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)

Mantis Toboggan

Think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on this seeing as season two arrived on Netflix today.

For me this show brought true crime to the masses and increased my interest in the genre. Thought season 1 was very good if a little biased but it did give good insight into the US criminal justice system.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Her tweeting is really unsettling to me.

https://twitter.com/ZellnerLaw/status/1062683403802370049

That's is a click bait headline. Why is she doing this? These are real people. Disgusting tbh.

Mountainsandh

Deleted User wrote: »

Her tweeting is really unsettling to me.

That's is a click bait headline. Why is she doing this? These are real people. Disgusting tbh.

She wants her client exonerated, and that requires as much publicity as possible.
Quote from Kathleen

"There’s a strong correlation for the cases that tend to get a lot of publicity, maybe not at this level, but get a lot of publicity, do tend to have more favorable outcomes just because of public awareness.”

I bet you Steven Avery is very happy with the level of publicity this is getting. In fact, a while ago she encouraged followers to write him postcards to show him how wide ranging the publicity is.

He wants out, she wants him out. She's doing everything possible to get him out, pro bono, so there is no sinister motive and hopefully you can shake that disgust off.

The local circuit court judge who is a key person to sway has already refused Zellner's call for a review of the evidence. This lady needs to feel the (national and international) pressure for Zellner's effort to come to fruition.

jimwallace197

Does anyone else think the very strong belief that Kathleen Zeigler has in Steven Avery’s innocence is a good indication that he is actually innocent as she stated early on the series she needs to believe herself in the innocence of the people she is trying to get off, she’s also working pro bono & the lie detector dna test seemed to convince her completely of his innocence. By the looks of it, she doesn’t seem to need the work but the exposure for her company & herself is I’m sure not doing her any harm.

Just from seeing her work, she seems to be extremely thorough & dedicated to freeing her client even after the show has ended. It gives me more confidence that Avery is actually innocent

Pelvis

Deleted User wrote: »

That's is a click bait headline. Why is she doing this? These are real people. Disgusting tbh.

He says while watching 20 hours of a documentary on TV. How dare you seek entertainment off the back of the pain and suffering of others.

Ally Dick

I've been watching Making A Murderer season 2. I'm really losing the will to live. It's so dragged out. So much supposition

Kingp35

jimwallace197 wrote: »

she’s also working pro bono & the lie detector dna test seemed to convince her completely of his innocence.

I just want to point out that Brain Fingerprinting (the "lie detector test" in season 2) is a completely unproven technique and not reliable in the slightest.

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

gormdubhgorm

I am only a four episodes into season 1 but it is great stuff.
I kind of don't know who to believe. You couldn't make it up.

The mentally slow Brendan is straight out of a southpark skit:

Brendan: What does 'inconsistent' mean?

Brendan's Mother: Uh...I am not sure hun

gormdubhgorm

Pelvis wrote: »

He says while watching 20 hours of a documentary on TV. How dare you seek entertainment off the back of the pain and suffering of others.

There was actually another snippet of the documentary (I think it was episode three - series 1)
Where the journalist from a TV station says 'murder crime is hot right now, it is what our competitors are doing we have to get in ahead of them'

To be honest it made me feel a bit uneasy I was part of this herd being entertained by obviously simple people who are in serious trouble on one side, while on the other; a family has lost thier daughter/sister etc in horrific circumstances.

Also Avery's auto salvage are not slow to make use of the publicity either:
https://www.facebook.com/Averys-Auto-Salvage-167142699963573/

Mountainsandh

KZ announcement on case this evening 7.30pm twitter. Filing brief Thursday.

[Deleted User]

Finished watching the season two a couple of days ago. KZ is my new hero, the combination of professionalism and modesty and warmth is just something else. Feel also an uncontollable urge to send a postcard to SA. What that lods of bollix all that fake evidence. How amateurish can you actually be like.

