Making A Murderer [Netflix - Documentary Series]

upinthesky

All i can say is wow, i actually had to google was making a murder real after watching it.

Anachrony

runningbuddy wrote: »

I find myself screaming "polygraph them"!!

If polygraphs actually worked reliably, then that would make trials just a formality. Unfortunately they don't.

But there are a hundred other things they could have done to investigate properly, if they weren't so negligent.

Anachrony

Anachrony wrote: »

If polygraphs actually worked reliably, then that would make trials just a formality. Unfortunately they don't.

But there are a hundred other things they could have done to investigate properly, if they weren't so negligent.

Wasn't Brendan polygraphed at some stage? I remember reading the full transcript when Michael O Kelly was interviewing him and he was showing Brendan the results saying "see that red line, that shows deception which means you're lying" or something to that affect.

Joeface

yeah he did but the polygraph was inconclusive , O Kelly only used it when he laid you all the photo's in front of him and of course that Blue rrrr ...sorry it just gets me every time , Blue ribbon.

It was never admissible cause it didn't prove or disprove anything

also this is the document Brendan was asked to sign by O'Kelly

just in case any parent or teacher wants a copy

http://gazettereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/form.png

The Nal

Elmo wrote: »

Having a gun when you shouldn't isn't much of a crime in the US
I think running her off the road was part of that crime and he served time for it
He was in prison and in a very bad place, considering he was convicted for a major crime he did not commit
Was he imprisoned or arrested for sexual assault against family members?

Even if his children didn't want him out of prison, that's not a crime. I doubt they know their father considering he didn't see them that much when released.
Clearly not right.
Drawing torture chambers and actually building chambers are two very different things.

I really suggest people watch The Jinx and come back to this series with that series in mind.

Allegedly Robert Durst is a nice respectable man, from a nice respectable home, only ever killed someone in self defense, was a good husband, a good son, a good son-in-law etc etc

A lot of the above are not crimes no, but do cast a (further) shadow of doubt over his character. The black and white nature of online society is being shown up with this. No grey area whatsoever. People seem to think hes innocent and some sort of angel purely by whats been presented to them in a TV show.

The Jinx is fantastic. A far superior documentary both in subject matter and as entertainment. Making a Murderer goes on a bit! Gets a bit boring after 5 or 6 episodes when the bias becomes very obvious.

Joeface

Joeface wrote: »

yeah he did but the polygraph was inconclusive , O Kelly only used it when he laid you all the photo's in front of him and of course that Blue rrrr ...sorry it just gets me every time , Blue ribbon.

It was never admissible cause it didn't prove or disprove anything

also this is the document Brendan was asked to sign by O'Kelly

just in case any parent or teacher wants a copy

http://gazettereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/form.png

Such a horrible person that O Kelly guy, did you read the full transcript of that interview? He tries to make Brendan take the ribbon with him as he is leaving the room once the interview is over.

johnny_ultimate

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.

While series 1 of Serial wasn't perfect, I think it's an interesting comparison with this. Sarah Koenig I felt managed to explore a case where there was very possibly a wrongful conviction. The difference is I felt that presented the case in a more balanced, even-handed way, where all parties were given sufficient space to make their cases. Listeners were left with questions that were purposely difficult to answer, with no definitive 'correct' interpretation. Despite the lack of the filmmakers' own voices here, it strangely feels like a more explicitly authored piece of work - and while some of the footage and evidence presented here is compelling and at times shocking, the 'whole' doesn't feel quite as comprehensively presented as its ten-hour running time would suggest.

Joeface

Good write up ,johnny

As I have watched back some of the episodes just to clarify some stuff , I don't believe the bias is intentional.
I think Avery's defense team are extremely good at what they do. And with how they were recommended to him , 2 lawyers from different companies working together (There is a Buddy movie here I swear ). They are a serious force .

