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

Pelvis

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I haven’t watched the second season but from the replies I have seen from people who think Avery is innocent she is blaming everyone under the sun and only doing it because of how big the documentary is. I expect her to gradually disassociate herself from the case once the hype dies down.

Tbh, if you haven't watched the second season then you haven't a clue. KZL comes across very well and absolutely picks apart the prosecution, while putting forward plausible alternative theories, with a strong focus on forensic science.

Tipsy McSwagger

Pelvis wrote: »

Tbh, if you haven't watched the second season then you haven't a clue. KZL comes across very well and absolutely picks apart the prosecution, while putting forward plausible alternative theories, with a strong focus on forensic science.

Colonel Mustard in the Parlour with a Candlestick?

sReq | uTeK

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Colonel Mustard in the Parlour with a Candlestick?

Okay, so you haven’t watched the 2nd series and thus come to the conclusion that she will eventually grow tired and move on -( something she’s never done before) others who have watched it tell you she’s quite good and shows holes in the case using forensic science and then your rebuttal is to what? oh yes, one of those

Pelvis

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Is Johnnie Cochrane coming back from the dead? Because that’s the only chance he’s got.

She has exonerated 19 men that were wrongfully convicted.

Not too shabby really.

Commanchie

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

I haven’t watched the second season but from the replies I have seen from people who think Avery is innocent she is blaming everyone under the sun and only doing it because of how big the documentary is. I expect her to gradually disassociate herself from the case once the hype dies down.

Hardly steven wrote to her for 4 years while MAM1 was out and being made she wouldnt get involved till after it surely if she wanted hype shed jumped on it

Mountainsandh

If she gets a share of compensation money, there is a lot in it for her, and well deserved too.

She's not writing a book or making a documentary though, she's putting a legal case for a retrial or vacating of the judges' decisions.

She won previously, so her methods are tried and tested, and her arguments have previously been sanctioned by judges and the justice system as reliable.

So what we see in the documentary is really not an example of a defense faffing about for the sake of a documentary, it's an insight on how she does her job.

If you were looking at a surgeon who had saved 19 patients' lives previously, you might be curious, but you wouldn't be questioning their methods.

walshb

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

Walshb you seem to think the cops or judges and juries never get it wrong yet Avery served 18 years previously on a wrongful conviction.

Well aware that juries can get it wrong...

In this case they absolutely did not...

walshb

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Ahhhh, you’re over here these days and into over at the boxing.....

Same old rhetoric,

What on earth has boxing got to do with this?

sReq | uTeK

walshb wrote: »

What on earth has boxing got to do with this?

Look forward to you answering the rest of my queries, doubt you will though

Mountainsandh

I'm still browsing around on this, as you do on a bank holiday morning...

What I'm looking at right now is the reputation of Brad Schimel, Wisconsin Attorney General, the guy who put Brendan Dassey in and facilitated Ken Kratz in every move he made.

This guy (Schimel) plays in a band called The Alibis with Ken Kratz.
When KK was in trouble over sexting, he got people to look the other way.
He's not liked at all by the locals judging by this reddit thread :
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/9q8yyg/wisconsin_attorney_general_brad_schimel_is/

There are elections coming up 6th November, and these locals above are pondering whether the other guy, against Schimel, will be any use to Steven Avery in having the case retrialed.

Turns out the other guy is unlikely to help either, as he is the son of a woman implicated in locking up Avery for a crime he didn't commit in 1985.

Anyway, these politics confuse and bore me, but what I take from this are the comments that this Wisconsin justice crowds are as corrupt as we complain some of our politicians are, and that this is a valid element to consider when looking at SA's and BD's cases.

Kathleen Zellner is on about it in this tweet : https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1055399947070267392

edit : it's a shame the links all come up with a GDPR excuse for not letting me in, someone with a vpn might tell us what they say.

Little Less Conversation

The prosecution claims that S Avery cleaned up the murder scene, burned the body to get rid of evidence. But having a car crusher, why did he not finish the job and crush Teresa's car? Instead he hid the car under branches and singles it out instead of hiding it in the middle of hundreds and hundreds of cars. None of it makes sense. I hope justice comes for these two.