Hope the bones in the quarry are TH's. And can't wait for MAM3 soon starring KZ as the Defence. #loveZellnerLaw

And BD will be out too as a bonus, even better. Can't believe how well he's taking all the rejections.

Mantis Toboggan

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-46604005

Former detective Andrew Colburn suing Netflix over documentary

oscarBravo

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-46604005

Former detective Andrew Colburn suing Netflix over documentary

That's going to be interesting: it's possible that Netflix will get access to evidence through the discovery process that Zellner has struggled to get her hands on.

On the broader question of Avery and Dassey's guilt or innocence, I think that's the wrong question. The important question is: were their convictions safe?

It's a troubling aspect of the American criminal justice system that's exposed again and again: there's the presumption of innocence until you're convicted, but once a guilty verdict has been recorded, the system is designed to uphold that verdict at almost any cost.

If jurisprudence dictates that you're innocent until proven guilty, then any undermining of the proof of guilt should automatically reinstate the presumption of innocence. Appeal courts shouldn't be taking the approach that there has to be overwhelming evidence of a wrongful conviction; they should continue to apply the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Scotty #

Came across this interview with the shows creators. I get the impression they don't believe Avery is innocent.

seligehgit

Scotty # wrote: »

Came across this interview with the shows creators. I get the impression they don't believe Avery is innocent.

More so state the onerous burden of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case is not met and the requirement for fair trial is not met.

Would'nt read too much into such a pregnant pause in a very short and possibly edited video of an interview.

Heck they might think he's guilty,they're entitled to their opinion.:)

Boom_Bap

I think that they are trying to stay with the side of law here, which from a filmmakers perspective is the right place to be.
People talk about bias towards the Avery's in the documentary from the makers, so it's good to hear that they want evidence to prove or disprove.

gormdubhgorm

I am as far as part 2 episode 2.
At the moment I feel very sorry for Steven Avery's parents and Brendan Dassey in particular.
There is no way that Brendan did anything at all taking everything about him into account.

But I must admit since the appearance of Kathleen Zellner I feel my attention has been sidetracked.
Since I saw her all I could think of was she looks a bit 'Michael Jackson-ish' facially.
There seems to be major changes in her appearance since the 1990's and it cannot be all age related?

Kathleen in 2016:

Kathleen in 1994:

Michael Jackson:

Now however good at her job the woman is, all I think of is 'Does she moonwalk for craic between court sessions?'

Kathleen Zellner:

Scotty #

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There seems to be major changes in her appearance since the 1990's and it cannot be all age related?

Did I read somewhere about a car accident or something?

Whatever, she has a fantastic face for TV. Lots of character!

gormdubhgorm

Scotty # wrote: »

Did I read somewhere about a car accident or something?

Whatever, she has a fantastic face for TV. Lots of character!

Her methods are exceptional she seems more like a detective then
an attorney. Not afraid to use other methods as well, I assume the twitter usage is inspired by Donald Trump?

Mountainsandh

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Her methods are exceptional she seems more like a detective then
an attorney. Not afraid to use other methods as well, I assume the twitter usage is inspired by Donald Trump?

Hopefully you'll soon forget about her appearance and just focus on what she says and does.

I don't think her Twitter is inspired by Trump or anything. She is highly skilled in reading people, and I think Twitter is another method to get at crucial people for her.

She's trying to push some people to betray their own self, or to crack, and we can't even tell exactly who she's aiming it at, or what she's at, because there is a lot she's not telling us.

I think thanks to her Twitter use, some people like Colborn, Kratz, etc... are getting really restless, and that's a good thing.

Kratz is making appearances on radio shows and spewing out inconsistent and incorrect details about the files. I think she's listening all the while, as this can lead her to weaknesses.

