Netflix - Making a Murderer

[CountZero]

What makes you think anybody else committed these murders? Because some producer who has an incentive to create controversy and has the means to carefully craft the narrative convinced you? So yeah, we should give more weight to these entertainment shows than the years of work and investigation lawyers and judges put into these cases, because you know better than them right?

What makes you think the process of getting a guilty verdict wasn't carried out illegally? A judge who has reviewed the actual case and applied actual judicial review has come to the conclusion that the conviction was built upon bad procedure and cannot stand.

Guilty or not we should always applaud holding those that are responsible for imprisoning people (or worse) to the highest ethical and legal standards. Anything less is unacceptable.

 

[Number1]

It really boils my blood that nitwits are trying to get these murderers out because they liked some TV show or podcast. It's unbelievably insulting to the victims' families.

Did you watch the show? Because if you did and you came up with this, there is something wrong with you. Avery is guilty as hell. However, Brendan Dassey is so fucking stupid that he would say anything to please anybody and that's why he was convicted.

and to validate my point, a federal judge recently overturned Brendan Dassey's conviction......

Who looks like the nitwit now?

 

[jackstar7]

What makes you think anybody else committed these murders? Because some producer who has an incentive to create controversy and has the means to carefully craft the narrative convinced you? So yeah, we should give more weight to these entertainment shows than the years of work and investigation lawyers and judges put into these cases, because you know better than them right?

You see those trees? It's a forest called Due Process.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I watched the entire series and I still think Steven Avery did it. I mean, he called her to the property, they found her car on his property with some of his DNA inside it, her phone was in the burn pit where charred bits of her remains were found. Gee, how do you think those things got there?

That said, I'm not sure Brendan Dassey had anything to do with it and I don't think there was enough evidence to convict him of anything other than being a bit of a halfwit.

 

[OutHouse]

well gee the talking yeast infection Nancy Grace is in a uproar over Dassey getting out of prison.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/making-murderer-nancy-grace-thinks-brendan-dassey-belongs-200832132.html

 

[Ichinisan]

It really boils my blood that nitwits are trying to get these murderers out because they liked some TV show or podcast. It's unbelievably insulting to the victims' families.

Do you think what they did twere Brendan Dassey was right?!

Absolutely no evidence other than his coerced "confession" even suggested his involvement. People that were obligated to act in his interest aggressively worked AGAINST him and basically gave him no choice but to destroy his own life.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[jackstar7]

Do you think what they did twere Brendan Dassey was right?!

Absolutely no evidence other than his coerced "confession" even suggested his involvement. People that were obligated to act in his interest aggressively worked AGAINST him and basically gave him no choice but to destroy his own life.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

My guess is that it is another person who goes by the "Well if you're charged then you're probably guilty" ethos that pervades.

It is astoundingly uncivilized... but there you go.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

well gee the talking yeast infection Nancy Grace is in a uproar over Dassey getting out of prison.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/making-murderer-nancy-grace-thinks-brendan-dassey-belongs-200832132.html

Seriously? Whom that has average IQ would admit to a murder on camera (with 0 evidence) all while talking like a complete retard?

Nancy Grace should be in prison for all the stupidity that comes out of her mouth - we don't need shit like that to spread.

 

[z1ggy]

Glad that kid got out of jail. Pretty clear he wasn't involved in the murder. Just an autistic/idiot kid doing whatever it was the grown ups told him to do and say. If I recall, there was no actual physical evidence of him being involved, just the fact that he was at Avery's house that day.

As far as Avery doing or not, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get to the point where he didn't do it. Not sure why he would, but then again the whole family seemed like a bunch of 'tards.

 

[SearchMaster]

My guess is that it is another person who go by the "Well if you're charged then you're probably guilty" ethos that pervades.

It is astoundingly uncivilized... but there you go.

I'm pretty sure madoka is an attorney...

 

[smackababy]

My guess is that it is another person who go by the "Well if you're charged then you're probably guilty" ethos that pervades.

It is astoundingly uncivilized... but there you go.

