Netflix show Making a Murderer - Steven Avery case, etc

this making a murderer show is p good i like watching old depositions of ppl trying to squirm out of past statements its a+ entertainment

― johnny crunch, Friday, December 18, 2015 8:52 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Looking forward to that one.

― Jeff, Friday, December 18, 2015 8:55 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

damn the turn this takes and the timing is amazing, better than fiction could come up w believably

― johnny crunch, Friday, December 18, 2015 9:02 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

theres some killer audio/video footage in this omg, reminds me some of capturing the friedmans already

― johnny crunch, Friday, December 18, 2015 9:07 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wow @ someone making this
https://twitter.com/RealStevenAvery

― johnny crunch, Friday, December 18, 2015 10:26 PM (58 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'm intrigued by that cause i lived in a market that got network TV out of Green Bay when that all happened and it was constantly on the local news and was super crazy.

― joygoat, Friday, December 18, 2015 10:33 PM (51 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Only watched the 1st ep (which is on YouTube) but I'm intrigued, the case reminds me of Rectify

― the naive cockney chorus (Simon H.), Friday, December 18, 2015 10:59 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

if this shit was fake it would be a massive work of art; its still wildly well constructed to the extent its documented & edited & assembled

― johnny crunch, Friday, December 18, 2015 11:19 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

credit info online on this is not easy to find, its makers have 71 and 91 twitter followers respectively rn, im gonna make a thread for this

https://twitter.com/allHs
https://twitter.com/filmgreek

― johnny crunch, Friday, December 18, 2015 11:24 PM (0 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

good anecdote contribution by frogbs

actually, the trolliest band name i've ever heard comes from a friend of mine who formed a black metal band around the time of the somewhat famous Steven Avery murder here that he called "Avery's Boneyard", distributing CD-Rs outside the courthouse during the trial. The CD case even had a map to the location of where the victim was supposedly buried.

― frogbs, Wednesday, June 15, 2011 10:26 AM (4 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://ilookbothways.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/prosecutor_sexting1.png?w=450

Lack of Twitter followers on the filmmakers speaks more about Twitter than it does about them

started this i like it a lot

ok i'm ashamed to admit i just binged it all instead of doing anything i was supposed to do. wow!

I'm on Ep 6. I do feel it could have been tightened up just a bit - some of the raw interview and court footage could stand do be shortened. But yeah, damn.

http://www.youtube.com/user/imAbNorMalsometime/videos

OBLIQUE REAL LIFE SPOILERS

I have to admit I had to skim through the last two episodes, they were just so dismally sad.

the cadence of Brendan saying YEAH to his mom during phone calls is seared into my brain

when she's like "do you like your lawyer" and he says "well, he has the same favorite animal as me" "what's that" "cat"

I very nearly burst into tears when he expressed how disappointed he was going to be to miss Wrestlemania.

honestly my anger peaked early at that police video w/ officers snickering at Steven's invite to an Innocence Project event. dirty fuckers.

think I need more enlightenment on the unsealed Styrofoam container and hole-poked in the blood sample testtube -- some reddit thread said the hole in the stopper was not that bizarre for some justifiable reason idk

Actually I've sort of been craving one of those articles that debunks the presented narrative; says what the doc missed out, etc. etc. I truly think no amount of filmmaker manipulation could make me think those guys are anything but 100% innocent, but I'm always fascinated by that angle - I remember falling down an insane anti-West Memphis 3 rabbit hole online once, and I learned a ton more there... (but still knew those guys were innocent too)...

i can't decide if i think steven is innocent but the kid had nothing to do with it at all. the police interrogations are appalling. he may have been incompetent to stand trial, i wonder if the new lawyers (after kuchinsky was discharged) explored that.

brendans mom did say he had stains on his jeans when he came home that I think she washed off iirc? idk obv if anything happened it was nothing like the DAs story but im not 100 % he didn't see something or do something as an unwitting accessory

my gf feel asleep during bredan's cross examination. the next day i tried to skip over it but she was like 'no i missed brendan on the stand i want to see it'. it was not easier to watch a second time. steven's mother also had me tearing up several times throughout

also that mustache crying about the 'blue ribbon' made me very angry.

i can't decide if i think steven is innocent

I'd be curious to hear your take on what might have gone down.

(The fact that the defense had to stick with one theory meant so many roads weren't nearly explored enough for me - namely the ex-boyfriend (who kept calling himself a 'friend') who had been deleting text messages, but certainly other possible figures of interest as well...)

I'm excited to watch this, even though I suspect I'm not going to be happy about how my hometown is portrayed. I remember all this so well, it was on the news daily, seemed like an open and shut case in the beginning but it got stranger and stranger as it went on. Full disclosure, I knew several of the Avery's, I'm guessing their reputation is well discussed in the doc. when it came to Dassey most of us thought it would be a travesty if he got significant time, the guy was so clearly being manipulated and had no clue what was going on.

Wow, I'd love to hear your take after you've seen it. I have tons of family in Northern Illinois/Southern Wisconsin; I don't think the area is portrayed badly by the film at all - it's really about corrupt authority everywhere. The Averys certainly come across as loyal, caring people who have just been damned from birth and treated like shit from the get-go, with every mistake held against them a million times over throughout their lives.

Yeah there are a lot of short interviews with locals and they mostly seem like a pretty savvy bunch

namely the ex-boyfriend (who kept calling himself a 'friend') who had been deleting text messages

Voicemails, iirc?

this is mean but i was wondering if steven's parents were closely related. they look like brother and sister. i thought of that before mustache's email then i felt bad for it.

i don't know what i think might have happened if steven did do it. i just couldn't think of another theory that makes sense to me. i also think it's possible he did it and the police did things to make the case against him stronger, such as the blood and the key.

Brendan was def over that night in some capacity imo. in transcripts of one of his interrogations he mentions knowing abt steven needing to be alert to receive one of the calls from Jodi

of course that could be completely innocent and them just sitting outside around the bonfire and steven saying I need to go in the house for this call etc

the police interrogations are appalling. he may have been incompetent to stand trial,

i've only watched the first 3 episodes but ... Brendan comes across as being "mentally disabled" and like he's totally incompetent legally

They are pitching this in the trailer as a sort of mystery—WHERE WILL YOU STAND?—but unlike The Staircase (an equally compelling/addictive serial crime doc) is there ever really any doubt about the subject's innocence?