Mountainsandh

Little Less Conversation wrote: »

The prosecution claims that S Avery cleaned up the murder scene, burned the body to get rid of evidence. But having a car crusher, why did he not finish the job and crush Teresa's car? Instead he hid the car under branches and singles it out instead of hiding it in the middle of hundreds and hundreds of cars. None of it makes sense. I hope justice comes for these two.

Avery himself says that in a throw away remark with local interviewers. "If I done anythin' I could have crushed the car, hide the evidence" or something to that effect.
Also mentioned he could have run. He had warning after all, was in the North in his brother's house.

Commanchie

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm still browsing around on this, as you do on a bank holiday morning...

What I'm looking at right now is the reputation of Brad Schimel, Wisconsin Attorney General, the guy who put Brendan Dassey in and facilitated Ken Kratz in every move he made.

This guy (Schimel) plays in a band called The Alibis with Ken Kratz.
When KK was in trouble over sexting, he got people to look the other way.
He's not liked at all by the locals judging by this reddit thread :
https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockManitowoc/comments/9q8yyg/wisconsin_attorney_general_brad_schimel_is/

There are elections coming up 6th November, and these locals above are pondering whether the other guy, against Schimel, will be any use to Steven Avery in having the case retrialed.

Turns out the other guy is unlikely to help either, as he is the son of a woman implicated in locking up Avery for a crime he didn't commit in 1985.

Anyway, these politics confuse and bore me, but what I take from this are the comments that this Wisconsin justice crowds are as corrupt as we complain some of our politicians are, and that this is a valid element to consider when looking at SA's and BD's cases.

Kathleen Zellner is on about it in this tweet : https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1055399947070267392

edit : it's a shame the links all come up with a GDPR excuse for not letting me in, someone with a vpn might tell us what they say.

At the current lay of their cases, the AG has no say they need to secure a right in a federal court before Schimel can oppose it. I believe Brendan will be free soon it will take a little bit of playing to see SA free yet.

Mountainsandh

Commanchie wrote: »

At the current lay of their cases, the AG has no say they need to secure a right in a federal court before Schimel can oppose it. I believe Brendan will be free soon it will take a little bit of playing to see SA free yet.

I'll take your word for it, all this legal stuff and what steps need-to-be-taken-when I find very confusing.

I know I've seen a Zellner tweet saying SA is only at the start of his exoneration, and that she has another thing to log in for that in December 2020. Something like the files she lodged in before that we saw in MAM2 ?

Commanchie

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'll take your word for it, all this legal stuff and what steps need-to-be-taken-when I find very confusing.

I know I've seen a Zellner tweet saying SA is only at the start of his exoneration, and that she has another thing to log in for that in December 2020. Something like the files she lodged in before that we saw in MAM2 ?

Yes so she has had testing filed, she now needs the judges to rule that it is relevant to the case , Giving new evidence would be one of the steps she needs to take to ensure a retrial. She also needs to ensure motive and plausible timeline is achieved for a Denny. If all 3 are met and agreed by court SA will get a retrial.

Uriel.

Commanchie wrote: »

At the current lay of their cases, the AG has no say they need to secure a right in a federal court before Schimel can oppose it. I believe Brendan will be free soon it will take a little bit of playing to see SA free yet.

How can Brendan be free?
It looks to me that his only hope now is through Steven.
Brendan has played all of his immediate major cards. Won some of them but the SC was the last chance and he lost.

Commanchie

Uriel. wrote: »

How can Brendan be free?
It looks to me that his only hope now is through Steven.
Brendan has played all of his immediate major cards. Won some of them but the SC was the last chance and he lost.

Brendan will be exonerated within the next 5 years if not Ill eat my hat. It has been accepted by a federal court then over ruled. The acceptance by that court gives him his right to appeal the last decision. He hasnt used his appeal, the appeal against federal court was from state. He has one final roll of the dice I think it will be successful.

SteM

Just finished watching S2 this morning. Pretty sure of one thing - that both Avery and Dassey will see out their full sentences.