Colborn's lawsuit will probably go no-where, but if it did, it would be a great way to get some info out in the open that they were never pushed to reveal for SA or BD's trials. There is a right to discovery, so Netflix could demand for example that MCSD reveal their overtime sheets for the 4th Nov, so we can know for sure whether Colbourn was off duty, as he claims, or whether he in fact turned up for overtime work, like a lot of his colleagues did.

edit : for those that are not up-to-date otherwise my post above will seem cryptic :

KZ was about to file a long motion on 20/12 to request a retrial/evidential hearing. Two days before that, she revealed she had made contact with an expert who uses a new (but FBI approved) method to test DNA rapidly, and that this guy could use it to test bones found in the quarry. These bones found in the quarry (off SA's property ! Radandt quarry, and importantly, Manitowoc County quarry) were never formally identified as Teresa's. The anthropologist said it was hard to determine if they were animal or human, and Kratz completely dismissed them in his closing statement to the jury, saying he was going to spend just "20 seconds" on them because it couldn't be shown they were human.
So her new motion was requesting access to the bones in order to test them. This has been filed in and we're all waiting for a response.

This has put a stay on the filing of the original motion to ask for evidential hearing/retrial.

Meanwhile, Andy Colborn, on the same day Zellner filed to ask for retest of the bones, and on the last day he legally could, filed a claim against Netflix for defamation during MaM1. His motion (written by solicitor Griesbach previously involved in case) seems to be more a way to officially reinforce culpability of SA and credibility of evidence produced at trial than really an attempt to show that Colborn has been defamed. It reads like something that Kratz put together.
It is likely to be dismissed by a judge, but if it weren't, Zellner has described it as the best Christmas present, as the right to discovery would really help expose all the corruption.

re-edit : I forgot another important layer to all this !
What transpired since people started to "look at the bones" in the quarry, is that it is highly likely that Law Enforcement actually gave away most of the bones Zellner wants to test back to the family. It is simple. There is a list of bones, with tags. LE gave some items back to the Halbachs a few years ago.
2 things : would they give the Halbachs deer or animal bones ???? These bones were supposedly unidentified as Teresa's, so that begs the question of how confident LE were that these bones were in fact Teresa's. (if they're lying and they know bones are Teresa's this introduces a whole new crime scene that jury were not told about, trial is void !)
Second : there are official guidelines on what evidence to keep from a trial. These state that if something is inconclusive and may need to be retested at some stage, it shouldn't be got rid of. LE are in for a very difficult time if they gave away evidence they had a duty to hold on to.

Sorry about wall of text. I've got MaMitis.

Boom_Bap

So the family have bones that may or may not be Thesesa's, and may or may not be human

retro:electro

It kind of annoys me how people are so focused on how Kathleen looks. I’ll admit myself initially I was a bit taken aback, but the more you see and hear from her, how she looks takes a back seat. She’s an exceptional woman who doesn’t need to flick her hair and bat her lashes to get the work done. How she looks becomes more and more irrelevant as the doc moves on. Unlike Kratz who only seems to get uglier, more hideous and sweatier.

Mountainsandh

Boom_Bap wrote: »

So the family have bones that may or may not be Thesesa's, and may or may not be human

Exactly.

And today in an interview, Kratz had the cheek to say that he "failed to see the relevance of re-testing the bones".

If only for the sake of the family, retesting the bones would be relevant !

I wasn't very clear about this in my earlier post, but I need to mention here that there is an actual official document from LE stating the list of tags (bones) handed back to Teresa's family, in 2011 I think (only quoting date from memory here).

And KZ listed the bones she wanted in her motion. I think there were between 6 to 9 tags that matched.