SPOILER-iSH:

Two hugely frustrating aspects: 1) Brendan's failure on the witness stand to come out say he felt coerced in his testimony; and 2) unless I missed it, his attorneys' failure to screen the video evincing as much. ARRGHH. I only hope the filmmakers left this part out to amp viewer indignation?

It would be easy to chalk 1) up to Brendan's incapability on the stand, but with that exception he was actually great! When he answered "I believe it's called Kiss the Girls," I had this glimmer of hope that he had just knocked it out of the park and we were in for a comeback. But christ this thing is devastating. I kinda don't have it in me to watch the last ep.

i got the book on this from my lib today, gonna binge read

SPOILER-iSH:

Two hugely frustrating aspects: 1) Brendan's failure on the witness stand to come out say he felt coerced in his testimony; and 2) unless I missed it, his attorneys' failure to screen the video evincing as much. ARRGHH. I only hope the filmmakers left this part out to amp viewer indignation?

It would be easy to chalk 1) up to Brendan's incapability on the stand, but with that exception he was actually great! When he answered "I believe it's called Kiss the Girls," I had this glimmer of hope that he had just knocked it out of the park and we were in for a comeback. But christ this thing is devastating. I kinda don't have it in me to watch the last ep.

Yeah I was holding my breathe while he was on the stand. I thought he was so good especially considering the prosecution were doing anything they could to make him slip up. I don't know that it would have helped for Brendan to say he was coerced. I feel like that was really his counsel's job and 3 diff lawyers failed on that 3 times. I guess its hard to have an already biased jury buy the 'Well i told the truth and they called me a liar so I told a lie and that's the truth' line. What really frustrated me is that they chose to focus on disproving the false confession and not focus on the fact that the story is impossible with zero dna evidence in the trailer or on Teresa.

Totally I was screaming at the TV they should've been hammering away at how it is even remotely possible that Therea was butchered, stabbed, and shot but ZERO of her blood or DNA (or his!) was found. Maddening.

Also Kratts (?) presuming to connect dots like a) Auto Trader magazine in Steven house, therefore b) victim was also in house. Fuckface.

haha yeah. that theory must implicate every mechanic, body shop worker and 16 year old kid in town.

Also, I don't get why guilt vs innocence was so strongly played in both of these cases. i mean you don't have to be innocent. you just have to not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence seems a lot to shoot for in both of these situations (innocent as either party may have been).

there are different theories to it among trial lawyers. one of the biggest theories is you have to sell a narrative of innocence because not all jurors can grasp the concept of reasonable doubt and the burden of proof and it is less of an uphill battle if you can tell dumb (and even not dumb) people a story of how your client is innocent.

i was not sure what was left out of brandon's trial by the filmmakers. his testimony could have been a lot stronger but his inability to testify well to help himself could be an artifact of his cognitive limitations too.

it made me wonder how "cognitively limited" does one have to be to get declared incompetent? just watching and listening to his interviews with the detectives, the investigator, his mom ... he seemed to have the mental capacity of a child

short answer ime is the bar is very low and he probably would be found competent i just wondered if it was even tried

just a few episodes in

when the fiancee gets out of jail and comes home to find things all dumped on the floor in her home -- is that really how the police left it, or was someone in there because it was never really secure and anyone could wander in?

you would think they'd have an interest when no one was living there to at least keep things arranged in some way, since they might have to get a warrant yet again?

and what the hell is with people repeatedly referring to Avery as "cold-blooded?" he did some stupid shit when he was really young, but was thrown in jail for something he didn't do at age 23. was he really violent in prison? was there some incident of him being aggressive to reporters when he got out?

there's this repeated "i've got a bad feeling about him" vibe when the show really only shows that members of this family are kind of uneducated or not completely competent, lower class, and get into legal trouble that a lot of people do -- but do more repeatedly when they don't really have resources to dig out of it

this interrogation tape with Brendan is heartbreaking, it's people prodding a kid to say anything incriminating

oh god the kid's attorney saying it's common for kids to be questioned without their parents or representation there

fuck this guy

Yeah that narrative re: Steven's past is maddening—esp. the notion that "his crimes keep getting worse," "at this rate who knows what he's capable of" etc.

he did set the family cat on fire, which is something that sociopaths/psychopaths tend to do, apparently

the narrative is that they were being dumb and throwing it around, including over the fire?

i'm #1 cat lover over here but stupid kids and small animals are not a good combination

he wasn't a kid ... he was a young adult i think?

he was around 20 and with an IQ of 70? idk

though apparently the nephew also had an IQ of 70, and compared to him Steven seemed smart

I think "IQ of 70" is, with IQ being kind of a bullshit measurement, shorthand for "baseline legally competent"

this series is one of the most upsetting things i've ever seen

i wish that the filmmakers had gone outside the scope of the trial to offer up some theories on what might have happened to teresa but i understand why for various legal reasons they (and/or the lawyers) might have chose not to. because of that it's hard to understand what even might have happened to her and at whose hands, but i find it pretty hard to imagine that steven was involved. the case they built against him was nonsensical and he never altered his story, plus i just don't understand what his motive would have been. him killing her just makes no sense to me and weirdly the prosecution didn't seem to need or want to offer a motive, which seems unusual to me.

im just talking out of my ass here but clearly brendan wasn't involved in the killing. that said i do feel like he saw something that fucked him up (the whole part about him isolating himself and losing weight) which makes me think someone else in the family might have done it

the one thing i can't quite figure out in my mind is, depending on who might have done it, at which point the cops decide that they are gonna try and pin it on steve

somehow i feel like brendan's first attorney's investigator (the focus of the final episode) might be the most evil person in the entire thing

I'm guessing, if the whole framing thing is true, sometime between the last deposition in the civil suit and the day of the murder.
If the framing isn't true then they ran into some incredible luck with the murderer dumping the car in Avery's yard. Xpost.