Commanchie

The 4- 3 in the seventh circuit will not hold up after the new evidence of tampering is laid out

Commanchie

SteM wrote: »

Just finished watching S2 this morning. Pretty sure of one thing - that both Avery and Dassey will see out their full sentences.

Why?

SteM

Commanchie wrote: »

Why?

Someone (I think one of the lawyers) said it in the show. The higher they go into the appeals process the less chance there is of the convictions being overturned. The fact that they couldn't get get 4 out of the 7 judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to agree that Dassey's confession was coerced speaks volumes to me.

walshb

Heat_Wave wrote: »

What are people's opinion on Brendan's cousin Kayla? Why did she tell police officers that Brendan told her that he did it, and spoke to her about the bones in the fire? Then turn around and claim she made it up.

It's all very weird.

Also apparently Steven bought the leg restraints and rope etc. 3 weeks previous to Teresa's death. Why wasn't this mentioned in episode 1 to 9?

Because that would be against the spirit of this ridiculously biased show...

Commanchie

SteM wrote: »

Someone (I think one of the lawyers) said it in the show. The higher they go into the appeals process the less chance there is of the convictions being overturned. The fact that they couldn't get get 4 out of the 7 judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to agree that Dassey's confession was coerced speaks volumes to me.

Yes but now he is schedueled back in for July next year and it will be a different 7 judges.

SteM

Commanchie wrote: »

Yes but now he is schedueled back in for July next year and it will be a different 7 judges.

7 judges that will be very mindful of how their predecessors ruled and will not want to damage their reputation. Maybe I'll be wrong, we'll see.

Commanchie

SteM wrote: »

7 judges that will be very mindful of how their predecessors ruled and will not want to damage their reputation. Maybe I'll be wrong, we'll see.

The courts are split over this case. Reputation is already destroyed.

Little Less Conversation

The last episode was shocking. They wouldn't let the coroner do her job to inspect the bones. She was told to stay out of it and it had nothing to do with her. It was her job and has to inspect every dead body to determine the cause of death. She resigned after because she didn't feel safe in her job.

walshb

The judge ruled on the coroner’s involvement after hearing both sides..

I guess the judge too is in on the frame...?

Either way, it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference in the assertion that Avery is the killer..

retro:electro

walshb wrote: »

Because that would be against the spirit of this ridiculously biased show...

You’re acting like most of us here haven’t done a jot of research about this show outside of being spoon fed a documentary. There’s a way to make a point where you don’t come across like a total gobshlte you know.

I’ve already said that my personal opinion leads me to believe that Steven was involved. But my personal opinion matters not when I’m being presented with a version of events that don’t fit and evidence that is suspicious at best.
The way the prosecution state how the murder happened is what leads me to believe he should be acquitted. It simply didn’t happen that way.
Not only that, but it is a matter of fact that Brendan’s confession was coerced and unconstitutional.
If you cannot see that there are serious errors, breaches and professional misconduct here then I suggest it is you who needs to open your eyes and have a second look at what you’re being told.
After all of that and you still believe these two deserve to be in jail well then I just hope you never end up on a jury.

Mam of 4

walshb wrote: »

The judge ruled on the coroner’s involvement after hearing both sides..

I guess the judge too is in on the frame...?

Either way, it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference in the assertion that Avery is the killer..

But the Coroner wasn't allowed any involvement , to do the job she's paid to do ? Why not ?

Could you imagine if someone died here and the authorities said no , we don't need the State Pathologist/Coroner to determine the cause of death as we know what happened ?

There would be a bleeding uproar and rightly so .

Too many loose ends , too many unanswered questions and apparent collusions to not have reasonable doubt in the convictions imo .

walshb

That’s just it...

I see no real issue with anyone querying how the whole affair went down.

The show wants to exonerate the men. It is not investigative journalism..

Could the system be fixed or changed? Yes. These men were tried and found guilty, and no new trial has been awarded. It’s never going to be a perfect system to suit everyone..

There has been a ridiculous hoopla since the show screaming for “innocent” men to be released based off this biased show.

They have the right men. The jurors heard both sides and the jurors came to the correct decision. The defense and the film makers want exoneration based off red herrings and technicalities and innuendo and hearsay..