Just a question: how many innocent people do you think are actually charged with a crime they didn't commit? Especially today.

I'm not saying the kid was mentally incapable of being interrogated or that the police didn't use incredibly leading questions to get a confession any half competent lawyer should have gotten thrown out of court. I'm just curious if people really believe prosecutors charge people they aren't incredibly certain they can prove did it in court?

 

[OutHouse]

Just a question: how many innocent people do you think are actually charged with a crime they didn't commit? Especially today.

I'm not saying the kid was mentally incapable of being interrogated or that the police didn't use incredibly leading questions to get a confession any half competent lawyer should have gotten thrown out of court. I'm just curious if people really believe prosecutors charge people they aren't incredibly certain they can prove did it in court?[/QUOTE]


sure if the confession is made under duress or by a person not represented.

 

[jackstar7]

Just a question: how many innocent people do you think are actually charged with a crime they didn't commit? Especially today.

I'm not saying the kid was mentally incapable of being interrogated or that the police didn't use incredibly leading questions to get a confession any half competent lawyer should have gotten thrown out of court. I'm just curious if people really believe prosecutors charge people they aren't incredibly certain they can prove did it in court?

My counter-question would be: How many is okay?

Due process has to live in all of us, or it will work for none of us.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Do I believe there are prosecutors more concerned with their conviction rate than if the person did it or not? Hell yes I do. I mean...HELLO the first time Avery was in prison??

Just like politicians, they may start out meaning well, but eventually life and reality hits. No one cares about the higher ground, at a certain point job stability takes priority.

Plus, I imagine after a certain amount of time hearing "I didn't do it." falls on deaf ears.

 

[smackababy]

My counter-question would be: How many is okay?

Due process has to live in all of us, or it will work for none of us.

It shouldn't be okay, but we don't live in a perfect system. A few (post DNA tests) are going to occur. And even those that do happen to be innocently indicted for a crime, there is still due process to allow them to defend themselves. The idea cops just pick some random and "make it fit" is mostly s thing of fiction. Unintentionally leading a suspect incapable of understanding his right to an attorney (among other things) happened here, and it sucks. But, we can't just take it at face value they shoehorned this guy on purpose. Some Podunk Wisconsin town isn't capable of actually handling a murder investigation, which is part of the problem here. Even if bias occurs there is very unlikely going to be enough evidence for a conviction of an innocent.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It shouldn't be okay, but we don't live in a perfect system. A few (post DNA tests) are going to occur. And even those that do happen to be innocently indicted for a crime, there is still due process to allow them to defend themselves. The idea cops just pick some random and "make it fit" is mostly s thing of fiction. Unintentionally leading a suspect incapable of understanding his right to an attorney (among other things) happened here, and it sucks. But, we can't just take it at face value they shoehorned this guy on purpose. Some Podunk Wisconsin town isn't capable of actually handling a murder investigation, which is part of the problem here. Even if bias occurs there is very unlikely going to be enough evidence for a conviction of an innocent.

And I again point you to exhibit A. (The previous rape charge). Though I don't think anyone in that town is smart enough to pull off a frame job, there is plenty of reason to believe the bias led to 'turn the other cheek' syndrome.

 

[smackababy]

And I again point you to exhibit A. (The previous rape charge). Though I don't think anyone in that town is smart enough to pull off a frame job, there is plenty of reason to believe the bias led to 'turn the other cheek' syndrome.

You're pointing to a conviction in 1985 where the victim pointed out Avery in a line up. They happened before we used DNA to in court cases. In 2005 it doesn't happen.

There may have been some "I bet that Avery boy did it!" But, suggesting anything else is a bit far fetched, "documentary" aside. There is easily gross incompetence by a tiny police force completely ill equipped to handle this kind of case.

 

[echo4747]

Brendan Dassey of 'Making a Murderer' wins appeals court ruling
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/us/brendan-dassey-confession-ruling/index.html

 

[Ichinisan]

Brendan Dassey of 'Making a Murderer' wins appeals court ruling
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/us/brendan-dassey-confession-ruling/index.html

That’s great! There’s no question that what they did to get that “confession” was inexcusable.