I'm guessing, if the whole framing thing is true, sometime between the last deposition in the civil suit and the day of the murder.

meaning the cops orchestrated her murder? for some reason i want to give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't do that thought it's not like they deserve it

if she died for some other reason, i'm curious as to when they plausibly could have figured out they might be able to put it on steve and then what they needed to facilitate to make that happen (i.e. was the car already there or did they move it? were the bone fragments there or did they place them? etc)

I would not put it past them. That comment the sherriff (?) made about how "it would have been easier to kill him" is chilling. When you think about what was at stake for these guys—careers, reputations, civil suits that would surely bankrupt them personally—plus the 36 million from the county, and add in the general sense they seem to have had that the Avery's were subhuman trash (the investigator's incest rant) I don't think it's much of a stretch that they would do it.

somehow i feel like brendan's first attorney's investigator (the focus of the final episode) might be the most evil person in the entire thing

Yeah this creep with his constant nervous smile. The investigator and prosecutors and cops, at least they were evil in the course of their actual jobs. I wonder if this guy gets any sleep at night.

It's also saddening how in the immediate aftermath of the Steven verdict, Strang and Buting—disingenuously, to my eyes—felt they needed to soften if not entirely walk back their contention that he was framed. These are a couple of righteous guys and even they understand that if they ever want a decision ruled in their favor again, they're expected to chalk the conviction up to a vaguely "broken system." I had the sense during that conference-table reunion a few years later that these men were broken, depleted...not because they lost the case (which is part of the job) or even because they know the county got away w/ basically abetting a murder, but because they personally ran up against the same hard ceiling their client did—fuck with the police at your own peril.

I haven't made it through the last few but Brendan's first attorney, and his investigator, made me so angry I had to walk away from watching for a day. His consolation prize for coming in third for a DA election in middle-of-nowhere Wisconsin is the publicity of not even attempting to defend a client? fuck that guy

the thing that really riled me throughout was the da and his cohort talking about what a disgrace it was that the defence was accusing police officers of wrongdoing. like as if just by dint of being in the police, someone is a paragon of virtue. they seemed to keep reinforcing that point, as if a great police force is by necessity built on a refusal to even consider the fact that it could be corrupt - i mean obv corruption is guaranteed where you have public figures with power...

i've seen the staircase/paradise lost etc but the cops in this really came across far worse.

hmmm watched one hour of this stuff and can't imagine watching 9 more hours of it. not that i need 'suspense' to string me along but it felt like such an overview that i don't even know how to get motivated to watch any more of it.

well the first ep kinda is an overview of a huge period of time - the actual story develops after that...

hmmm watched one hour of this stuff and can't imagine watching 9 more hours of it. not that i need 'suspense' to string me along but it felt like such an overview that i don't even know how to get motivated to watch any more of it.

― i got a really big steen, and they need some really big zings (some dude), Saturday, December 26, 2015 7:01 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark

breh you're out here watching every minute of the new rob lowe show you can find the time

yeah, the rest of the season isn't about reiterating the first episode. It's not even that much about what happens in the first episode.

the show's called "making a murderer" and there's not even any murder in the first episode ..................................

ah ok i thought the entire series was primarily about what they outlined in that one

My god this show. Can't get over Steven's "the poor always lose" quote. This shit is so heartbreaking

Did the first two of these over the weekend. What strikes me most about it is how malicious and dark but at the same time SMALL TIME the conspiracy (assuming it's that) seems to be. Like there's no bigger intrigue here, afaict, he wasn't a political figure or a double agent or someone who was going to bring down the governor, he was just a small town dude who some other small town dudes didn't like and wound up with an even bigger vendetta against him when he went after them for going after him.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jarettwieselman/making-a-murderer-burning-questions-answered?utm_term=.kqNxvan4p

started this i like it a lot

― #amazing #babies #touching (harbl), 20. december 2015 15:34 (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

ok i'm ashamed to admit i just binged it all instead of doing anything i was supposed to do. wow!

― #amazing #babies #touching (harbl), 21. december 2015 02:01 (1 week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Nobody has mentioned how awesome these two posts are :) I watched eight episodes yesterday. So chilling.

i assume you've all seen paradise lost and the staircase... if not, they're both on youtube. make sure you find the paradise lost version where each episode is about 2 hours long or more.

both are about as good as this, and quite similar.

fucking hell, this was devastating. the slow realisation in the final episode that Steven and Brendan wern't going to be free by the end was awful.

also, Brendan's resemblance to Paul Dano as Brian Wilson was uncanny.

I'm sure that Teresa's brother was in full "Justice for Teresa" mode, but I found him a bit despicable in the documentary.

'we love the police!' is not a good look for anyone in this story for sure

yeah, could be that the prosecutor coached him in the tone to take in the media interviews?

condemning the victim's family is not really a feeling I trust, and may be my source of greatest unease wrt the documentary. but I suppose a respectful distance leaves us only with those very public comments made not long after a great trauma.

i found him more pathetic and sad than anything

like, his trauma was so great that he blinded himself from a broad obvious truth (that the case built against avery was at best deeply flawed and corrupted)

the narrative is that they were being dumb and throwing it around, including over the fire?

i'm #1 cat lover over here but stupid kids and small animals are not a good combination

forgot to respond to this, but it wasn't like that - he literally doused it in gasoline and threw it in the fire. and he was 20 when it happened, not just a "stupid kid". Avery's reputation was very well-earned, he'd done significant time for assault and apparently pointed his gun at family members during arguments - I have a lot of stories about that family, some of which I probably shouldn't share here. Even despite all the oddness that came about with this case (everyone here felt like the sheriff's department was taking some improper measures to make this as frictionless as possible) very few of us ever doubted it was him. For me the nail in the coffin was Avery's weird obsession with Halbach, calling her several times (and trying to mask the call) to come out to the salvage yard even though she had already told her boss that she didn't want to go back out there.

I believe Avery is guilty and it would take a LOT to convince me he wasn't (to be fair this doc seems to be converting a lot of locals who probably had the same attitude). It was pretty common knowledge around here that the police botched the investigation, but knowing some of these county employees personally I just feel there's no chance that she was killed by police - I guess I could buy that someone ELSE did it and tried to make it look like it was Avery but that seems pretty farfetched. I've only seen a couple episodes so far but it feels like a documentary in the Michael Moore sense; there's just so much footage, so many documents, so many weird statements out there, I don't think it would be particularly difficult to find this narrative.

honestly I've come away from what I've seen so far thinking it's completely possible he did it, but the police and prosecutors were so incompetent and motivated to get him to jail that they didn't bother to do anything correctly

I haven't gotten the impression that it's plausible the police killed Halbach. But their entire operation was so incredibly incompetent that there's no credibility to their investigation when they had such high stakes. Pushing Dassey into a story, to the point of his _defense investigator_ getting him to tell a narrative they had no facts to corroborate is gross. They decided to push some barely-competent kid into jail to make their job easier! That's not an improper measure, it's criminal.

That's the indictment here, for me -- the local cops have an idea of what trouble looks like in their community, people they keep an eye on due to repeat problems, but this entire idea that it's their job to pipe these people into jail as quickly as possible, regardless of evidence or investigation, is a problem that underlies a lot of the criminal justice system.

booming post mh

The one thing that seemed queasy to me was the depiction of the Halbachs and the ex-boyfriend. I mean, it's understandable why that happens, the lawyers explain that a failing of the police was to never investigate the ones closest to Theresa, but still. Perhaps it didn't need all those clips of the brother saying stupid stuff.

All in all, though, it's such a shocking story, told so incredibly well.

i guess who knows what the police told the brother and family, and obv it's a huge life trauma, but i still feel like anyone who so unswervingly backs the police, like as if all that matters is a certain conviction, of anyone, doesn't really come across very well. like there are some people who would never believe the police got anything wrong, ever. even after an exoneration. these people are a real problem in society.

basing this entirely on the staircase/making a murderer/paradise lost, ie in mostly ignorance of the us system, but do people criticise the system of having elected district attorneys? it does seem to breed some iffy characters.

Not District Attorneys, but Last Week Tonight had a segment on judicial elections:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8

still feel like anyone who so unswervingly backs the police, like as if all that matters is a certain conviction, of anyone, doesn't really come across very well.

agreed but this is pretty common when someone close dies - lately there's been a decent amount of 20-something OD'ing in the area and it seems every time the parents won't rest until whoever sold the so-and-so is caught and behind bars, as though that makes any difference

i interpreted the brother's blind faith in the police not as stupidity but as an example of the way you might bend your mind in order to cope with incredible grief

2005 was also a v diff time in American culture wrt attitudes towards police

forgot to respond to this, but it wasn't like that - he literally doused it in gasoline and threw it in the fire. and he was 20 when it happened, not just a "stupid kid".

is this manitowoc lore or is this actually what happened, though?

well, nobody knows for sure. I've heard the story at least a dozen times though, worth mentioning though that usually it's "him and his buddies", maybe Steve was the one that incinerated it but he was probably drunk and being egged on by whoever else was there. It's not inconsistent with the other stuff I've heard about him, not to mention some of the things I've heard or witnessed firsthand from other members of the family. Not that he's necessarily a sadist or a psychopath, just prone to making really bad decisions.

of all the bad decisions one could make, murdering a woman almost immediately after being freed from 18 years of wrongful incarceration (from which you stand to gain millions) is up there

he was out for about two years afterwards and got into plenty of other legal trouble

agree that the impending lawsuit was likely what drove the Sheriff's office into "get this guy no matter what" mode

but what other legal trouble? and whatever the legal trouble was, isn't there a big jump to murder? and wouldn't a "get this guy no matter what" mode contribute to said legal trouble?

I don't know for sure. My mother worked in the courthouse during those years and said that he was a frequent visitor, mostly incidents related to his girlfriend, at least one involving a firearm.

This is a good article if you're looking for some specific things that the doc left out. No hard evidence linking him to it but I think the truth is a far cry from the "there was no evidence whatsoever/all the evidence was planted" POV that seems to be going around a lot lately

I mean some of it is totally irrelevant (who cares if he had porn), but if the detail about his apparent obsession with Halbach was glossed over, that's a pretty big omission

Also if I remember correctly the "robbery" conviction was just him stealing a case of beer or something from a bar.

yeah, I agree that some of this was glossed over. And the porn thing is stupid, as you said. It's weird that the list includes the key, which was discussed pretty clearly in the doc. Doc spins the absence of Teresa's DNA on the key as odd, though it seems to me that avery could have washed the key before contaminating it himself.

6. The previous animal cruelty case involved a bonfire

this point is also a bit ridiculous

yeah - like if he had been accused of burying her they could say "as a child he loved digging sandcastles at the beach"

Is this "obsession" you've mentioned also largely anecdotal, local lore? The few *67 calls (2 or 3?) don't seem that damning to me. Or is there more to that?

And whether or not they played a role in Teresa's death, the police's behavior during the investigation was almost definitely criminal.

yeah that article was interesting but besides maybe the key it still leaves huge holes. like basically how did the murder happen? the prosecution based their case on the jury's memory of inadmissible evidence from dassey's coached confession.

Is this "obsession" you've mentioned also largely anecdotal, local lore? The few *67 calls (2 or 3?) don't seem that damning to me. Or is there more to that?

the question is why request a specific photographer, particularly one you'd successfully managed to creep out a few weeks prior? to the point of masking the call and requesting her under a different name? hard to believe that evidence was "planted" in any way and if he's being framed that seems like a really lucky break for whoever the real murderer was

he called two times using *67 to get her to come out, then once without, the prosecution's theory being that he didn't dial *67 because he knew she'd been murdered at that point and wanted to establish some sort of evidence that he didn't know at that point.

barf, that was a clunky sentence. but you know what I mean. I thought the idea that he'd randomly murdered some photographer was very strange but considering that 1) he knew who she was and 2) he specifically wanted her on the property makes it a little more beliveable

forgot to respond to this, but it wasn't like that - he literally doused it in gasoline and threw it in the fire. and he was 20 when it happened, not just a "stupid kid".
is this manitowoc lore or is this actually what happened, though?

― Sufjan Grafton, Thursday, December 31, 2015 12:09 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I read a facebook post this week by a woman who claims to have worked for the Manitowoc sheriff's dept from 1980-82. She says she actually took the cat call?

I don't know who killed Teresa but I cant shake the feeling her brother knows *something* about it. Some shaky reasoning:
1. Before the car is even found he says he's in 'the grieving process'
2. That whole "We LOVE cops!" was kind of weird.
3. His unwavering devotion to Steven's conviction as opposed to the truth.
4. He and the ex-boyfriend giving the camera to the woman who found the car.
5. Way too much denial about being on the property.
6. He deleted voicemail!!

oh and this:

http://www.tvguide.com/news/anonymous-to-help-exonerate-making-a-murderer-steven-avery/

I think my takeaway from this series isn't a lingering sense of wonder about whether Avery is guilty more than it is a lot of questions about how the court and justice systems work in practice. The three branches of government -- legislative, judicial, and executive each had a role to play (although the legislative part in the series is mostly related to reform of his previous mistreatment) and the courts and police were both rolling in the mud by the end.

