Making A Murderer ***CONTAINS SPOILERS***
Discussion
Aphex said:
Thankyou for posting this, it was an interesting read and whilst I cannot say I think he is innocent, I don't see the evidence for his guilt given the limited knowledge I have. If he is innocent, then the Wisconsin police are going to be in serious trouble.
Brendan Dassey has had his conviction overturned.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/making-murderer...
Maybe we will finally get the truth
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/making-murderer...
Maybe we will finally get the truth
The documentary seemed to show pretty clear evidence he was railroaded into that conviction. Although he was 16 at the time his mental age was obviously a lot lower. If he is completely innocent then that's 10 years of his life he will never get back!
I'm still not sure if Steven Avery is guilty or not though.
I'm still not sure if Steven Avery is guilty or not though.
130R said:
The documentary seemed to show pretty clear evidence he was railroaded into that conviction. Although he was 16 at the time his mental age was obviously a lot lower. If he is completely innocent then that's 10 years of his life he will never get back!
I'm still not sure if Steven Avery is guilty or not though.
I guess you're could say that regardless of his innocence, he shouldn't be locked up because of the actions of the police department. It was incredible to see what they got away with and a prosecution still held up.I'm still not sure if Steven Avery is guilty or not though.
Pleased for Brendan... couldn't help but feel for him while watching the series. More generally though, I'm pleased that there is a good side to things like Netflix for bringing terrible local issues to an international audience and prompting action.
I've never been able to make my mind up about Steven. At the very least, he should have had the 18 or so years he served first time round taken off his second (questionable) sentencing. Its an extremely rare situation in that a man's freedom wrongly taken away from him could be returned to him pro-rata... albeit by shortening another sentence. And a lot cheaper than the $2mil per annum he had valued them at.
I've never been able to make my mind up about Steven. At the very least, he should have had the 18 or so years he served first time round taken off his second (questionable) sentencing. Its an extremely rare situation in that a man's freedom wrongly taken away from him could be returned to him pro-rata... albeit by shortening another sentence. And a lot cheaper than the $2mil per annum he had valued them at.
Making a Murderer didn't exactly show the whole evidence from the trial however. It's entertainment at the end of the day and the "documentary" did have an agenda to follow.
Personally, I feel it showed extremely well the problems of those below the poverty line in the USA have of getting decent council to represent them.
The rest? It was a whole lot of conjecture and half truths. The post above about Steven Avary's 18 year conviction is proof of that. He may not have raped the woman he served time for, but he did serve 6 of those years for a crime he did. Same with his nephew, was he "coached" into his confession? Blatently, did the police put all those words in his mouth? You'd think so having see the show but his documents show otherwise.
Was Brendan Dassey fairly tried? I'd argue no. Was he innocent?
Personally, I feel it showed extremely well the problems of those below the poverty line in the USA have of getting decent council to represent them.
The rest? It was a whole lot of conjecture and half truths. The post above about Steven Avary's 18 year conviction is proof of that. He may not have raped the woman he served time for, but he did serve 6 of those years for a crime he did. Same with his nephew, was he "coached" into his confession? Blatently, did the police put all those words in his mouth? You'd think so having see the show but his documents show otherwise.
Was Brendan Dassey fairly tried? I'd argue no. Was he innocent?
Defcon5 said:
Where have you seen the additional stuff LOH?
There is a huge amount of info out there on reddit (as always) but if you're not familiar with the site or the slightly confusing way it is formatted, this article gives a good insight into some of stuffhttp://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-ste...
I read the judge's statement in full and it's pretty damning.
The really scary part for me is that it took 10 years and what I can only assume was relentless legal efforts to get to this point, and that's with intense public scrutiny.
His entire conviction rested on his confession, there was no physical evidence of his involvement. Scarier still for his confession to be taken as gospel the prosecution would have to discount their own case against Steven Avery. The circumstances of death were mutually exclusive. I honestly do not understand how there can be two cases about the same murder with independent conclusions?
