Netflix - Making a Murderer

[ImpulsE69]

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/morning-...5/nancy-grace-making-a-murderer?cid=H57183a10

Nancy Grace HATES the documentary and swears the guy did it.

I've never been a fan of hers. She is as sensational as the people she rails against.

My favorite part is her saying "I asked him what his theory on what happened was, and he couldn't tell me, so he must be lying." That is great logic.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I've never been a fan of hers. She is as sensational as the people she rails against.

My favorite part is her saying "I asked him what his theory on what happened was, and he couldn't tell me, so he must be lying." That is great logic.

I find Nancy Grace painfully shrill, but in this case she has a legitimate point. The MAM filmmakers left out a host of damning evidence, sufficient to convince me that Avery is most likely guilty.

It's interesting - I was talking to a colleague (also an experienced attorney) yesterday who had watched all of Making a Murderer over the holiday weekend. His first question to me was, "Am I seriously supposed to think Steven Avery is innocent? I don't understand how I would reach that conclusion from the series."

 

[ImpulsE69]

I find Nancy Grace painfully shrill, but in this case she has a legitimate point. The MAM filmmakers left out a host of damning evidence, sufficient to convince me that Avery is most likely guilty.

It's interesting - I was talking to a colleague (also an experienced attorney) yesterday who had watched all of Making a Murderer over the holiday weekend. His first question to me was, "Am I seriously supposed to think Steven Avery is innocent? I don't understand how I would reach that conclusion from the series."

Back in 85 everyone would have said the same thing right? Because you know, he was found guilty due to the pile of evidence against him and because the jury found him guilty.

Even the people who made the documentary claim it wasn't about showing him as innocent, but rather the obvious missteps taken to make sure he was prosecuted, (seemingly without regard to if he really did or not).

I find a ton of motive in this new case for a frame job. Much more motive than anyone seems to want to admit to. At first I had the attitude that, no one would possibly do something like this, but then the more I thought about it, things like this happen ALL THE TIME. Once money and personal self is involved, all bets are out the window that someone will do what is necessary to make sure they come out on top. When people don't think they will get caught, they rarely choose the high road. It's hard to exactly say they did do any of this (obviously no one WANTS to even imagine that something like this would ever happen), but it's as likely as Avery and Dassey doing it given the circumstances.

As for the missing evidence, the only piece I've seen/heard about that makes me question everything was the DNA under the hood, but...no one said anything about fingerprints to go along with it. I assume it must have been 'oil'/'sweat' because of Kratz's statements, but if police were doing a frame job, they would know where to put it and where to get it. They had many days to make that happen, same as the bullet and gun.

Given the prior accusations and actions leading to the previous prison sentence, I wouldn't have trusted a single word Lentz or Corbern said in this new trial. If it is good enough to paint Avery and his family in a bad light given past actions, why can't we do the same for them? Should it be different just because they are cops?

All that being said I obviously don't have the experience in law and I'm basing my opinions on a biased documentary and what transcripts I've read as well as followup statements from the people involved. I certainly don't know what the truth is, and both the prior case (the actions between) and the new case do not make me think anyone on the law side was really looking for truth and that is what is scary.

 

[echo4747]

It's interesting - I was talking to a colleague (also an experienced attorney) yesterday who had watched all of Making a Murderer over the holiday weekend. His first question to me was, "Am I seriously supposed to think Steven Avery is innocent? I don't understand how I would reach that conclusion from the series."

After watching... I wouldn't say Avery is innocent, however; If I were a juror I couldn't find him guilty especially beyond a reasonable doubt ( assuming that is the req'd criteria)

- same for Dassey

 

[krumme]

I find Nancy Grace painfully shrill, but in this case she has a legitimate point. The MAM filmmakers left out a host of damning evidence, sufficient to convince me that Avery is most likely guilty.

It's interesting - I was talking to a colleague (also an experienced attorney) yesterday who had watched all of Making a Murderer over the holiday weekend. His first question to me was, "Am I seriously supposed to think Steven Avery is innocent? I don't understand how I would reach that conclusion from the series."

Is "most likely" = beyond reasonable doubt, in the american system?

If, i mean i dont think that was the intentions behind the constitutional rights. Damn dangerous in my view.