Dassey's initial lawyer never really cared whether he was guilty, his entire job was to get the kid to stick to the story the police prodded him into creating, and plead guilty to get a timeline cemented so they could throw the book at Avery. I mean, without any story to tie the limited evidence together, they just picked the most pliable person who could have possibly seen the crime and threw him into an interview room (without a parent or lawyer) until they got what they wanted. I'm not sure who disgusts me more -- his first lawyer or the defense investigator who had the kid write out what happened that day and then threw it away and prodded him until he regurgitated something close to the prosecution's case.

It's kind of taken for granted that public defenders will end up with a rapport with the prosecutors they sit across from all the time, but where that could be a bridge to better negotiation, this case started with two prosecutions and no defense.

that doesn't even get into the news media churn and public response to their perfect "this guy spent time in jail for murder, but now he's committed murder, so maybe we should let the police decide who stays in jail" angle that is the unspoken undercurrent to the whole thing

it just comes down to giving people due process. regardless of anything, that must happen. regardless of avery's guilt or otherwise, it didn't happen. you can't run a legal system in that way. nobody can trust the police or the state that much - whether you're cynical about police or just accepting of human fallibility.

Looking at the list of things the docuseries left out, a lot of it is either from the prosecution, or from media where it could well have been planted by the prosecution. I'd be wary of it being called 'facts', and I think the article is pretty misleading.

One thing I've thought about: Does the doc explain where the police is supposed to have gotten the key from? That is the one thing where the prosecution is sorta right, I think: If you believe the evidence to have been planted, you have to believe the police were involved in something way more shady. Not killing her, but finding the scene of the crime, and changing it completely, with all that that entails.

Before the car is even found he says he's in 'the grieving process'

my wife's started watching this and she nearly fell out of her chair when teresa's brother said that. she's looking at him with extreme suspicion every time he appears on screen

Easiest way to square that circle is that the family and/or police could've found the vehicle on the Avery property as part of an illegal search (when Colbourne called in the plate and asked "99 Toyota?", IIRC that was the day before the RAV4 was officially found).

Not wanting to have it excluded as evidence, they could've arranged a legal search (IIRC, Steven was away at the cabin and they got permission from someone else in the family) and then staged "discovering" it there -- the one searcher gets a camera, a direct phone line to the sheriff, etc. By that point, the family would've known the bad news that they couldn't reveal directly.

The defense mentions at one point that Steven could've crushed the vehicle instead of hiding it on the property, but I don't think that's quite as easy as it sounds -- likely need to remove parts of it (engine, wheels) before crushing, and then still hide/dispose them, and a crushed car isn't exactly invisible or untraceable anyway.

The key is still fishy, in part because (I've read elsewhere, don't think this is mentioned in the doc) it was a spare ("valet") key. Seems really unlikely that Teresa would be carrying her extra key on the day she got killed. More likely to me that the killer (Steven or whoever) hid (buried?) her usual set of keys, and the family/friends supplied the spare key for the police, who planted it as evidence. All in the service of framing a guy they believed was guilty.

And who may well be, anyway.

lots of points leading to them wanting to make an airtight case without being competent enough to know how to do so

yeah it starts from the view of "we need to get this guy" and seems like anything goes after that.

and the civil suit means that for some, the need is exacerbated beyond simply a belief in his guilt, as genuine as that belief may have been.

It was a SPARE key?? Hell

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXal-oPUEAARZZn.png

I read somewhere it was the valet key, and it looks like it. Would a young woman carry a car key around on that kind of strap/clip? Where are the rest of her keys? If Steven or (if not him) the murderer hid/disposed of them, why leave the car key anywhere it could be found, let alone in his bedroom? Meanwhile the family and friends might well have had access to the spare car key (I know where my wife keeps hers). If the police told them they needed it to make sure her killer was brought to justice, I could see them handing it over, and keeping quiet about it, just as easily as they could have played along with a "search" where they always knew what they were going to find.

The appearance of that key, on that strap, on Steven's bedroom floor all by itself is almost as incongruous as the spots of blood on the car interior, which look very much like they dripped from a syringe, trickled down a little and dried, unlike any bleeding I've ever seen from a hand wound (which is always going to smear).

It being the valet key would also explain the lack of Teresa's DNA on it. Most people hardly touch the spare key. So the police (or whoever) wouldn't have to clean it, just put it in contact with something of Steven's where they could get sweat (really skin cells, I think) DNA before planting it. Rubbing some dirty laundry on it might do it.

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

Yeah now I look at it there are no buttons.

Omg from CAs post:

"We were contacted by one of the jurors who sat through Steven Avery's trial and shared what us their thoughts and they told us that they believe Steven Avery was not proven guilty, they believe that Steven was framed by law enforcement,"

did they think that at the time, though, or after watching the show?

i read last night they said this before the show.

Strang interview video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9h5C901lGE

The interviewer brings up the *67 calls to Strang and he moreorless swats away the question, claiming that Avery was very careful about his privacy, which kinda makes sense.

My partner, who's from a very Maintowoc-ish town, says most small town men are ornery loners and *67-ing calls isn't that unusual.

This was really engrossing and compelling but I can't handle the general internet response to it. People can't seem to step back and realize that their exposure to the case has been through a heavily mediated narrative and that these are real people and it's not some shitty Whodunnit for you and your Sherlock Reddit buddies to solve.

Grossed out by the way the Halbach brother is being treated. Doc did him no favors and he's obviously an inarticulate maybe thick dude and he's being made a villain.

Shit's obviously complicated. Steve Avery seems blatantly guilty, just a tapestry of incriminating evidence, but I won't deny that there might be tampered evidence to beef up the case against him.

Brendan's case is heartbreaking though. No way around that one.

Steve Avery seems blatantly guilty

I mean, the reason you might be having a reaction that clashes with the rest of the internet is that this is preposterous.

I get the contrarian impulse to be grossed out by kneejerk internet tunnelvision justice, but if you're reading anything about this case outside of the documentary and you still think Avery seems "blatantly" guilty you're bananas.