 

[OutHouse]

good, that poor kid totally got railroaded, the police and DA who did it need to serve time.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Ya, anyone that thinks this guy is innocent simply need to go to the relevant reddit thread on the topic where you can read about things this show left out. The show said something about killing a cat or dog. Well, go read the details on that. You might not like the guy even if you don't care about animal rights. The show is highly biased. What someone needs to do is make a mini series that is biased in the opposite direction.

Dassy should not be in jail. I totally agree with this, but that older guy should be.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Ya, anyone that thinks this guy is innocent simply need to go to the relevant reddit thread on the topic where you can read about things this show left out. The show said something about killing a cat or dog. Well, go read the details on that. You might not like the guy even if you don't care about animal rights. The show is highly biased. What someone needs to do is make a mini series that is biased in the opposite direction.

Dassy should not be in jail. I totally agree with this, but that older guy should be.

That is exactly part of the problem. You're basing your belief that he murdered this woman based on what he did to a cat decades prior. Speaking of which:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur..._steven_wasnt_the_one_who_threw_the_cat_into/
There's disputes about even that aspect (although no one disputes that it was fucked up and Avery absolutely played a role in it).

I guarantee you that you know someone that did something when they were much younger that you'd find incredibly fucked up.

There's no question that Avery is kinda fucked up, but that's exactly the fucking problem. Our judicial system is supposed to be based on "beyond a reasonable doubt" with extensive objective evidence to prove that. It fails spectacularly so consistently, for a variety of reasons that it should be alarming to anyone.

Anyone saying that people thinking there's reasons to believe Avery's innocence or at least that the court failed in proving he did so beyond a reasonable doubt are clearly wrong are doing the exact same thing people saying he's clearly innocent. There's compelling arguments both ways and simply put there is not the ironclad proof either way (currently; the actions of the police, the prosecuting attorney, and simple issues with forensics alone, cast plenty of doubt on this case for me, not saying it means Avery is innocent, it just means I think the case they presented has serious problems that makes me strongly question the outcome).

 

[darkswordsman17]

You're pointing to a conviction in 1985 where the victim pointed out Avery in a line up. They happened before we used DNA to in court cases. In 2005 it doesn't happen.

There may have been some "I bet that Avery boy did it!" But, suggesting anything else is a bit far fetched, "documentary" aside. There is easily gross incompetence by a tiny police force completely ill equipped to handle this kind of case.

DNA forensics is hardly an infallible science. There's huge problems with forensics in general. Not equipped to handle things is actually a pretty good explanation for why DNA evidence is hardly an absolute. I'm talking about the labs and the people handling the evidence because that's a frighteningly common problem.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dna-testing-foolproof/

Its more than just gross incompetence, they actively had issues with Avery for years. They should not have been involved in the manner they were, especially the two that were allowed to search Avery's property. There's serious questions about how they got and handled almost all of the major pieces of evidence they used in court. And the fact that they pretty much never even attempted to consider basically anyone other than Avery should tell you plenty.

The troubling thing though is that they don't even need malicious intent, that you think gross incompetence alone isn't serious enough of an issue is baffling. Our justice system has a lot of issues. I don't have faith that there is such a thing as a fair trial at all in the U.S. court system, and that works both ways (there's people that get off on minor technicalities, and then there's people that get railroaded and everything in between, it is more about luck and being able to afford representation that has the ability to defend you). Sure it might be better than what some other countries call a justice system but its so riddled with problems that it is almost an outright sham.

The intent behind Lady Justice's blindfold is showing again. (http://library.law.yale.edu/exhibits/justice-sign-law/items?page=1) Only we're the fools that have deluded ourselves into believing justice being blind is a good thing.

 

[Craig234]

On paper, a prosecutor is supposed to care about justice over convictions.

But how are they ACTUALLY rewarded and incintivized between them?

 

[purbeast0]

Anyone start season 2? Is it as engaging as the first season? I rented Solo earlier completely forgetting that it was out but I might watch Making a Murder season 2 instead.