A lot of people are saying that her main intent behind the request was in fact to expose Wisconsin LE officials. This is like a domino labyrinth, and she is trying to nudge the first domino to fall.

gormdubhgorm

retro:electro wrote: »

It kind of annoys me how people are so focused on how Kathleen looks. I’ll admit myself initially I was a bit taken aback,

If it is the results of voluntary plastic surgery it is her own fault. I would have no sympathy in that case. To me it is the curse of the 'well to do' Americans. It is America's third blind spot just after guns and healthcare.
If not I would say that is unfortunate for her. But her unnaturally gleaming white teeth and the rest add to the 'plastic' nature of the whole documentary for me.
To me it is welcome to the plastic 'leader of free world' justice which is only for the rich/infamous and the rich also delude themselves that they look years younger after voluntary mutilation.
I am not saying that Ireland is perfect by any means our blind spot is the 'drink culture'.

greenspurs

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If it is the results of voluntary plastic surgery it is her own fault. I would have no sympathy in that case. To me it is the curse of the 'well to do' Americans. It is America's third blind spot just after guns and healthcare.
If not I would say that is unfortunate for her. But her unnaturally gleaming white teeth and the rest add to the 'plastic' nature of the whole documentary for me.
To me it is welcome to the plastic 'leader of free world' justice which is only for the rich/infamous and the rich also delude themselves that they look years younger after voluntary mutilation.
I am not saying that Ireland is perfect by any means our blind spot is the 'drink culture'.

Very deep, but what has that got to do with the case?

I'm sure the American nation would be soooo disappointed that you feel that way about them .... :rolleyes:

gormdubhgorm

greenspurs wrote: »

Very deep, but what has that got to do with the case?
I'm sure the American nation would be soooo disappointed that you feel that way about them .... :rolleyes:

I just feel that American society does not seem as tolerant as it likes to pretend it is. There seems to be a large divide between the haves and the haves not.
The whole documentary did not sit right with me. There was contrived stuff on both sides of it. It just seemed very artificial on ocassion, and at others almost like a mockuentary.

Especially the phonecalls between Barb and Brendan:

Brendan: Yeah.
Barb: Yeah?

Brendan: Yeah.
Barb: Yeah?

Brendan: Yeah.
Barb: Yeah?

Brendan: Yeah.
Barb: Yeah?

Brendan: Yeah.
Barb: Yeah?

In general the production was being milked for all it was worth with lots of unnecessary repetition of long pieces with dramatic music underscoring it where possible.
The entire series did not feel right as a result.

gormdubhgorm

I finished the whole series.
I thought the most convincing individual on film was that former Corner in the last episode.
Bobby Dassey's Hard Drive CD evidence was the best bit of evidence they have. Then they also have the with-holding of evidence angle.
But that story was deliberately kept until the last episode.The producers could have condensed the second part of the programme a lot and went through it much quicker.
It dragged a lot.

I could not help noticing that the producers showed : two dissenting voices from the 'full en banc Seventh Circuit' and only one majority decision. But it was 4 to 3 in favour of upholding the conviction.

Also there was another thing that annoyed me.
In the first series we heard Kayla Avery (Brendan's then 14 year old first cousin) say that he'd seen Teresa "pinned down" and "body parts on the fire".
But when she took the stand trough the tears she said she got it from TV and made it all up.

There was no analysis as to why she change her story.
Was she coerced by the police? Or was she covering for Brendan or someone else?

gormdubhgorm

Judge Len Kachinsky seems to be in his own trouble at the moment:

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/len-kachinsky-live-trials-current/watch-live-making-a-murderer-attorney-on-trial-for-allegedly-stalking-clerk/

seligehgit

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Judge Len Kachinsky seems to be in his own trouble at the moment:

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/len-kachinsky-live-trials-current/watch-live-making-a-murderer-attorney-on-trial-for-allegedly-stalking-clerk/

An exceptionally dislikeable individual. His legal representation of Brendan if you could call it that was nothing short of disgraceful.

gormdubhgorm

seligehgit wrote: »

An exceptionally dislikeable individual. His legal representation of Brendan if you could call it that was nothing short of disgraceful.

Agreed, there a great smugness about him as well, similar to Kratz as if he is above the 'ordinary folk' as they would say over there.

demanufactured

Katchinsky and kratz are a pair is slimeballs.
Kratz was putting Steven Avery in prison whether he was guilty or not.
Kratz has been proven to be a disguating indibidual himself and all his work should be doscarded imo.