Making a Murderer - Anybody watch it?

[craigster59]

This guy....

[Rickysa]

*****Spoiler Alert**********

[speeder]

Originally Posted by craigster59

This guy....

Yeah, that guy. He makes most of the PARF regulars here look like absolute geniuses.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by speeder

I'm 3 episodes in and regardless of anyone's guilt or innocence, the 16 y.o. kid's "defense attorney" should be taken out and shot in the balls. Holy Christ. :

I'm not sure he has any, but yes, if they can find them, shoot them both. Twice.

[stealthn]

I don't get it what are the chances a perp is setup for two different crimes and found guikty of both?

[speeder]

Originally Posted by stealthn

I don't get it what are the chances a perp is setup for two different crimes and found guikty of both?

In a small town where the Sherriff Dept. is proven to be 100% corrupt and definitely did it the first time, I'd say better than even the second time.

[ramonesfreak]

I'm an attorney and over the last 20 years I have known some real dummies but I have never seen anything like this guy giving his child client over to the wolves. I got so frustrated with that scene I almost had to give up with this series. Sickening incompetence and lack of ethics

Originally Posted by speeder

I'm 3 episodes in and regardless of anyone's guilt or innocence, the 16 y.o. kid's "defense attorney" should be taken out and shot in the balls. Holy Christ.

I've heard stories of poor people getting less than completely competent counsel from PDs or court appointed lawyers but he was beyond all comprehension. I'm trying to imagine what outhouse law school graduated that freak. I was so pissed-off watching it that I'm still calming down. Unbelievable.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by ramonesfreak

I'm an attorney and over the last 20 years I have known some real dummies but I have never seen anything like this guy giving his child client over to the wolves. I got so frustrated with that scene I almost had to give up with this series. Sickening incompetence and lack of ethics

Yeah, that's the thing; not everyone who graduates from law school in the land is some legal genius. And the vast majority of lawyers do not practice criminal law or even try cases of any kind. Many if not most are pencil-pushers who draw up contracts for businesses, help people avoid paying taxes, etc.

But even an average person living in the U.S. with no legal training but who has watched Law and Order or attended a grade school civics class would be aware of the rights of the accused not to self-incriminate and the right, (not to mention common sense), of having an attorney present while answering police questions about a crime that could send you to prison for life. The client was not capable by any stretch of being on equal footing with his questioners. Anyone who spent 2 minutes with him, including this "attorney", would see that he could be manipulated to say or admit to anything.

I've never seen or heard of such an abdication of responsibility or such gross legal incompetence and I've been reading about crime for almost 50 years plus attended many criminal trials growing up. If nothing is done to prevent this guy from harming other clients, it's as big an injustice as anything else portrayed on the show, IMO.

[DonDavis]

Initially, it appeared Defense Atty Kachinsky had his private investigator Michael O'Kelly evaluate Dassey to demonstrate the kid was incompetent. Then, the way O'Kelly led the kid through his questioning was disturbing.

At minimum, Dassey should get serious consideration for a retrial.

Avery? Hmm, lots of inappropriate police/investigator actions, for sure. Probably enough for reasonable doubt.

Bigger question...who really killed Halbach?

I've only heard the Netflix side of the story and nearly anything I find now is mixed in with that show's opinion.
It's touted as a Documentary, but I think it's clearly one-sided.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by DonDavis

Initially, it appeared Defense Atty Kachinsky had his private investigator Michael O'Kelly evaluate Dassey to demonstrate the kid was incompetent. Then, the way O'Kelly led the kid through his questioning was disturbing.

At minimum, Dassey should get serious consideration for a retrial.

Avery? Hmm, lots of inappropriate police/investigator actions, for sure. Probably enough for reasonable doubt.

Bigger question...who really killed Halbach?

I've only heard the Netflix side of the story and nearly anything I find now is mixed in with that show's opinion.
It's touted as a Documentary, but I think it's clearly one-sided.

Documentaries almost always present a POV, so I'd definitely call it a documentary but not 100% balanced, as you point out. I'm not at all convinced of Avery's innocence, (I think he's guilty), but I'm convinced of the police and prosecutorial misconduct and malfeasance beyond all doubt.

[sugarwood]

'Making a Murderer' Subject Was Framed, Says Juror | Rolling Stone

Meanwhile, Ricciardi and Demos just announced they were contacted by a juror who claims some jurors felt Avery was framed but that they voted guilty for fear of their "personal safety." ("The person felt burdened for eight years and was hoping some new evidence would come out and lead to a new trial," says Ricciardi.)

[motion]

Just finished this series. What a disgusting expose on the American judicial system. I am in absolute shock that this kind of circus proceeding can happen in our country, a democratic model for the world, in this day and age.

The judge was clearly not acting and ruling in the best interest of justice, time and time again.

It goes without saying that Dassey should not be in prison. His case should have been thrown out.

I am a bit confused about one thing: The excused juror stated that at the beginning of deliberations on Avery's trial, initially the jurors were overwhelmingly in favor of acquittal. I wonder what happened from there? I don't think the jurors understood the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt".

I believe Avery is innocent. Like in his first case, where he served 18 years wrongly, he has calmly and assertively professed his innocence, without fail.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by motion

Just finished this series. What a disgusting expose on the American judicial system. I am in absolute shock that this kind of circus proceeding can happen in our country, a democratic model for the world, in this day and age.

The judge was clearly not acting and ruling in the best interest of justice, time and time again.

It goes without saying that Dassey should not be in prison. His case should have been thrown out.

I am a bit confused about one thing: The excused juror stated that at the beginning of deliberations on Avery's trial, initially the jurors were overwhelmingly in favor of acquittal. I wonder what happened from there? I don't think the jurors understood the concept of 'beyond a reasonable doubt".