Halfway through, and I'm not convinced of anything except that there's been gross misconduct and very likely criminal activity on the part of the police/sheriff's office.

yeah, there's no way steven or brendan is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt given the amount of weirdness around a lot of the evidence the prosecution did manage to dig up and/or plant

People can't seem to step back and realize that their exposure to the case has been through a heavily mediated narrative and that these are real people and it's not some shitty Whodunnit for you and your Sherlock Reddit buddies to solve.

agreed 100%, particuarly the "NO SPOILERS" crowd, as though this was a season of True Detective and not an actual murder case.

I get the contrarian impulse to be grossed out by kneejerk internet tunnelvision justice, but if you're reading anything about this case outside of the documentary and you still think Avery seems "blatantly" guilty you're bananas

I have yet to meet a single person from the Manitowoc area who seriously thinks Avery didn't do it. There WAS physical evidence linking him to it and as mistreated as Dassey was I find it hard to believe that he made up a story that just so happened to match most of the evidence the police already had. If your only source is the documentary and that's what has you convinced that the police fed Dassey to all the answers, READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT

Nobody is saying Dassey made it up, and that it perfectly matches the police evidence - even the evidence that didn't hold up in court - is part of the problem.

I agree that none of Dassey's confession should have been admissable in court given how it was obtained, but given that it was it's easy to see why the jurors were convinced

I have no problem with the "local cops massively screwed this up and almost certainly did something illegal" narrative, rather the 300,000-strong opinion that Avery deserves a pardon and was most likely framed. If the police had done their damn jobs properly I think they would've gotten a guilty verdict anyway.

I happen to know that the Manitowoc County PD is recieving non-stop harrassment over this even though they had nothing to do with the case - it was the Sheriffs department all the way. The whole thing is just getting scary.

Is there ever a full account of which relatives live in that area next to the salvage yard? There's the trailer Steven was living in and a house next to it, but I never caught exactly who was living next door and who was visiting during the timeline.

I've read the full transcript now and remain completely convinced that Dassey had nothing whatsoever to do with the death of that woman. Also the physical evidence "linking" Avery is sketchy, straight up. My objection to the original post is the use of the words "blatantly guilty," which is absurd.

It's a shame that police department is getting harassed, but there was gross misconduct and negligence perpetuated by large swaths of the institutional authority in that county. People are pissed off. Knowing people there who think he's guilty doesn't actually introduce anything new into the conversation, you know?

his guilt or otherwise is basically irrelevant. this doc is about police misconduct.

More broadly, I'd say it's more about the consequences of institutional failure - judicial and legislative, as well as the role of the media in that.

xp - exactly. however, hundreds of thousands of people are not taking it that way. I'm not sure how you can even call this a "documentary" when it leaves out most of the prosecution's evidence. if anything it's more like a Michael Moore film. A good example is how it goes into pretty good detail of Kratz's creepy past (which ultimately has nothing to do with the case) but seemingly NONE of Avery's?

Also the physical evidence "linking" Avery is sketchy, straight up.

I would say it's less sketchy than the DNA evidence that exonerated Avery in the first place.

You're gonna need to unpack that last one for me.

pretty good detail of Kratz's creepy past (which ultimately has nothing to do with the case) but seemingly NONE of Avery's

tbf, it does include details of steven burning a cat, reportedly fucking on his front lawn, jerking off while his cousin drives by his house and running his cousin off the road and pointing a gun at her - it's not like the filmmakers are trying to make a saint out of him

there's also mention of alleged avery family incest and/or cousin-fucking in the final episode

frogbs have you even seen the show? And the argument that the doc 'leaves out most of the prosecution's evidence' is what Kratz said, it hasn't been corroborated by anybody else. Reddit dug up a lot of sketchy trash, but almost none of it was included in the prosecution.

Kratz' abuse of authority is absolutely relevant to the series.

I've read a few comments on threads by people who question the DNA evidence that exonerated Avery, but they have only said things like you've said - is there a link to something that explains why it could be called into question?

I mean, unless there's a glaring omission to the narrative as presented by the show, the DNA evidence that exonerated Avery seemed about as open and shut as it gets.

yeah i've read multiple articles/people saying that the doc never mentioned avery pointed a gun at someone, not true, it does mention it.

also wasn't there more than just dna evidence exonerating avery? like eg the cop phonecall in the 90s.

it leaves out most of the prosecution's evidence

it focuses on the evidence which appears to be fabricated. because again, it's not about his guilt or innocence, but how the police handled the case. and ribs otm about the media too.

I'm not saying the DNA evidence that exonerated Avery was wrong, I believe he was 100% innocent there - just this strange idea going around that sometimes DNA evidence counts, sometimes it doesn't. The fact that it was on the latch of the hood (which Dassey led them to) I would say is a pretty big piece of evidence and something I really, really doubt was planted

I have watched a lot of it. I admit that, mostly due to having a 1-year old, I've missed certain parts. Maybe some of those are the parts y'all are talking about. I did not catch that they included the incident with the gun. I did feel like they were trying to imply a lot of "they weren't very well-liked so who knows about some of this"

DNA evidence is rarely 100% certain, so of course it counts sometimes and sometimes doesn't. And it's much more certain when declaring innocence than guilt (because you rarely have a 100% sequence, and we all have a lot of DNA in common. Also, I'd be baffled and skeptical if they claimed to find perfect DNA on the hood, yet only after Dassey let them to it. Stuff degrades)

just this strange idea going around that sometimes DNA evidence counts, sometimes it doesn't

the issue with the dna in the car is that

- the fbi pulled a questionable methodology out of their asses at very short notice during the trial to examine the blood (on a case which wasn't a federal one!)
- they didn't test all the blood smears, only three iirc
- the defense's expert witness said that she thought the tests done on the blood for the traces of edta should have been ruled inconclusive at best

the case built by the prosecution around this crucial bit of evidence is deeply, deeply flawed

oh, and i don't think the prosecution managed to satisfactorily explain the vial of steven's blood which showed every sign of being tampered with

Dean Strang, bookwriter: https://newrepublic.com/article/126910/making-murderers-lawyer-hero

the main issue with dna evidence being used in cases is that the presence of dna is much less significant than the absence. the presence of an individual's dna might indicate they were in contact with an object or person, or that it transferred via proximity, or that a lab where that dna was present in some form was subject to contamination

the presence of dna that is not expected to be somewhere, like a rapist who was not even investigated but fit the profile, as in Avery's 80s case, is a more useful indicator that there's evidence worth pursuing

I have no idea how Avery's blood appeared in the vehicle. Outside of guilt or police misconduct, it could be an indicator he was in the vehicle. Even if that's the case, it's still part of a series of pieces of evidence -- he moved the vehicle, he was the last one to see Halbach, her remains were found in two places near his home. Those three things together might be enough to convict, but again, that is not the case the prosecution decided to rest on, and they walked all over the crime scene a half dozen times and an unknown number of third parties were there.