It may have influenced the prosecution decision on having that press conference detailing Brendan's account.
It is hard to dismiss that information broadcast in the many it was with the child safety warning before hand when a counter argument is been presented to you as a juror in court.(I never get that thing where a judge tells you to disregard that comment or statement , only makes me think more about it )

Those that bias you against the result do it with their personality and how they act . len , Kelly , Colburn , Fassbender , Kratz . Come across as over sure and kinda self righteous . And the more you view them it didn't need fancy editing to get that. For the most part I didn't mind Ken Kratz felt he was prosecuting with the evidence he had been give to use . Some good but some easy to pick a part. He just becomes more despicable as the case goes on cause the evidence is so disputed. I am sure he was frustrated with Police and their methods but ya gotta work with whats in front of you.

like said Essay's will be wrote on this subject.

J Mysterio

Son0vagun wrote: »

I'm very suspicious about her Ex and house mate. They "guessed" her password to print off her phone history! They think it was one of her sisters birth dates! That's some guessing! How many chances did her mobile provider give them to guess? 3-5? So to guess her password that quickly is suspicious. I reckon they had her phone, and that allowed them to change her password, and hence check her phone history. Did they fear the phone history? Did they delete her messages? Who knows!

Also on the morning of the search of Averys yard, the ex or roommate had only one camara, and they gave it to the lady who discovered the car! He also told her where to go, and she discovered the car pretty quickly.

All suspicious in my opinion.

Yes. The guy had serious alarm bells ringing.

PressRun

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

While series 1 of Serial wasn't perfect, I think it's an interesting comparison with this. Sarah Koenig I felt managed to explore a case where there was very possibly a wrongful conviction. The difference is I felt that presented the case in a more balanced, even-handed way, where all parties were given sufficient space to make their cases. Listeners were left with questions that were purposely difficult to answer, with no definitive 'correct' interpretation. Despite the lack of the filmmakers' own voices here, it strangely feels like a more explicitly authored piece of work - and while some of the footage and evidence presented here is compelling and at times shocking, the 'whole' doesn't feel quite as comprehensively presented as its ten-hour running time would suggest.

I definitely think the documentary was better than Serial. I think it touched on more far-reaching issues than just a murder mystery (the class system in the US for a start), which made it more compelling to me than Serial. I also think that Serial was definitely making a case for Adnan Syed's innocence (in fact, I know very few people who weren't immediately on the "Free Adnan" bandwagon after that podcast), and the murder of Hae was as much in the background as Teresa Hallbach in this documentary. The victims are often forgotten in true crime documentaries or books, or their lives and deaths are sensationalized (lest we forget how Truman Capote turned the murders of an entire family into a fictionalized drama, and I would imagine the filmmakers here took a few leaves out of his book). That's one of the hazards of the genre and it's been happening since the advent of true crime. It would seem to me to be quite difficult to tell a story about a mysterious murder without it coming off as stranger than fiction, because it often is! True crime, by its very nature, is quite sensational and it's a profitable genre, and the dramatization of real murders is hardly new. Interest in this sort of material or the notion of the amateur detective didn't just emerge in the age of the internet, it's just become easier for people to dig and find more information these days, as well as bridging the gaps between the audience and the individuals at the centre of the story (whether that's for better or for worse is debatable).

I also don't think there's any such thing as total objectivity in these sort of documentaries. There's always some sort of narrative slant or agenda at play. That's not to say that the point the filmmakers are trying to get at isn't correct though, or that there isn't considerable artistic merit in how true crime stories are told. For all the debate around whether Captoe's novel is sensationalist or whether he sympathizes more with the murderers than the murdered, it's still widely regarded as a great piece of work.

I think it's worth mentioning too that the filmmakers said that the prosecution team were asked to take part and declined. They're now complaining that they weren't given a chance to offer their side and that the documentary didn't show all the evidence that supposedly prove Steven Avery's guilt. Of course, they're yet to actually produce any of this evidence.

Elmo

The Nal wrote: »

A lot of the above are not crimes no, but do cast a (further) shadow of doubt over his character. The black and white nature of online society is being shown up with this. No grey area whatsoever. People seem to think hes innocent and some sort of angel purely by whats been presented to them in a TV show.

The Jinx is fantastic. A far superior documentary both in subject matter and as entertainment. Making a Murderer goes on a bit! Gets a bit boring after 5 or 6 episodes when the bias becomes very obvious.

