Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

retro:electro wrote: »

So are we to believe that the prosecution held Bobby’s internet history against him in order for him to be a key witness for them?
It does seem more than strange that they labelled the computer as Brendan’s so the defence would have no interest in analaysing it.
Every time I think what Kathleen is stating is totally farfetched I have to remember this are the same people who force fed a fabricated story to a vulnerable and mentally stunted teenager in order to secure a conviction.
Anything is possible really.

The dates and times when internet was accessed brendan was in school

I think it was a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound" with whoever started fiddling with and planting evidence.

They're acting all offended (the police force/justice) that they should be suspected of corruption, but corruption is a thing, and I don't see why the American police force or justice system should be exempt of any suspicion.

To be honest as I was watching it, I actually thought even the judge in the first season was suspiciously dismissive of a few important points the defense presented.

I find it hard to let it go. It's too unfinished.
I watched a few Youtube videos of Kratz and Fassbender now, just to see if I could "land back to earth" and realize that all this talk of corruption was silly.
It didn't happen, and they didn't convince me. I still think they knew perfectly well that they were incriminating a guy who hadn't done it.

edit : as an example, I think it was Fassbender who in a recent interview was saying : "Yeah, well, Brendan gave us loads of info that he couldn't have known about, beyond the bits we let out. See, in these minutes he says Steve shot Teresa with his .22. We'd never told him that, how would he know ?"

Ehhh... Steve is his uncle, he's always shooting things around the yard with his .22, that's his go-to gun and I've no doubt the teenage nephew of a hunting family knows well what the uncle and brothers hunt with.


Kratz is just still rotten no matter how you try to look at him.

Mr M is watching Season 2, I can't stay in the room with him, I want to explain everything to him as something is about to come up. I turn into a right spoiler machine

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Yes and another good point Zellner brought up about him was that he had Theresas daily planner which was odd because she showed that it really should have been in the car as she had took bookings that day and she never made it home.

And he accessed her phone records by "guessing" her password, even before anyone knew she had died.

He was also the one to find and collect her intimate possessions to hand over to police (vibrator, underwear...).

I thought the stuff about the coroner was interesting.
I'd fully accept the County telling employees and offices to stay out of the case given the potential for bias becuse of the civil case. But surely that would most apply to the police officers putting together the case. Their argument is undone the moment the county police lead the investigation.

Truely heartbreaking for the family. I felt so so sorry for Steve’s parents. And poor Brendan when he put on his own underwear to come home. I don’t know what to make of Brendan’s mother - I’d like to think she is genuine but does she know something that we don’t know (Bobby/husband)

Is this the end of the road for Brendsns case? They didn’t really explain it at the end

Having watched season 2, I'm still leaning towards thinking that Steven and Brendan are innocent. It just doesn't make sense to me that a man who had just served 18 years of a wrongful conviction and was in for a huge windfall would go out and kill a woman. Plus, the evidence doesn't really support the theory put forward by the prosecution. I definitely think that if the jury in the original case had heard all the evidence like we have now, they wouldn't have been able to convict Steven, because it doesn't prove conclusively that he did it. The only reason he went down for it was because the prosecution covered up evidence, and planted evidence and the defence team were pretty useless when it came to experts to rebut what the prosecution presented.

I think it was possibly Brendan and his brother Bobby.

For those interested, and who have finished Season 2 (spoilers alert), there are extracts from KZellner's post-conviction petition on this page. It just makes things clearer, and there are one or two things that weren't in Season 2 mentioned in it.
Scroll down a bit.
http://georgezipperer.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-state-of-wisconsin-acted-with.html

bazermc wrote: »

I’ve learnt loads of new words and phrases in the Season 2 that I plan to use in everyday work, even though I’m an accountant;

Brady Violation
Denny suspect
En Banc Review
Hustle shoot.
Berm

Anybody got others I missed?

Habeas corpus.

Commanchie wrote: »

Youve only heard of a HC in this?

No, I was simply answering the previous posters question.

Jane98 wrote: »

I've watched both seasons. After the first I was pretty convinced they were both innocent but I had a tiny doubt.
After the second I am fully convinced of their innocence. I'm wondering will there be any media backlash in the coming weeks, also I wonder will any of the original jurors come out publicly and give their opinion, ie whether they would still convict or perhaps change their mind in light of the new evidence.

Jurors are bound by law in the US to not discuss a case after sitting on it.

Akrasia wrote: »

After watching both series. What evidence is there to actually link Stephen to the crime that isn't seriously tainted?

Statements are the damning and the bones althougb both are very weak in a legal aspect.