of the prosecution evidence.

However, as you are no doubt aware, plenty of people have been found guilty by juries who have heard the whole case, and have later been acquited.

One of the most famous cases in these islands is the case of the Birmingham Six. In 1980, the head of the Court of Appeal in Britain, Lord Denning, judged that the men should be stopped from challenging legal decisions:

Absolutely. As I've said in more than one post, innocent people are often found guilty and guilty people are often set free. It doesn't change the reality that whether right or wrong, he was found guilty and that's the verdict that stands. To get it overturned, new evidence or proof that evidence was false needs to be presented. And without that, the guilty verdict will stand.

Checkmate19 · 05-10-2017 10:38PM

The biggest thing i took from the case was the fact the prosecutor could call a press conference before the trial. How is Avery supposed to get a fair trial with this going on.

MadDog76 · 06-10-2017 12:03AM

anna080 wrote: »

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

Based on .......... ???

MadDog76 · 06-10-2017 12:03AM

The Nal wrote: »

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

F*ck the cat .......... I hate cats.

Checkmate19 · 06-10-2017 12:40AM

I think avery may have done it but i think dassey was defo screwed over. His first account in the taped confession is probably more to the truth. I think they defo fed him stuff and due to his intellectual capacity he ended up confessing.

Drumpot · 06-10-2017 10:09AM

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/offbeat/man-exonerated-after-spending-23-years-behind-bars-for-a-murder-he-didnt-commit/ar-AAsYl2o?li=AAacYg0&ocid=spartandhp

Sounds familiar . .

Why is it never a "normal", non troubled suburban white person that seems to be on the wrong end of these kind of decisions ?!

The gunman that recently shot up Vegas had no obvious warning signs. Shows why profiling and honing in on certain people is just wrong on so many levels . .

pilly · 06-10-2017 10:11AM

Drumpot wrote: »

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/offbeat/man-exonerated-after-spending-23-years-behind-bars-for-a-murder-he-didnt-commit/ar-AAsYl2o?li=AAacYg0&ocid=spartandhp

Sounds familiar . .

Why is it never a "normal", non troubled suburban white person that seems to be on the wrong end of these kind of decisions ?!

The gunman that recently shot up Vegas had no obvious warning signs. Shows why profiling and honing in on certain people is just wrong on so many levels . .

You do know Steve Avery and Brendan Dassey are both white?

begbysback · 06-10-2017 10:12AM

pilly wrote: »

You do know Steve Avery and Brendan Dassey are both white?

Spoiler

Drumpot · 06-10-2017 10:14AM

pilly wrote: »

You do know Steve Avery and Brendan Dassey are both white?

Profiling is not just about going after black people, it comes across like the Avery family were considered "White trash" in the eyes of the locals . .

As I said, its easier to believe that somebody you don't like (I don't like - Blacks, white trash, gays etc) is guilty before you have even heard a case. I would imagine its easier for a police force to narrow their search for a criminal if they have a target who they don't like or would be happy enough to lock up.

pilly · 06-10-2017 10:17AM

Drumpot wrote: »

Profiling is not just about going after black people, the Avery family were painted as "White trash" in the eyes of the locals . .

Yes that's true, I just don't know why you had to throw in the white person reference.

Drumpot · 06-10-2017 10:25AM

pilly wrote: »

Yes that's true, I just don't know why you had to throw in the white person reference.

Because if you are white, live in suburban areas and are considered "respectable" you are less likely to be a Person of Interest. . White Trash or poor white people to a lesser degree are not on that list. My point is that whether you are black, white trash or respected white person you should be afforded the same respect and treatment and presumption of innocence.

Just look at the boyfriend or brother in this case . . They should of been prime suspects, but the police were happy to put all their resources into Avery and completely ignore them.

People are saying that "well we didn't see everything that happened in the courtroom" which is true. But I haven't read any evidence from anybody (juror or Kratz) that shows that Avery was definitely guilty. I am not aware (can be corrected on that) that people are not allowed to discuss what happened in the court, so its odd that after all the publicity of this case, a juror or Kratz (or somebody else with knowledge of the case) hasn't come out with some really hard damning evidence that gives us a better idea as to why the Jury found him guilty.