My point really was anything Avery did in the past goes to character yet if you look a Robert Durst's past it makes out to be a normal rich man.

IMO Making the Murder drags at its mid point, and picks up again.

The Nal

Elmo wrote: »

My point really was anything Avery did in the past goes to character yet if you look a Robert Durst's past it makes out to be a normal rich man.

Dunno about that! Hes clearly as mad as a bicycle from the first episode. Rich yes, but a wild man.

Elmo wrote: »

IMO Making the Murder drags at its mid point, and picks up again.

Agree with that yeah.

cathalj

Anachrony wrote:

If polygraphs actually worked reliably, then that would make trials just a formality. Unfortunately they don't.

What ?????? .... You mean Jeremy Kyle can't conclusively tell me who's sleeping with who's friends granny ??!!

irishguy1983

Am I the only one who found the series incredibly long winded and boring??! Have 2 episodes left and I can't wait to wrap it up.

I can't see what the big deal is really - I am not exactly convinced he is innocent.

jcsoulinger

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Am I the only one who found the series incredibly long winded and boring??! Have 2 episodes left and I can't wait to wrap it up.

I can't see what the big deal is really - I am not exactly convinced he is innocent.

Are you convinced he got a fair trial?

Elmo

irishguy1983 wrote: »

Am I the only one who found the series incredibly long winded and boring??! Have 2 episodes left and I can't wait to wrap it up.

I can't see what the big deal is really - I am not exactly convinced he is innocent.

First 2 episodes deal largely with his wrongful conviction. I agree it drags at points.

What I found about the series was that it did lead you down the idea that he is guilty on several occasions and then it suggests he's innocent before being unsure again.

For this reason I am still on the fence. I think the prosecution and law enforcement were wrong in their handling of the case, I even go as far to say that they should be investigated.

It is also for this reason that I don't believe that the Prosecution aren't given a fair hearing in the documentary.

Documentaries aren't necessarily balanced they aren't reporting the news. Even though the filmmakers are clearly on Avery's side, I believe that they gave the prosecution a fair hearing.

Also why do you think he is guilty? Is it just the look of him, his family or the type of guy he is?

irishguy1983

jcsoulinger wrote: »

Are you convinced he got a fair trial?

I don't think he did to be honest....

I just think this has been somewhat overblown and I found the series very long winded - however it appears I am very much in the minority....

The use of the 16 year was the thing that stood out for me.

irishguy1983

Elmo wrote: »

First 2 episodes deal largely with his wrongful conviction. I agree it drags at points.

What I found about the series was that it did lead you down the idea that he is guilty on several occasions and then it suggests he's innocent before being unsure again.

For this reason I am still on the fence. I think the prosecution and law enforcement were wrong in their handling of the case, I even go as far to say that they should be investigated.

It is also for this reason that I don't believe that the Prosecution aren't given a fair hearing in the documentary.

Documentaries aren't necessarily balanced they aren't reporting the news. Even though the filmmakers are clearly on Avery's side, I believe that they gave the prosecution a fair hearing.

Also why do you think he is guilty? Is it just the look of him, his family or the type of guy he is?

I don't think he is guilty - if I was a betting man I would say he innocent - I just wouldn't put my mortgage on it.

It would have been better if they could find another potential murderer but I believe they were seriously prohibited there.

I suppose I just wasn't as blown away as everyone else was really!

PressRun

irishguy1983 wrote: »

It would have been better if they could find another potential murderer but I believe they were seriously prohibited there.

To be honest, it doesn't look as thought they even bothered investigating anyone else in order to find another potential murderer. They didn't even ask her ex-boyfriend for an alibi.

youtube!

Just finished it, utterly compelling from start to end, a lot of the characters boiled my blood but none more so that that bastard O'Kelly and his interview with the poor sod Dassey. I wanted to smash up my TV when he was questioned about the whole interview set-up and he started to cry (twice ) about the Blue Ribbon, what a ****ing weirdo. Total creep.

runningbuddy

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.

PressRun

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.