It's incredibly unlikely, but possible, that Halbach stopped by the main office for the salvage yard on the way out, tells the dad (or anyone else present that may have been there) that his son's a creep, dad kills her, disposes of her body, and several days later tells his son to move this vehicle to the salvage yard.

the defence wanted to introduce four other possible suspects who were on the property that day...

frogbs's contributions to this thread are bizarre to me. like, you realize the idea that the residents of manitowoc county have a blinkered POV due to general social perception plus being inundated by the media re: avery's guilt is a huge part of the doc right? being a joe schmo from manitowoc is kinda the opposite of having any authority on the case.

agreed that 'avery is definitely innocent' shouldn't be the main takeaway from the doc tho

I'm not trying to pretend I have any authority, just offering my thoughts here. The media here reported on a lot of the oddities of the case that people are just hearing about now and I think most of us knew the cops were really fucking it up. It was half "these guys are way too eager to nail him" and half "they really have no idea how to handle a murder investigation, do they?" Again, if everyone had done their jobs I think they could've gotten the guilty verdict anyway.

btw Avery's Boneyard is releasing a new CD this month, Kratz out of the Bag

lol nice

the jodi calls are compelling

& im hoping that is a track title btw

Brendan's half-brother has something to say:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH1wJLa9VvI

oof...not helping, Brad Dassey.

This piece is rather incoherent: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/dead-certainty

The argument seems to affirm documentarians' right to subjectivity, while at the same time critiquing them for not being objective enough.

Also there is a lot of douchebag armchair sleuthery (while at the same time complaining about douchebag armchair sleuthery).

not remotely incoherent

this statement was rightfully mocked on twitter because wtf

But the vast majority of misconduct by law enforcement is motivated not by spite but by the belief that the end justifies the means—that it is fine to play fast and loose with the facts if doing so will put a dangerous criminal behind bars.

why was it mocked? cops do frame people they think are guilty, and it probably happens more often framing for other reasons - i.e. the personal vendetta that this show posits is the motive for the framing of avery.

the only cop i personally know, a friend's wife, before she became a cop, expressed to me that she thought it was justifiable for police to frame people they believed to be, but could not prove were, involved in crimes of abuse.

it's a subjective claim that has no backing other than gut instinct in an article that is deriding others for cherry-picking facts

Cops are by and large devoid of spite, it's true.

ah the ilx sarcastic, pedant braintrust strikes again

Oh, I agree with you, too. I just know it's possible for cops to frame someone they think is guilty and to frame someone simply...because.

It's not just spite, though - there was the threat of being sued.

it's a slippery slope argument and conflates good intentions in the realm of public safety with intentional deviation from legal procedure. which should be judged at the level of an individual's actions, not rolled into some generalized "police break the rules, although it's mostly for the right reasons" statement

the ends never justifies the means when the police frame people and conceding that their intentions are "good" - which I don't necessarily think accepting that they might believe in the suspect's guilt does, because they might think the suspect is guilty because they're black, or latino, or poor, etc. - should not necessarily be seen as a justification

framing someone seems p spiteful

Either way Schulz seems like the logical heir to the Gladwell beat, e.g. "I may not be an expert, but here's why all experts are wrong"

nothing personal, just a lil' jail time

people really like this show huh?

please feel free to engage with any of the criticisms of the show made in the article whenever you like

or continue to nitpick about word-choices, be obtuse.

I think we discussed a lot of those criticisms at length already! The general consensus here is in line with the article's main point -- that the show is flawed in its ability to encapsulate events and isn't sufficient to determine anything about guilt or innocence of any of the individuals in the narrative, but it does show that the entire judicial process and police procedure were incredibly broken and it was far from a fair trial.

The article has nothing new other than extended issues with framing

ok that's fair. im cranky this morning apparently.

I mean, there's this in the article:

The series presents Avery’s case as a one-off—a preposterous crusade by a grudge-bearing county sheriff’s department to discredit and imprison a nemesis. (Hence the ad-hominem attacks the show has inspired.)

It's a flawed series for a number of reasons, but this conflates the presentation of the defense with the stance of the documentarians and lays the blame for the malicious actions of viewers of the documentary on the framing.

Okay, well there's this:

we still have not thought seriously about what it means when a private investigative project—bound by no rules of procedure, answerable to nothing but ratings, shaped only by the ethics and aptitude of its makers—comes to serve as our court of last resort.

This seems like a very basic criticism of journalism indeed - not just true crime journalism, but all journalism - and is basically on the level of saying "Who made you God?".

Not that that isn't a good question, but it seems like quite an odd notion to put forward in a magazine that's published so much famous investigative journalism, not to mention that "we still have not thought", which would be true, unless you discount almost all of Janet Malcolm's very famous crime stories, published in the New Yorker.

good pt or calvin trillin who had a whole collection of nyer crime writing pieces collected as "Killings"

yea idk this thing seemed v much like a hot take for hot take sake

On top of that mockable statement about why cops frame, the article also misrepresents what happened in Avery's first conviction, to make it seem as if the evidence pointed in his direction before the cops framed him. The cops created a picture of him even though it didn't fit the description, showed it to the victim, who then pointed to the guy who looked like the image she'd just seen. For an article about cherry-picking, to so blatantly cherry-pick. And also, shut up already about the hood. The filmmakers have responded, the defence has pointed out why that evidence isn't what the prosecution made it out to be, and everyone keeps on repeating that point without mentioning the responses, and then attacking the filmmakers for being too one-sided.

Never heard the defence's response to the hood evidence. link?

Here's one from two weeks ago: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/making-a-murderer-lawyers-on-fox-news-2016-1 It was never proved that it was 'perspiration', as the article states. That's not the one I'm looking for, though.

