nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

Also Starring LeVar Burton

New 10-Part Documentary on Netflix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxgbdYaR_KQ

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

retro:electro

I’m on episode 5 now and loving it so far. I find the technical side of it so interesting, and love learning about the judicial system and how and why certain decisions are made. There’s no major bomb dropping moments like we had in season one, but that was to be expected. I think it acts as a good footnote to season one.

we'llallhavetea

Shergar6 wrote: »

I keep reading about this rape... How was he not in jail for that?

Because it's just hearsay.

we'llallhavetea

I thought this would be a long padded out rehash but actually we were totally glued to it!
I'm gonna base my opinion on MAM only, don't think he did it tbh. I mean, she covered everything I would have used against Steven and blew it all out of the water. Find it very tough to watch his parents, even if he ever gets out (I don't think he ever will, either of them) they will be dead before it happens I think

poor yoda

gmisk

Mam of 4 wrote: »

It's so sad , isn't it ?

There's another programme on Netflix - True Confessions , well worth a watch .

It's so easy for anyone to say oh I'd never confess to something I hadn't done , but until you're in that position , and maybe not in the right frame of mind , it's so easy to be coerced into saying it was you .

Is this a different one to "the confession tapes" on netflix?

It is really good

Deise Vu

retro:electro wrote: »

I think she had to do this in order to find any kind of holes or leeway that would allow for a retrial. I don’t think Buting and Strang took it personally. They seemed to understand that she was limited in what she could poke holes in.

Whatever the profession, the easiest job in the world is to review someone else's work. Everything the previous guy or gal did is done under time and budget pressure. All you have to do is find one or two quibbles and you look like a genius even though, if the positions were reversed, you might do a job from scratch that would omit a dozen pertinent points.

retro:electro

2 Scoops wrote: »

The new Woman did a great job but felt it was a bad tone to criticize the previous 2 lawyers as much as she did

I think she had to do this in order to find any kind of holes or leeway that would allow for a retrial. I don’t think Buting and Strang took it personally. They seemed to understand that she was limited in what she could poke holes in.

Shergar6

2 Scoops wrote: »

Hard to know what to think but imo Avery is guilty. Looking at his past he's had some serious problems. He raped his 13 yo niece and was involved with killing the family cat in a bonfire, which to me signifies someone who has psychopathic tendencies. He rang the girl who was murdered something like 40 times? The blonde's motives are questionable after appearing on Dr Phil among other places.

The new Woman did a great job but felt it was a bad tone to criticize the previous 2 lawyers as much as she did, wasn't subtle about it at all. Brendan Dassy deserves a retrial, he may he innocent in all this and the way he was coerced by those interrogators was morally wrong. As bad as Ken Kratz comes across ( or smart depending on how you look at it ), he's not in the same ball park as this guy, he makes my skin crawl. ( afaik currently banged up for stalking )

I keep reading about this rape... How was he not in jail for that?

2 Scoops

Hard to know what to think but imo Avery is guilty. Looking at his past he's had some serious problems. He raped his 13 yo niece and was involved with killing the family cat in a bonfire, which to me signifies someone who has psychopathic tendencies. He rang the girl who was murdered something like 40 times? The blonde's motives are questionable after appearing on Dr Phil among other places.

The new Woman did a great job but felt it was a bad tone to criticize the previous 2 lawyers as much as she did, wasn't subtle about it at all. Brendan Dassy deserves a retrial, he may he innocent in all this and the way he was coerced by those interrogators was morally wrong. As bad as Ken Kratz comes across ( or smart depending on how you look at it ), he's not in the same ball park as this guy, he makes my skin crawl. ( afaik currently banged up for stalking )

Mam of 4

shellycub wrote: »

Is this on netflix also?

I can't remember where I watched it , but it's online on Netflix Movies if that's any help to you .

shellycub

8-10 wrote: »

Mam of 4 wrote: »

It's so sad , isn't it ?

There's another programme on Netflix - True Confessions , well worth a watch .

It's so easy for anyone to say oh I'd never confess to something I hadn't done , but until you're in that position , and maybe not in the right frame of mind , it's so easy to be coerced into saying it was you .

Central Park 5 also a good example

Is this on netflix also?

Mam of 4

8-10 wrote: »

Central Park 5 also a good example

Had forgotten about that tbh

8-10

Mam of 4 wrote: »

It's so sad , isn't it ?

There's another programme on Netflix - True Confessions , well worth a watch .

It's so easy for anyone to say oh I'd never confess to something I hadn't done , but until you're in that position , and maybe not in the right frame of mind , it's so easy to be coerced into saying it was you .

Central Park 5 also a good example

Mam of 4

retro:electro wrote: »

I’m only really interested in the fight for Brendan. There is literally not a shred of evidence against him only a higgilty piggilty, fill in the blanks, nope wrong answer try again coerced statement.
American justice how are ya.

It's so sad , isn't it ?

There's another programme on Netflix - True Confessions , well worth a watch .