Ageyev

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Zesmp6eOE

Ageyev

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.

The Raptor

PowerToWait wrote: »

He couldn't dispose of the huge clue. Hadn't the intelligence or cunning.

Yet somehow managed to eliminate ALL traces of the victim's DNA and blood, bone, hair etc from his trailer and the garage. But forgot the key.

Also left the receipt and auto trader book on his desk for all the world to see, which the prosecution made everyone believe was proof that she was in his trailer. I dont think he was hiding anything and didnt indicate she was inside. What was he meant to do, leave it on his doorstep.

Destroyed all dna, but leave the receipt and autotrader book in view as well, that could have went into the fire that Halloween night. But then while that receipt and autotrader book was on his desk, he hid the key?

The whole thing never added up. There were questions in every episode.

Checkmate19

One thing for me that really doesn't make sense.

They said the kid confessed to Avery and him killing her in the bedroom and burning her outside. However Avery was conficted on shooting her in the garage. It can't be both.

Ageyev

Checkmate19 wrote: »

One thing for me that really doesn't make sense.

They said the kid confessed to Avery and him killing her in the bedroom and burning her outside. However Avery was conficted on shooting her in the garage. It can't be both.

Dean Strang has addressed this in various interviews he gave in the past week. Some jurisdictions allow the prosecution to argue incompatible theories of the one crime in separate prosecutions.

Checkmate19

Yes i know this but it doesn't make sense. It shows serious flaws in the case against them.

Checkmate19

Think i'm going to have to watch this again soon. What really struck me was Dassey lawyer at the start. He was a pure and utter slime ball. I think if he behaved like he did here or in england he would be struck off. The smiling to the media after he was shafting the poor kid was sickening. I really hope his practice suffers and he personally suffers due to this. Allowing police to interview the kid without him their was shocking. The kid would have been better off at the start having no lawyer than having that piece of filth.

Phoebas

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Think i'm going to have to watch this again soon. What really struck me was Dassey lawyer at the start. He was a pure and utter slime ball. I think if he behaved like he did here or in england he would be struck off. The smiling to the media after he was shafting the poor kid was sickening. I really hope his practice suffers and he personally suffers due to this. Allowing police to interview the kid without him their was shocking. The kid would have been better off at the start having no lawyer than having that piece of filth.

It looks like his law firm have already moved against him.

Here it is - Sisson Law.
http://sissonlaw.com/


Up to a couple of months ago it was Sisson and Kachinsky.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151215030702/http://sissonlaw.com/

Internet Ham

Checkmate19 wrote: »

Think i'm going to have to watch this again soon. What really struck me was Dassey lawyer at the start. He was a pure and utter slime ball. I think if he behaved like he did here or in england he would be struck off. The smiling to the media after he was shafting the poor kid was sickening. I really hope his practice suffers and he personally suffers due to this. Allowing police to interview the kid without him their was shocking. The kid would have been better off at the start having no lawyer than having that piece of filth.

He reminded me of William H. Macy from Fargo so much. I found myself struggling with the fact that people like him are out there, taking up oxygen.

Phoebas

upinthesky wrote: »

All i can say is wow, i actually had to google was making a murder real after watching it.

I had the same feeling about half way through.
It all seemed so far fetched that I wondered if it was a mockumentary and the laugh was on any audience who thought that any of this could actually be real.

Sunflower 27

Internet Ham wrote: »

He reminded me of William H. Macy from Fargo so much. I found myself struggling with the fact that people like him are out there, taking up oxygen.

Haha, I agree. He was so like him. In episode 10 especially, on the stand, chewing his lip. He looks so out of his depth.

What I don't understand is, as has been shown, there were so many things wrong with this case, so many things that should never been allowed to happen.

Under such circumstances, that trial should be dismissed.

The fact that county were involved in the investigation at all discredits the whole case.

Whether you believe he did it or not, neither got a fair trial, not even close. A new one, outside that corrupt county should be a priority.

Judge willis was never going to be impartial. The whole thing is a sick joke. On the plus side, if there is one, I'm really glad the world is seeing this and these aholes are getting everything they deserve.

