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

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

No, it proves that sometimes juries and judges get things wrong.

Yes...I know.

OJ jury got it wrong.

Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 too..

We all know miscarriages happen...

Each case needs to be assessed in its own merit. Surely you understand this?

walshb

retro:electro wrote: »

Well I wouldn’t expect much else out of you. Proof doesn’t seem to mean much to you does it walshb? Evidence be damned.
The rest of your post is just, whatever.

Proof doesn’t mean much to you, seeing as you won’t accept the jury’s verdict here...

Avery was proved beyond a “reasonable” doubt, not just a doubt, that he murdered that woman..

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Yes...I know.

OJ jury got it wrong.

Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 too..

We all know miscarriages happen...

Each case needs to be assessed in its own merit. Surely you understand this?

So how about you watch season 2 and assess the case after doing so?

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Proof doesn’t mean much to you, seeing as you won’t accept the jury’s verdict here...

Avery was proved beyond a “reasonable” doubt, not just a doubt, that he murdered that woman..

Again, Avery was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped a woman in 1985.

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

How about watching season 2 then and coming back? I was on the fence regarding Steven Averys innocence after series 1 but after finishing the 2nd there is no doubt whatsoever that he is innocent.

I’ll try watch it...

But many many were convinced after a few biased episodes of season 1...

Folks, the show is designed and made and created to try and sway people to believe that the men were framed. It is NOT balanced..it has its own agenda..

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Again, Avery was proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped a woman in 1985.

And again, try to judge each case on its own. Otherwise you look ok stupid trying to conflate..

retro:electro

walshb wrote: »

Proof doesn’t mean much to you, seeing as you won’t accept the jury’s verdict here...

Avery was proved beyond a “reasonable” doubt, not just a doubt, that he murdered that woman..

And the proof that Brendan did it? Leaving out the magistrate judges ruling that his confession was involuntary and unconstitutional. Where’s the proof?

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

And again, try to judge each case on its own. Otherwise you look ok stupid trying to conflate..

I agree and you are basing it solely on the evidence provided in season 1. As I've said, I wasn't sure after watching it but season 2 removed all doubt towards his innocence.

walshb

Btw, if it’s so overwhelmingly clear from season 2 that the men are innocent, why no retrial/acquittal/quash?

Is it because only on the internet it’s so clear? You know, to all the lay people with a broadband connection?

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I agree and you are basing it solely on the evidence provided in season 1.

What? I am not basing my view on the show...I said I watched it, that’s all.

retro:electro

walshb wrote: »

I’ll try watch it...

But many many were convinced after a few biased episodes of season 1...

Folks, the show is designed and made and created to try and sway people to believe that the men were framed. It is NOT balanced..it has its own agenda..

Ah Jaysus we’re here arguing with someone who believes their opinion is final when they haven’t even watched the series we’re talking about.
Maybe watch it before you get all sanctimonious. I’m not spending any more of my Monday debating this with you. You are the weakest link, goodbye

walshb

retro:electro wrote: »

And the proof that Brendan did it? Leaving out the magistrate judges ruling that his confession was involuntary and unconstitutional. Where’s the proof?

Dassey is serving time. He was involved. The jury convicted him..

retro:electro

walshb wrote: »

And again, try to judge each case on its own. Otherwise you look ok stupid trying to conflate..

Maybe try to watch the programme we’re taking about before you judge our perspective. Otherwise you just look stupid.

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Btw, if it’s so overwhelmingly clear from season 2 that the men are innocent, why no retrial/acquittal/quash?

Is it because only on the internet it’s so clear? You know, to all the lay people with a broadband connection?

You know it takes time for all of that to happen? I'm done discussing this as you haven't watched season 2, you have no idea about the evidence put forward about the case in that season and you have no clue what process Zellner is going through.

Commanchie

walshb wrote: »

Dassey is serving time. He was involved. The jury convicted him..

Ok so youre sayig he admitted it himself thats enough for you. A federal judge ruled he was coerced into admitting involvement.

So on your logic hes innocent

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Dassey is serving time. He was involved. The jury convicted him..

Gerry Conlon served time.
He was involved, he admitted he was involved.
The jury convicted him.

This is easy.

horse7

Am I the only one falling asleep when it's on,it seems to go very slow.

Commanchie

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Gerry Conlon served time.
He was involved, he admitted he was involved.
The jury convicted him.

This is easy.

100 percent

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

You know it takes time for all of that to happen? I'm done discussing this as you haven't watched season 2, you have no idea about the evidence put forward about the case in that season and you have no clue what process Zellner is going through.

Grand. Let’s wait..

Maybe by season 5 the “evidence” that they didn’t do it will do the trick, and both men will be free as a bird...

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Grand. Let’s wait..

Maybe by season 5 the “evidence” that they didn’t do it will do the trick, and both men will be free as a bird...

There will be no need for another season after this other than to show the inevitable court proceedings and their release.

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Gerry Conlon served time.
He was involved, he admitted he was involved.
The jury convicted him.

This is easy.

Gerry didn’t commit the crimes, though..he was not involved.

Avery did. Dassey was an accomplice..

Again, read up on 1974. It’s not the same as this crime..

This is easy, you’re right..

Commanchie

walshb wrote: »

Gerry didn’t commit the crimes, though..he was not involved.

Avery did. Dassey was an accomplice..

Again, read up on 1974. It’s not the same as this crime..

This is easy, you’re right..

You make a holy show of yourself. This case was used in Unis for case study on wrong arrest and conviction.

Theyre wrong too?

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Gerry didn’t commit the crimes, though..he was not involved.

Avery did. Dassey was an accomplice..

Again, read up on 1974. It’s not the same as this crime..

This is easy, you’re right..

Dassey was convicted based SOLELY on his confession. Zero evidence.

Same as Gerry Conlon.

walshb

Please tell me you are not comparing the admittance by Gerry as being the same as Dassey’s admittance? You do realize what Gerry went through back in the 70s before breaking?

Mountainsandh

walshb wrote: »

I’ll try watch it...

But many many were convinced after a few biased episodes of season 1...

Folks, the show is designed and made and created to try and sway people to believe that the men were framed. It is NOT balanced..it has its own agenda..

But walshb, Season 2 has a lot more science based evidence.

If you trust in science to provide evidence, then season 2 will provide enough to sway your mind.

I'll reiterate on the DNA for example.

Take an item that is bound to be handled by several people, like a key, or a hood latch.

You would expect to find DNA on these, right ?
You would probably expect to find DNA from whoever touched these items ?
So if 3 people handled a key, you would expect to find 3 types of DNA on it, maybe mixed up, maybe not.

You would expect to find a certain amount of DNA. Like, probably less DNA than what you'd get on a toothbrush, but more DNA than what you'd find on a sheet of paper someone held up for a minute.

The key found in SA's property had only one type of DNA : Steven's.
It did not have Teresa's DNA.

The amount and quality of the DNA was similar to what you'd find on a tooth brush.
To demonstrate how much DNA Steven might have deposited on the key, Kathleen Zellner got Steven to hold a similar key for 12 minutes, then the key was forensically examined. The amount of DNA left on it from the experiment was very slight, whereas the evidence key was loaded with it.

It was not established what kind of DNA landed on the key, because a test to determine whether it was blood DNA or not was refused.

For the hood latch, KZ ran an experiment again, where lots of people handled the latch, and DNA amounts were established. Again, they were less than what was proposed as evidence, and evidence showed one single type of DNA there : Steven's. You'd think there'd be something from Teresa's, or maybe her Dad's, or her mechanic. No.

These are not things Kathleen Zellner can make up. These are just experiments, witnessed by experts in those fields, analyzed by experts or labs that do these analyses, to try and reproduce what the prosecution put forward as evidence.
Reproducing something that you allege happened is really a basic way to show that your evidence is solid.
None of what the prosecution put forward as evidence could be reproduced with the scientific experts presents.

Essien

The bit I can't wrap my head around is how/why, if he wasn't involved in the murder, did the ex become involved in the alleged cover up?

I believe there was police interference designed to convict Steve, but I just don't get why a civilian would become involved. How does that conversation even begin without someone risking their career?

RocketRaccoon

walshb wrote: »

Please tell me you are not comparing the admittance by Gerry as being the same as Dassey’s admittance? You do realize what Gerry went through back in the 70s before breaking?

He admitted to be involved. That's what I'm basing it on.
Its very simple to coerce a confession out of a boy with an iq of about 80.

walshb

Dassey admitted to and provided accurate details surrounding events..

Nothing like what happened Gerry Conlon. Gerry was brutalized.

Uncharted

walshb wrote: »

Yes. Watched season 1.....

And was amazed at how OTT biased and selective it was...

Decided to reason it out objectively and without bias...anyone who thinks that these men are innocent based off a one sided show.....silly beyond silly!

I'd highly recommend watching part 2.
I was on the fence, 70/30 leaning towards Avery's innocence.

After watching part 2,I'm 98%sure of their innocence.

It's intriguing and also terrifying how the system works.

Fabulous entertainment for the layman though.

walshb

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

He admitted to be involved. That's what I'm basing it on.
Its very simple to coerce a confession out of a boy with an iq of about 80.

Another defense red herring. Making out that he was so so stupid. Maybe he was, but he still admitted and provided details that were corroborated. Details due to him being involved, nothing else.. should we discount this because “he’s not the brightest spark?”