It's so easy for anyone to say oh I'd never confess to something I hadn't done , but until you're in that position , and maybe not in the right frame of mind , it's so easy to be coerced into saying it was you .

retro:electro

I’m only really interested in the fight for Brendan. There is literally not a shred of evidence against him only a higgilty piggilty, fill in the blanks, nope wrong answer try again coerced statement.
American justice how are ya.

murpho999

TomOnBoard wrote: »

What about Berm Bracks? or Going to the hairdresser for a Berm?

Oops... must get that feckin hearing aid....:pac:

They're Barmbracks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barmbrack

8-10

The Nal wrote: »

Bit of a snoozefest this. Fúcker is clearly guilty.

Who is, Brendan?

The Nal

Bit of a snoozefest this. Fúcker is clearly guilty.

Mountainsandh

Binge watched both seasons the past few days, WHEN IS SEASON 3 DUE ???!!!

Loved Kathleen too. I thought the two previous lawyers were good, I think they meant really well, but like she said, they just let plenty of things pass them by...

I suppose they just didn't have the money she has at her disposal.

8-10

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The most troubling thing I found is the faith that ppl at the bottom must place in the Courts for justice and fairness, and soooo much other stuff seems to get in the way, leading to very questionable positioning by Courts on apparently obvious matters.

Serial Season 3 touches on the same topic as it happens

TomOnBoard

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Lol !!

I must casually drop the word Berm into a conversation and see what happens

Yeah, I reckon it should be asked of every Presidential candidate:

"What would your Presidency do for the plight of Berms everywhere?"

Mam of 4 wrote: »

Am loving Kathleen in this , she's extremely thorough , and confident in her capabilities (and past record with previous cases ) .

A very able lady. She really makes most of the other lawyers seem to be in the 2nd division... And yet doesn't come across as a PITA or an arrogant know-it-all... I liked the way she held the door open for her law clerks after delivering the submission...

seligehgit

Really enjoyed it.Kathleen Zellner is some woman.

I know it's largely told from one side of the argument but with apparently new evidence,violation of constitutional rights(brady violation and ineffective assistance of counsel) and the furnishing of a Denny suspect I can't see how Avery does'nt deserve a retrial.

Shocking that Brendan Dassey failed in his en banc seventh circuit court of appeal,albeit a slim 4/3 majority.Judge Hamilton as per the previous appeal was implacable in his opposition to allowing Dassey's appeal.Judge Duffin and the dissenters in the subsequent appeal are all heroes.

His one in a hundred chance of getting a US Supreme Court Appeal in shatters.:(

Judge Angela Sutkiewicz seemed totally unreasonable in her opposition to a new trial.The US state judicial system seems to have closed ranks in this case.

AEDPA and the consequential insistence by the US Supreme Court that federal courts not interfere as much as humanly possible in the court decision making at state level has acted as a millstone in overturning verdicts.

Mam of 4

TomOnBoard wrote: »

What about Berm Bracks? or Going to the hairdresser for a Berm?

Oops... must get that feckin hearing aid....:pac:

Lol !!

I must casually drop the word Berm into a conversation and see what happens

Am loving Kathleen in this , she's extremely thorough , and confident in her capabilities (and past record with previous cases ) .

TomOnBoard

Mam of 4 wrote: »

I had never heard of the word Berm before this

What about Berm Bracks? or Going to the hairdresser for a Berm?

Oops... must get that feckin hearing aid....:pac:

Mam of 4

bazermc wrote: »

And Berns. Loads of Berm analysis

I had never heard of the word Berm before this

bazermc

retro:electro wrote: »

I think I’ve officially reached blood spatter analysis fatigue

And Berms. Loads of Berm analysis

TomOnBoard

The most troubling thing I found is the faith that ppl at the bottom must place in the Courts for justice and fairness, and soooo much other stuff seems to get in the way, leading to very questionable positioning by Courts on apparently obvious matters.

Mam of 4

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I would say that MAM S2 not so much proves or disproves anything... However, it does posit alternative theories and/or undermine prosecutors' interpretation of the 'evidence' as well as firming up on the messy manipulation by Law Enforcement of the post- crime scenes...

I agree with everything you've said Tom , I just phrased what I said badly

TomOnBoard

Mam of 4 wrote: »

I'm on episode five and finding it interesting .
I love this side of documentaries/shows , where they delve into the evidence side , and either prove/disprove how people say things actually happened .

I would say that MAM S2 not so much proves or disproves anything... However, it does posit alternative theories and/or undermine prosecutors' interpretation of the 'evidence' as well as firming up on the messy manipulation by Law Enforcement of the post- crime scenes...

TomOnBoard

Happy4all wrote: »

Is it basically a rehash of 1 or does it add much new stuff?

It does a much deeper dive into the evidence and also fleshed out alternative theories a bit more but for me it just emphasised my own assessment of the alternatives after S01.. Most is to do with undermining the prosecutions case...

Happy4all

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I binged on it yesterday. Very interesting but not to everyone taste I'd say. More cerebral than s01 Kathleen is some woman....

Is it basically a rehash of 1 or does it add much new stuff?