Another thing I noticed, Steven's attorneys were intelligent, capable and fair men. The other side were nothing but crooks through and through, and not very bright either.

Checkmate19

Can't see Avery getting a retrial to many people's rep at stake. Dassey may however i think given the publicity around the trial i'd say the parties involved will do all in their power to keep these two in jail.

Thepoet85

The only thing I can see preventing Dassey gettinga retrial, is the fact that his testimony (wrongly) was used as a large part of the prosecutions case against SA.

If BD gets a retrial and is found innocent, what would the ramifications be for SA?

Flint Fredstone

Thepoet85 wrote: »

The only thing I can see preventing Dassey gettinga retrial, is the fact that his testimony (wrongly) was used as a large part of the prosecutions case against SA.

If BD gets a retrial and is found innocent, what would the ramifications be for SA?

Unless I'm remembering wrongly, they didn't use Dassey's "confessed" version of events in the Avery case. It was put out there in the media by the State prosecutor in what seemed like a bid to prejudice the people before it went to court.

The Raptor

Just finished another three and a half hours of Brendan's 'confession'. The whole thing is up on youtube. It was heartbreaking to watch. He told it how it was at first, came home from school and played games and went to his uncle's for the bonfire. Then they fed him questions and wouldn't give up telling him they knew what happened and to tell the truth.

The poor kid hadn't a clue what was happening and told his mother towards the end, when she was allowed in that they got to his head. He just wanted it to end. He probably thought he would have been in more trouble for not having his project in. It was heartbreaking.

Mightydrumming

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

marklazarcovic

Phoebas wrote: »

It looks like his law firm have already moved against him.

Here it is - Sisson Law.
http://sissonlaw.com/


Up to a couple of months ago it was Sisson and Kachinsky.
https://web.archive.org/web/20151215030702/http://sissonlaw.com/

he is a judge now so cant have a private practise,think he has cancer aswell

The Raptor

marklazarcovic wrote: »

he is a judge now so cant have a private practise,think he has cancer aswell

Good enough for him. He deserves it. I believe in karma and nothing good will ever come from their actions.

And they were all in it from the start. Each and every single one of them.

Ageyev

Thepoet85 wrote: »

The only thing I can see preventing Dassey gettinga retrial, is the fact that his testimony (wrongly) was used as a large part of the prosecutions case against SA.

If BD gets a retrial and is found innocent, what would the ramifications be for SA?

The Dassey confession tape wasn't used as evidence. The prosecution up until the 11th hour hadn't confirmed whether or not they would call Brendan as a witness (they didn't). Kratz used some of the details in the March 2006 press conference. Bobby Dassey gave testimony however and the tape was played at Brendan's trial.

Thepoet85

Ageyev wrote:

The Dassey confession tape wasn't used as evidence. The prosecution up until the 11th hour hadn't confirmed whether or not they would call Brendan as a witness (they didn't). Kratz used some of the details in the March 2006 press conference. Bobby Dassey gave testimony however and the tape was played at Brendan's trial.

Ah ok. I wasn't sure on that point. Hopefully he will get a fair retrial.

Ageyev

President responds to petition for a pardon, informs the 130,000 people who signed it that Avery is a state prisoner not federal prisoner ergo the president cannot pardon - http://gawker.com/white-house-to-making-a-murderer-fans-we-cant-pardon-a-1751876957?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

adox

The Raptor wrote: »

Good enough for him. He deserves it. I believe in karma and nothing good will ever come from their actions.

What an absolutely sh1tty thing to say.

Thepoet85

Ageyev wrote:

President responds to petition for a pardon, informs the 130,000 people who signed it that Avery is a state prisoner not federal prisoner ergo the president cannot pardon -

Saw a new petition asking for an investigation into the county sheriff departments handling of the case.

PLL

Just finished watching last night. Felt emotionally drained and sick towards the end. When Brendan Dassey was on the stand talking about people calling him fat it really hit home how he was a child that wasn't given a chance. Len & O'Kelly are animals. Whilst watching O'Kelly force that written confession and making him draw those things I got really confused, I even asked my oh was he a cop or something, I was gobsmacked that was his defence team.