 

[echo4747]

don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread, but i find this interesting:

"Two jurors in the Avery trial had relatives working for the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Department. One man had a son in the department, and another had a wife in the county clerk of court’s office, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Dean Strang, one of Avery’s lawyers, said the connections were known — but both the defense and prosecution had apparently used up their allotted juror dismissals."

source:
http://time.com/4167699/netflix-making-a-murderer-evidence-left-out/

 

[HumblePie]

don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread, but i find this interesting:

"Two jurors in the Avery trial had relatives working for the Manitowoc Sheriff’s Department. One man had a son in the department, and another had a wife in the county clerk of court’s office, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Dean Strang, one of Avery’s lawyers, said the connections were known — but both the defense and prosecution had apparently used up their allotted juror dismissals."

source:
http://time.com/4167699/netflix-making-a-murderer-evidence-left-out/

Strange most places still allow for pleas to the judge for special cases like easily defined conflict of interests even if their "strikes" are gone. Doesn't mean the judge has to grant them, but the judge can usually strike out anyone as well. They typically do when it comes to conflict of interests jurors.

 

[Charmonium]

Is "most likely" = beyond reasonable doubt, in the american system?

If, i mean i dont think that was the intentions behind the constitutional rights. Damn dangerous in my view.

"Most likely" would roughly be equivalent to "preponderance of the evidence" which is the standard in civil trials. Reasonable doubt is a much higher standard.

Personally, I don't think most jurors really understand what reasonable doubt is supposed to mean and instead vote their guts.

 

[krumme]

Only a few knows how intellectual handicapped a person with a iq of 72 is. A part of iq is the memory.

When watching the vids of the interview of Brandon i feared he actually lost track of if he did it or not. It seems he did not but its perfectly possible he could have participated in the murder and not realising it later or not participating and think he did.

Human memory is not static and often we change memories without knowing it so better to make sense of what happens. Not the other way round. We dont like to accept that fact because it alters our understanding of reality. That goes for normal iq.

Now enters brandon brain. Its a damn mess.

So for Brandons testimony. There is no way he can lie with that iq. Its simply not possible. Perriod. It would colapse long time before the first question. But its perfectly possible he is telling it all wrong. His memory of what happens slide away extremely quickly and is replaced with what others say and what he hear/reads.

Now think about it. Is it a person to put to jail?. If he is dangerous yes. But besides from that its like putting a 5 year old in prison. Well a normal 5 year old is far smarter but doesnt have any experience. I would rate it about the same.

Looking at the interviews and judging by vitos comments my vild guess - and i dont know anything about it - is usa have plenty of those 5 years old in prison.

 

[krumme]

"Most likely" would roughly be equivalent to "preponderance of the evidence" which is the standard in civil trials. Reasonable doubt is a much higher standard.

Personally, I don't think most jurors really understand what reasonable doubt is supposed to mean and instead vote their guts.

Ok thanx.
Do you alway use jurors for murder cases?

Its not like there is some % to reasonable doubt?

 

[Phokus]

I hate linking to TMZ, but somehow they got an interview with Brendan Dassey's corrupt lawyer... as you might expect, it didn't go over very well.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/05/making-a-murder-brendan-dassey-len-kachinsky/

 

[SSSnail]

I hate linking to TMZ, but somehow they got an interview with Brendan Dassey's corrupt lawyer... as you might expect, it didn't go over very well.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/05/making-a-murder-brendan-dassey-len-kachinsky/

People like this is why lawyers have a reputation. Harvey is an actual lawyer, right?

 

[ImpulsE69]

I hate linking to TMZ, but somehow they got an interview with Brendan Dassey's corrupt lawyer... as you might expect, it didn't go over very well.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/01/05/making-a-murder-brendan-dassey-len-kachinsky/

That's just...D:

 

[CraKaJaX]

CBS just had a little story on this. Apparently the change.org petition went from a few thousand to a quarter million in a few days....

With all the stuff coming out after the fact (Kratz being diagnosed, the Juror coming out, and now Brendan's lawyer), this NEEDS to have a re-trial. All the folks involved cannot just have this fly over their head - almost overnight it's become a national story. As it should be.

 

[Charmonium]

Ok thanx.
Do you alway use jurors for murder cases?

Its not like there is some % to reasonable doubt?

It varies from state to state in terms of the number of jurors. I think some use as few as six.

And a jury isn't required if the defendant waives his right. Then you have what is called a 'bench trial' where the judge is finder of fact as well as law. Usually he only acts as the latter.