Maybe the courtcase was as much a farce as it was portrayed. Maybe there is no other evidence or information that is missing and the documentary wasn't bias, its just the courtcase was so farcial its difficult for people to accept it.

pilly · 06-10-2017 10:34AM

Drumpot wrote: »

Because if you are white, live in suburban areas and are considered "respectable" you are less likely to be a Person of Interest. . White Trash or poor white people to a lesser degree are not on that list. My point is that whether you are black, white trash or respected white person you should be afforded the same respect and treatment and presumption of innocence.

Just look at the boyfriend or brother in this case . . They should of been prime suspects, but the police were happy to put all their resources into Avery and completely ignore them.

People are saying that "well we didn't see everything that happened in the courtroom" which is true. But I haven't read any evidence from anybody (juror or Kratz) that shows that Avery was definitely guilty. I am not aware (can be corrected on that) that people are not allowed to discuss what happened in the court, so its odd that after all the publicity of this case, a juror or Kratz (or somebody else with knowledge of the case) hasn't come out with some really hard damning evidence that gives us a better idea as to why the Jury found him guilty.

Maybe the courtcase was as much a farce as it was portrayed. Maybe there is no other evidence or information that is missing and the documentary wasn't bias, its just the courtcase was so farcial its difficult for people to accept it.

Yeah, I totally agree with you. I think the jury would have had their own biased as well. Avery did not come across well, his personality wasn't great and as you say he was considered white trash and probably did do some petty crimes so they weren't inclined to believe him from the very start.

It's the same here in Ireland although maybe not to the same extent but someone before a judge in a tracksuit for example is more likely to be judged harshly than someone with a suit and a certain accent.

Checkmate19 · 06-10-2017 11:38AM

The fact that the prosecutor could call a press conference and basically tell people how they did it is just totally wrong. Wouldn't be allowed happen in most countries as how are you supposed to get a fair trail. However in listening to Dassey first part of his confession he seems to offer up details of a killing without being prompted. Thats if its the full tape. He says that he went to Dassey's house and girl was there in the jeep and they put her in the fire. If the tape is not doctored that seems very damning. After that there's alot of pushing by the detectives put that first statement without prompting seems very important. That's if they have not doctored the tapes.

Benzino · 06-10-2017 12:08PM

Drumpot wrote: »

Because if you are white, live in suburban areas and are considered "respectable" you are less likely to be a Person of Interest. . White Trash or poor white people to a lesser degree are not on that list. My point is that whether you are black, white trash or respected white person you should be afforded the same respect and treatment and presumption of innocence.

Just look at the boyfriend or brother in this case . . They should of been prime suspects, but the police were happy to put all their resources into Avery and completely ignore them.

People are saying that "well we didn't see everything that happened in the courtroom" which is true. But I haven't read any evidence from anybody (juror or Kratz) that shows that Avery was definitely guilty. I am not aware (can be corrected on that) that people are not allowed to discuss what happened in the court, so its odd that after all the publicity of this case, a juror or Kratz (or somebody else with knowledge of the case) hasn't come out with some really hard damning evidence that gives us a better idea as to why the Jury found him guilty.

Maybe the courtcase was as much a farce as it was portrayed. Maybe there is no other evidence or information that is missing and the documentary wasn't bias, its just the courtcase was so farcial its difficult for people to accept it.

It's not like the police blindly chose Avery for no logical reason. Yes, they should have followed other leads better than they did, but she was last seen at Avery's. Her car was found at Avery's. Her remains, at Avery's. He also has history of violence towards women and animals. He is naturally the first person you would look at in this case.

Checkmate19 · 06-10-2017 08:05PM

Yeah they where most likely to look at him. I have changed my mind i think avery is probably guilty. Dassey's part is where the doubt lies.

Drumpot · 06-10-2017 08:38PM

Benzino wrote: »

It's not like the police blindly chose Avery for no logical reason. Yes, they should have followed other leads better than they did, but she was last seen at Avery's. Her car was found at Avery's. Her remains, at Avery's. He also has history of violence towards women and animals. He is naturally the first person you would look at in this case.

You have just repeated the point I was making "they should have followed other leads" . . And then disagreed with an imaginary point I never made . . Where did I say Avery shouldn't of been a suspect ?