There are just so many things that don't add up, either way their trials were in no way fair and as mentioned in the documentary they have a right as part of the Constitution to a fair trial. It doesn't matter if the docu is biased, like Strang has said in interviews that isn't the point of it, the point is the corruption.

I agree I don't think Avery will see a re-trial, too much for the state of Wisconsin to lose.
Hopefully Dassey will due to the federal issue of his scum lawyer not being present in that very sad interrogation.

The photos they showed of them at the end were nice, that sounds a bit strange, but I interpreted them as been taken for the documentary and therefore at this point they knew that a major producer was telling the world their story and that might somehow give them hope.

The seem like such simple men, obviously low im intelligence not capable of this and just wanting simple lives. Might not be from the most respected or liked family in the town but that doesn't mean they're likely to become murders.

Judge Willis not allowing alternative suspect suggestions into the trial píssed me off. He did in general tbh.

On a completely random note: The fashion and hairstyle! It was like the early 90's!

The Raptor

adox wrote: »

What an absolutely sh1tty thing to say.

Maybe it was. But as Dassey's lawyer he didn't represent him, and allowed him to be interviewed by the police without him present. Then he sends his private investigator, Michael O'Kelly, to give Brendan a lie detector test and a written confession. When the written confession wasn't good enough as in what really happened that day i.e. he came home from school and played games, he made him rewrite the whole confession again and draw pictures. It was him telling the poor lad to draw pictures of the bed with the woman tied. Rather than pictures of his day on the playstation. That second confession was used against him.

They were both in it together and a lawyer should never ever have allowed that carry on from his private investigator.

I'm sorry if you think what i said was real ****ty and maybe it was if you were some other normal human being. But some young lad's life was wasted in prison and the evidence was there in black and white. I don't feel sorry for that lawyer one bit.

The Raptor

I need to watch this a second time. I'm far too slow to pick up on things but I think this documentary does this. Earlier today i had posted about Brendan's confession that is on youtube. It was dated 3-1-2006, as in the first of March. It was only after this confession of Brendan that the cops found a bullet in Steven Averys garage. I don't think there was a mention of a shooting until Brendan said it. At this point, they were too far deep in ****t that they had to go back and plant a bullet to make it look as if there was a shooting.

The prosecutors also claimed they cleaned up with bleach. Brendan never said bleach. He did say they cleaned up with gasoline and paint thinner. They then asked him another question after he said they cleaned up. A question about the size of the garage area. But then they wanted bleach to be a part of their story because bleach destroys dna and asked him where did they get the bleach from. What bleach, the kid said gasoline and paint thinner. Hence, why it was very believable on their part that Steven Avery killed her and cleaned it up very well.

PLL

The Raptor wrote: »

The prosecutors also claimed they cleaned up with bleach. Brendan never said bleach. He did say they cleaned up with gasoline and paint thinner. They then asked him another question after he said they cleaned up. A question about the size of the garage area. But then they wanted bleach to be a part of their story because bleach destroys dna and asked him where did they get the bleach from. What bleach, the kid said gasoline and paint thinner. Hence, why it was very believable on their part that Steven Avery killed her and cleaned it up very well.

Only one type of bleach destroys DNA to a point that it cannot be detected and that is Hydrogen Peroxide which expensive and different to household bleach.

Also, Avery's DNA was found all over the garage. For the prosecution's story to be viable there would have to be no DNA found.

So many holes in this case, an undeniable amount of reasonable doubt.

Anachrony

Deleted User wrote: »

Wasn't Brendan polygraphed at some stage? I remember reading the full transcript when Michael O Kelly was interviewing him and he was showing Brendan the results saying "see that red line, that shows deception which means you're lying" or something to that affect.

And that's all polygraphs are good for in these situations. Manipulating people and scaring them into a confession. You're not allowed to submit the results as evidence in a US trial. But if the suspect being interviewed believes in them it might get them to say things that they might otherwise not have. And anything they say is usually admissible, regardless of how they convinced them to say it.