I believe Avery is innocent. Like in his first case, where he served 18 years wrongly, he has calmly and assertively professed his innocence, without fail.

I haven't seen the series so I don't know the details about the juror you mention and I have no real opinion about Avery's guilt or innocence. However, you have to ask yourself some questions about this juror's statement and the final verdict that seem to contradict each other. First, why was he/she excused? How much of the deliberation did he witness? How many jurors makes up "overwhelmingly"? Was he witness to any deliberation that addressed issues mentioned in the film?

Clearly, if his statement is accurate, something happened among the jurors to come to a unanimous guilty verdict, but that is exactly what this juror was not a party to. His value to a search for the truth is severely limited. In fact, his value is only to raise doubt about the verdict, which is the whole point of the film itself.

Were there interviews with any jurors that made the final decision? Did the film show how a juror became convinced of Avery's guilt (again, I haven't seen it)? When trying to answer these questions, keep in mind the point of the film was to show injustice, not necessarily present a balanced view.

[NY65912]

OK, how was his sweat found in the engine compartment? I believe he is guilty. On the other hand I do feel there was doubt in this case.

The kid was railroaded. He should never have gone to trial.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

Were there interviews with any jurors that made the final decision?

Yes, one juror said that they bargained for votes. There were 4 counts against Avery that were up for consideration. In order to avoid a mistrial jurors were trading "yes" votes on some counts for "no" votes on others. The merits of the individual counts weren't being considered separately.

Originally Posted by ossiblue

When trying to answer these questions, keep in mind the point of the film was to show injustice, not necessarily present a balanced view.

The film makers stated that the point was to expose flaws in the justice system. They wouldn't state whether they thought Avery was innocent or not. They said there were too many unanswered questions. They did say they believe the kid is innocent.

[sugarwood]

The jurors thought he was innocent, but they feared for their lives and safety.

http://www.people.com/article/steven-avery-juror-believes-he-deserves-a-new-trial

Demos said that they asked the juror why Avery was unanimously voted guilty if some jurors felt he was innocent.

"What they told us was that they feared for their personal safety," Demos said.

Ricciardi added, "[The juror] told us that the verdicts in Steven's trial were a compromise."

She said that the source went on to describe the other jurors trading votes, "and explicitly discussing 'if you vote guilty on this count, I'll vote not guilty on this count' "

"They believed that if there were a split verdict like this, that would send a message to the appellate courts and that Steven would get a new trail," Demos explained.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by sugarwood

The jurors thought he was innocent, but they feared for their lives and safety.

Steven Avery Juror Voted Guilty Because of Fear, Filmmakers Say : People.com

Demos said that they asked the juror why Avery was unanimously voted guilty if some jurors felt he was innocent.

"What they told us was that they feared for their personal safety," Demos said.

Ricciardi added, "[The juror] told us that the verdicts in Steven's trial were a compromise."

She said that the source went on to describe the other jurors trading votes, "and explicitly discussing 'if you vote guilty on this count, I'll vote not guilty on this count' "

"They believed that if there were a split verdict like this, that would send a message to the appellate courts and that Steven would get a new trail," Demos explained.

In multiple count trials, split verdicts where guilty is voted on some counts and not guilty on others is very common. For a juror to believe a split verdict on multiple counts would "send a message" is pure ignorance of the system and is certainly no grounds for an appeal.

The "trading" of votes, again, does not necessarily point to anything nefarious. Each count has its own criteria for a verdict and some counts may not have achieved the same degree of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for each juror. As far as I know, there is no jury instruction to convict or acquit on all counts to avoid a mistrial. It sounds like no single count achieved a unanimous verdict so the "bargaining" took place. That's not unusual. If it was due to fear, that's another matter. It is also significant, IMO, that the claim of fear came from only one juror, even though the film makers used the pronoun, "they," when referencing the source. So, you have one person who was in fear, and that same person draws the conclusion that "bargaining" took place which may have well been discussions regarding how solidly jurors believed in their original positions. We just don't know. Is that enough to get an appellate court to overturn the conviction? We don't know, simply because the way this information was made public--through an entertainment medium--does not provide the full context of all the factors that would justify an appeal.

Having only read comments in this thread, and not having seen the film, I make no judgements as to Avery's guilt or innocence. However, there appears to be significant evidence that the way he and his nephew were defended was questionable, as well as some of the actions of the police and prosecutors. The film was not an attempt to investigate, only to expose perceived injustice and that, without question, it has accomplished.

[Jeff Jagusch]

my wife and I just finished watching the series, and a local radio reporter has put together this:

About Common Sense Central | Get Articles, Bio & Show Info | News/Talk 1130 WISN

I've only heard the first two, and they are pretty interesting as well!

[t-tom]

I'm 4 episodes in, I went and researched the other side first. I went into this thinking he was guilty. There is no way NO WAY someone could look at the "facts" of this case and not have a reasonable doubt. Just the fact that his DNA kit from 1996 had been tampered with should be enough. This is crazy crazy case. I can't wait to watch the next episode! I love hearing the options of the attorneys on here really adds a lot

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by speeder

Documentaries almost always present a POV, so I'd definitely call it a documentary but not 100% balanced, ....

Is "Making a Murderer" biased? Yes. Absolutely.

Was the Manitowac County Sherriff biased? Yes.
Is Theresa Halbach's family biased? Yes.
Prosecuting attorney? Yes.
Defense attorney? Yes.

That's why there is an extensive trial. To attempt to get though all the biased opinions and find the truth.
Sometimes the truth comes out. Sometimes the bias is too strong to overcome.

This series is not about the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery. It is about the actions taken by the county to insure a conviction.