Hande hoche! · 09-12-2017 11:58PM

Seems like Brendan isn't getting out anytime soon. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42291231

seligehgit · 20-01-2018 10:41PM

Outrageous miscarriages of justice IMO in both trials.Stephen Avery's attorneys presented a case par excellence which cast reasonable doubt on Avery's guilt.

The Nal · 21-01-2018 10:30AM

seligehgit wrote: »

Outrageous miscarriages of justice IMO in both trials.Stephen Avery's attorneys presented a case par excellence which cast reasonable doubt on Avery's guilt.

Only if you go by the film makers version sure. They cherry picked and left a load of stuff out. Key evidence.

The petition to the white house is one of the worst things Ive ever seen.

NIMAN · 21-01-2018 12:23PM

The Nal wrote: »

Only if you go by the film makers version sure. They cherry picked and left a load of stuff out. Key evidence.

The petition to the white house is one of the worst things Ive ever seen.

The show itself is one of the worst things I've ever seen.

Basically its a 1hr documentary that theyhave managed to stretch out to 10 x 1hr episodes.

I got very bored watching it. Don't believe the hype.

Liamalone · 21-01-2018 01:51PM

NIMAN wrote: »

The show itself is one of the worst things I've ever seen.

Basically its a 1hr documentary that theyhave managed to stretch out to 10 x 1hr episodes.

I got very bored watching it. Don't believe the hype.

I would say that you're in the minority with that opinion, everyone I know that has watched it thought it was great. Never heard anyone say it was boring.

jayo26 · 21-01-2018 02:16PM

Been a while since I watched it but it's far from boring.

If you didn't find it interesting it's fair enough it's just not what the majority feel.

Pelvis · 21-01-2018 02:24PM

NIMAN wrote: »

The show itself is one of the worst things I've ever seen.

Basically its a 1hr documentary that theyhave managed to stretch out to 10 x 1hr episodes.

I got very bored watching it. Don't believe the hype.

Wrong.

Normally I don't watch 10 hours of TV if I consider it one of the worst things I've ever seen. So either you didn't actually watch it, or you're talking through your hoop.

hufpc8w3adnk65 · 21-01-2018 02:29PM

No way do you tell that story in 1 hour! After 10 hours there are still parts of it untold

Tipsy McSwagger · 21-01-2018 06:28PM

MrMac84 wrote: »

No way do you tell that story in 1 hour! After 10 hours there are still parts of it untold

Ye the unbiased parts.

NIMAN · 21-01-2018 06:47PM

Pelvis wrote: »

Wrong.

Normally I don't watch 10 hours of TV if I consider it one of the worst things I've ever seen. So either you didn't actually watch it, or you're talking through your hoop.

I watched every single episode. I had started so stuck with it.

I made up my mind afterwards that it was very bloated, not as great as many were saying, and that I wish I hadn't have started after it was all too late!

I spoke to many others in work who also agree, and know some who even stopped watching it halfway through.

OK, maybe 1hr might be tight, but 2 hrs would do it with proper editing.

Same goes for that show about the dead nun (name escapes me now) - 7 episodes when 2 would have done it. But I guess these shows need to have the audiences coming back week after week for the advertisers.

retro:electro · 21-01-2018 07:21PM

You have a point about The Keepers but MAM would never have been able to be compacted into 2 hours. Too much info, too many twists to the tale, too many tales too tell. No way no how. I think whatever side of the fence you fall- re guilty or not guilty, bias viewing or not- the majority of people found it to be absolutely compelling television and I actually yearned for it when it was over.

NIMAN · 21-01-2018 07:23PM

anna080 wrote: »

You have a point about The Keepers but MAM would never have been able to be compacted into 2 hours. Too much info, too many twists to the tale, too many tales too tell. No way no how. I think whatever side of the fence you fall- re guilty or not guilty, bias viewing or not- the majority of people found it to be absolutely compelling television and I actually yearned for it when it was over.

Maybe its just me so, but if they ever make any more documentaries on the case, I won't be watching.

Now, The Jinx was a completely different story. That was a proper documentary.

retro:electro · 21-01-2018 07:24PM

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe its just me so, but if they ever make any more documentaries on the case, I won't be watching.

Now, The Jinx was a completely different story. That was a proper documentary.

Agree with you there. The Jinx was absolutely incredible.

Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Comments