The really scary part for me is that it took 10 years and what I can only assume was relentless legal efforts to get to this point, and that's with intense public scrutiny.
His entire conviction rested on his confession, there was no physical evidence of his involvement. Scarier still for his confession to be taken as gospel the prosecution would have to discount their own case against Steven Avery. The circumstances of death were mutually exclusive. I honestly do not understand how there can be two cases about the same murder with independent conclusions?
Durzel said:
I honestly do not understand how there can be two cases about the same murder with independent conclusions?
That's an interesting point Durzel, but when you think about it (regardless of the intricacies of this particular case) it doesn't, and really shouldn't make any difference.Just because one case shows a particular incidence, what happens when another case shows the opposite? How do you know which different case to believe?
All you can do, is test your theory against a jury and run with that. Sometimes you just need to trust in what you can prove. The point about the differences in the prosecutions will always happen when there is two separate trials.
Brendan Dassey knew things about what happened and wasn't prompted by the police about them. How did he know? Of course there could be other reasons than he was involved in the incident but that doesn't mean he's innocent-it just means the state has done a crappy job in proving his guilt.
LaurasOtherHalf said:
Defcon5 said:
Where have you seen the additional stuff LOH?
There is a huge amount of info out there on reddit (as always) but if you're not familiar with the site or the slightly confusing way it is formatted, this article gives a good insight into some of stuffhttp://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-ste...
LaurasOtherHalf said:
That's an interesting point Durzel, but when you think about it (regardless of the intricacies of this particular case) it doesn't, and really shouldn't make any difference.
Just because one case shows a particular incidence, what happens when another case shows the opposite? How do you know which different case to believe?
All you can do, is test your theory against a jury and run with that. Sometimes you just need to trust in what you can prove. The point about the differences in the prosecutions will always happen when there is two separate trials.
Brendan Dassey knew things about what happened and wasn't prompted by the police about them. How did he know? Of course there could be other reasons than he was involved in the incident but that doesn't mean he's innocent-it just means the state has done a crappy job in proving his guilt.
It just seems strange to me that the State can say "you were involved with killing this person, she was stabbed here, shot here, etc", convince a jury of this and convict someone, then press the reset button and say "you killed the same person, they were stabbed in a different place entirely, weren't shot, etc" and convict a second person based on an entirely separate and in some aspects mutually exclusive set of facts. I fundamentally don't understand how this dichotomy is valid in a legal sense.Just because one case shows a particular incidence, what happens when another case shows the opposite? How do you know which different case to believe?
All you can do, is test your theory against a jury and run with that. Sometimes you just need to trust in what you can prove. The point about the differences in the prosecutions will always happen when there is two separate trials.
Brendan Dassey knew things about what happened and wasn't prompted by the police about them. How did he know? Of course there could be other reasons than he was involved in the incident but that doesn't mean he's innocent-it just means the state has done a crappy job in proving his guilt.
Regards Dassey, I can well believe that he said everything he did based on early media reports, and from heavy prompting. The judge statement even said that people of a borderline intellectual capacity are more likely to make up or embellish a story, and particularly when under pressure. It's conceivable that Dassey was involved but there was such a gross abuse of constitutional rights that the judge rightly said that no honest account could realistically have been obtained, and since Dassey's entire case hung on the confession (there was zero other evidence physical or otherwise) then it's only right the verdict be overturned.
I also don't happen to believe that Avery was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but I do personally think he may well have killed her.
But maybe that's the one infallible point of our justice system, that your jury is infallible.
What's the other option, that judges decide by themselves? I'm sure we'll both agree the jury system is the best of a bad set of options but it does introduce quirks of the system that MaM exposed.
Like it or lump it I guess, trial by jury is not the way to find out who's guilty or innocent 100%. Mistakes will happen.
What's the other option, that judges decide by themselves? I'm sure we'll both agree the jury system is the best of a bad set of options but it does introduce quirks of the system that MaM exposed.
Like it or lump it I guess, trial by jury is not the way to find out who's guilty or innocent 100%. Mistakes will happen.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff