Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
O'Kelly is one nasty individual. I'm almost finished but find it so difficult to watch at times. When I mention polygraph earlier..I know it wouldn't be admissible but it's killing ME not knowing
.
I'm just not convinced of Avery's innocence. I find myself hoping he's not and justice is done.0 -
Advertisement
-
runningbuddy wrote: »O'Kelly is one nasty individual. I'm almost finished but find it so difficult to watch at times. When I mention polygraph earlier..I know it wouldn't be admissible but it's killing ME not knowing.
I'm just not convinced of Avery's innocence. I find myself hoping he's not and justice is done.
On a slightly unrelated note, I was following the James Holmes trial in the US last year (Batman theatre shooter) as I was living in the US when that shooting took place, so I took a bit of interest. The families of victims in that shooting took issue with the fact that Holmes managed to avoid the death penalty and many were claiming that justice had not been done. The judge presiding over the case made a pretty compelling counter-point which basically stated that it is not in the outcome that you find justice, but in the process. That someone should stand trial, have their case prosecuted and defended and finally be found innocent or guilty by a jury of their peers is really how you know justice has been done, because it takes into account the rights of all involved. If we were to apply that thought to Steven Avery's case, even if he did murder Teresa Hallbach, the manner in which he was convicted would suggest that justice wasn't done.0 -
The producer/directors, Dean Strang and Ken Kratz have been giving many interviews recently. In this interview with the directors an extraordinary claim is made that jurors traded votes and came to an agreement on the murder charge and the "mutilation of a corpse" charge. That (at least one juror it seems) thought a split vote would "send a signal" to the appellate court to overturn the verdict.
Amazing and awful if true.
https://youtu.be/z7Zesmp6eOE
0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Having finished it a few days ago, the way the show was put together made me feel a tad uneasy. I know this is probably heresy for the thousands of people who became engrossed in the documentary over very short periods time, but I'm going to be honest: I found the decision to position it as a 'binge-watch' courtroom thriller detracted from the piece both journalistically and artistically. If the outcome of the trail had been made clear at an earlier stage, I believe the filmmakers would have put the viewers in a stronger position to analyse and engage with the material. Yeah, I say this aware of the fact that it would likely have lacked the cultural crossover appeal in that case, but IMO it would have made for a stronger documentary. I also think the structural decisions sort of downplay the tragedy of Teresa Halbach - somebody was really murdered here, and compared to similarly themed documentaries I feel that's something that's handled somewhat carelessly. And in the 'internet detective' age, I continue to find it unfortunate the almost witch-hunt impact documentaries like this have - although that, to be be fair, is not necessarily a problem with the production itself.
The selective perspective is also something I found problematic. Strangely, I found that Steven remained an enigma - which made me less willing to get on the directors' and lawyer's argument that he was innocent. Don't get me wrong - in terms of portraying the class and prosecution-favouring biases inherent in the US court system, it does a good job, and it's a subject worth constantly exploring (if well covered already in IMO a number of superior productions - but the problem hasn't gone away, and is unlikely to anytime soon). I also believe that there was more than enough reasonable doubt to make the verdicts seem quite outrageous, especially in Brendan's case, assuming definitive evidence wasn't held back in the series. In that sense there was a potential miscarriage of justice here worth documenting. But perhaps ironically the decision to spend so much time with Steven's defence and efforts to humanise him left me on the fence, despite the filmmakers' IMO clear position on said fence. In the end, I didn't feel that I got a good grasp on Avery as an individual, so I didn't fully buy into some of the arguments being presented.
Would agree with many of your criticisms in para 1 - it is on Netflix for entertainment purposes largely since that's what Netflix is for. To see people devoting their time to try and re-investigate the case such as the stuff on Reddit blowing up is a bit sad. Avery's former lawyer has all but said he hasn't a hope. Certainly no hope of a presidential pardon. The directors have argued that it ought to be looked at as a document of the system and this kinda stuff happens in 100s of places all over but again, most people seem adamant about the minutiae of the case. I tried previously to direct the conversation that route but noone bit (and I guess my above post just feeds into the feedback loop
)
Fwiw, they weren't allowed access to Steven Avery for an interview hence there's a bit of a hole there in the narrative. They used telephone interviews nd cut out the questions. I'm not sure what good a more thorough examination of his character would have achieved tbh. It seems like the family weren't much liked in the town andat least some of the jurors had prejudicial views toward him. There his stuff about him there that you can judge him on if you wish - the cat incident, he doesn't wear underwear(!), the threatening letter to his ex, there's intimate conversations with his gf and so on. I can't imagine what more than a decade in prison for a wrongful conviction would do to you at such a young age and he only ad two years of freedom before he was back inside.
In Serial iirc Koenig often passes comment on Adnan, his character, what a person he is etc. The directors of this stayed away from that but for sure presented a narrative from the defense's point of view.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Raptor wrote: »He probably thought he would have been in more trouble for not having his project in. It was heartbreaking.
That was the saddest part of the interview for me, he hadn't a clue
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Zesmp6eOE
Advertisement