Sometimes that's advantageous if you have a sympathetic/fair judge and the issues involved in the case are fairly technical from a legal point of view. But usually for a criminal trial you want to have a jury.

I'm not sure what you mean by %. I'm guessing you mean probability. And no, I've never heard of a judge giving a jury instruction that involves a percentage but I'm sure it's been done somewhere at some time.

If you're interested in the procedures involved, you can take a look at this.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/criminal-trial-overview.html

 

[Phokus]

Yet another sexual harassment allegation against Kratz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW3xzEiiExY

This one being really serious in that he appears to be using the power of his office to strong arm the woman into sexual favors.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yet another sexual harassment allegation against Kratz:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW3xzEiiExY

This one being really serious in that he appears to be using the power of his office to strong arm the woman into sexual favors.

This is clear back from 2010. Supposedly he is long since 'sobered', etc.

 

[Phokus]

This is clear back from 2010. Supposedly he is long since 'sobered', etc.

Ahhh, didn't notice the date

 

[Ackmed]

Prosecutor fires back.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...s-to-receive-online-support-as/?intcmp=hplnws

 

[Chiropteran]

I find Nancy Grace painfully shrill, but in this case she has a legitimate point. The MAM filmmakers left out a host of damning evidence, sufficient to convince me that Avery is most likely guilty.

It's interesting - I was talking to a colleague (also an experienced attorney) yesterday who had watched all of Making a Murderer over the holiday weekend. His first question to me was, "Am I seriously supposed to think Steven Avery is innocent? I don't understand how I would reach that conclusion from the series."

I feel like that is an odd perspective for a lawyer to have.

It's not about whether you think he is guilty or not, it's about whether he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many aspects of the case create reasonable doubt, IMO.

A few pieces of evidence seem very suspicious- and that puts into question everything else. And there is the whole "we are going to hand the investigation off the calumet county" followed up by them not doing that at all, in any real sense- makes the whole case look very fishy.

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm only three episodes in, and I'm confused by one thing...

WHY, OH WHY do all of the suspects in this documentary allow themselves to be interrogated by the police when they think that the cops are corrupt? I know that these people aren't all that bright, but haven't they ever heard of Miranda rights?!?

 

[Phokus]

I'm only three episodes in, and I'm confused by one thing...

WHY, OH WHY do all of the suspects in this documentary allow themselves to be interrogated by the police when they think that the cops are corrupt? I know that these people aren't all that bright, but haven't they ever heard of Miranda rights?!?

They literally state Steve and Brendan have an IQ of 70 in the documentary. Even educated people can be duped into it. Few people know their rights (or consequences of giving those rights up).

 

[Linflas]

I find Nancy Grace painfully shrill, but in this case she has a legitimate point. The MAM filmmakers left out a host of damning evidence, sufficient to convince me that Avery is most likely guilty.

It's interesting - I was talking to a colleague (also an experienced attorney) yesterday who had watched all of Making a Murderer over the holiday weekend. His first question to me was, "Am I seriously supposed to think Steven Avery is innocent? I don't understand how I would reach that conclusion from the series."

After watching the series and reading some of the other things not brought out in the documentary I believe he is most likely guilty as well however if I was a jury member I don't see myself being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt which is supposed to be the basis of a guilty verdict.

 

[Charmonium]

A few pieces of evidence seem very suspicious- and that puts into question everything else. And there is the whole "we are going to hand the investigation off the calumet county" followed up by them not doing that at all, in any real sense- makes the whole case look very fishy.

I think that alone should have been enough to acquit him and I think that a federal court is going to agree with this as a basic denial of due process. The prosecution did so many things wrong, and by that I mean intentionally wrong, that there's no way this verdict will stand once it gets to federal court. Prosecutorial misconduct is so rampant in this case that I can't believe there will be any other result. The fact that both the appeals and supreme courts of the state upheld the verdict is only proof of how high up in the government this attitude of CYA goes.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I think that alone should have been enough to acquit him and I think that a federal court is going to agree with this as a basic denial of due process. The prosecution did so many things wrong, and by that I mean intentionally wrong, that there's no way this verdict will stand once it gets to federal court. Prosecutorial misconduct is so rampant in this case that I can't believe there will be any other result. The fact that both the appeals and supreme courts of the state upheld the verdict is only proof of how high up in the government this attitude of CYA goes.

There isn't much in the 'left out' evidence that sways my opinion more towards guilt. What did for you?