Calm down, guys. Dr Phil is on the case now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheriff-who-arrested-steven-avery-makes-shocking-admission_us_569c8a1ae4b0778f46f9d88e

(toilet flush)

Am one episode away from finishing this and I have some questions: How do you slaughter and dismember someone in a fucking trailer and leave *no* traces of their DNA? Was no Luminol sprayed in Steven's trailer to check for blood spatter? It seems like a major oversight.

Sheriff's department got a bomb threat today

Did they call it in themselves?

LOL

Started this on Saturday, got the final episode to go. Wish I'd been able to watch it in one chunk as it's been keeping me awake with suspense and despair. So brutal. So much shouting at the screen. I had to skip past Brendan on the stand being crucified by the heartless prosecutors. Incredible how many people in this seemed so eager to nail this guy, from his relatives to the FBI witness to the fucking judge, talking about the increasing severity of his crimes, wtf. Pretty sure it wasn't any minor post-exoneration misdemeanours he was thinking of. And it's pretty clear to me that as far as the DA is concerned this wasn't simple incompetence or well-intended rule-breaking to see the right guy put away, this was vindictive mendacity and prosecutorial misconduct.

How do you slaughter and dismember someone in a fucking trailer and leave *no* traces of their DNA?

She was killed in the garage/she was killed in the trailer but DNA doesn't matter because we have a confession (delete according to who you're prosecuting).

Well, she bled all over the inside of the vehicle that it makes no sense for her to have been placed inside of if she was killed in any of the hypothetical on-premises murder sites that were completely free of her blood/DNA.

The narrative the prosecution tried to construct is maybe the most incoherent murder plot I've ever heard.

Maybe he drove her in her car from his bedroom to the garage.

Would the details of Steven's trial have been available to Brendan's defence, could they have pointed out that the DA changed the story between the trials?

xpost If they had actually proposed that, it would've honestly made more sense than the story they tried to sell.

Like maybe he disassembled a wall of his trailer, built a ramp, backed her vehicle into his bedroom, threw her in, drowe to the garage, shot her in her car, drove to a crematorium, burned her body, deposited some of the remains in a second location before throwing the rest in his burn pit...it's all coming together.

About as plausible as any of the framing narratives.

Yes I think it might be reasonable to have doubts about any narratives in this case.

I'm still relatively agnostic with respect to Steven Avery's guilt or innocence, but, all questions of evidence tampering and conspiracy on the part of the sheriff's office aside, the prosecution's astounding inability to produce anything resembling a coherent explanation of how/where Teresa Halbach was murdered certainly should never have been enough to convict him.

It's just weird how everyone takes the police/courts at the word, when a literal. provable miscarriage of justice just happened like a year or so before. How quickly people go from "that happened" to "that could never happen" again.

Yeah I'm certainly not convinced of Steven's innocence but there's a butt load of reasonable doubt that should have resulted in a not guilty verdict.

this was compelling and terrifying. just watched the whole thing inside 24 hours (i have a day off)

obviously there were so many contemptible pieces of shit in this show that it is impossible to know where to start

start with that len kachinski guy, man what a detestable creep

the prosecution's case was so obviously bullshit from top to bottom that it occasionally plays as very dark comedy, like when they're cross-examining the boy and saying "if you weren't there how could you have drawn these pictures" and it's like a stick figure next to a blob labelled "fier" or whatever (that the "defense" investigator told him to draw)

or the fbi witness's um idiosyncratic definition of "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" and then that scumbag da sexting guy (think it was him) makes a statement to the press like yeah ok protocols blah blah but sometimes in life you just use common sense - he is talking about FORENSIC SCIENCE

guys I watched this show

i watched brother's keeper last night. i watched it a few years ago but forgot. such a sad story. prosecutors are monsters btw

if you saw len kachinski as a character in a movie you'd be like 'wow, that guy is really overplaying the weirdo weasiliness'

did not realize steven is only like 5ft 3inches tall

That's the same height as my dad. I wonder if he is guilty.

Also Muggsy Bogues.

Just watched most of this again, this time with my Dad (we got the idea due to the Manitowoc County PD getting another bizarre online shooting threat over this). He works for them so it's kinda funny to see him point out all the guys he knows - "this guy was in our house last month!" - not to mention little glimpses in the courtroom of people I went to school with. Much more surreal the second time around, plus I feel I'm not as biased anymore since who the hell knows. At this point I'm convinced there are multiple parties hiding something here, whether he's guilty or not there is no single narrative that seems to fit what we know. If he killed her it almost certainly didn't happen the way the prosecution claims it did, if he didn't then they caught a crazy number of lucky breaks along the way. Nothing makes logical sense unless there were multiple parties doing not-very-well-thought-out things at the same time during the search of the Avery property.

Netflix has commissioned a follow-up to this. Can't imagine there's enough to sustain a whole new miniseries but I guess we'll see.

yeah it's kind of strange because outside of the release of the documentary itself effectively nothing has happened in the case. like what's to be gleaned from this besides "yep they're still in jail"...hard to believe there's some smoking gun here we don't know about

A federal judge has ordered Brendan Dassey released: http://nordic.businessinsider.com/making-a-murderer-brendan-dassey-conviction-overturned-2016-8?r=US&IR=T

Just watched this. The ex-boyfriend looked suspicious to me

Ikr?

Has there ever been an instance where a DA declined to prosecute a defendant, despite having a winning case, because she felt strongly that the defendant was indeed innocent? Wouldn't that be heartening.

(And I don't nec mean oh yeah the ex did the murder, just that he looked a little bit too in control, a bit calculated, then the business with the phone messages etc)

Dassey to be released this Friday!

That's awesome. So I'm not terribly well-versed in these things but...since Avery's conviction hinged to such a great extent on Dassey's testimony, would Dassey's release be enough to get Avery a retrial?

since he didn't testify at the trial, I would think, maybe not?

Didn't the prosecution in the end choose not to involve Dassey in the Avery trial, probably because they realized Avery's great lawyers would tear it to pieces, then turn around and prosecute Dassey anyway?

Addicted to this, about a year after everyone else... Not read the thread obviously, but can't believe some of what I'm seeing.

there must be loads they're not showing, right? The prosecution keep mentioning Steven's 'real character' and his crimes ramping up, seems like it's referring to something not discussed/shown?

keep waiting for the twist - or some answers - but feeling quite depressed that there doesn't seem to be any coming.

ok seen it all now going to read this thread and google everything I can. Parked next to a RAV4 this morning and freaked myself out a bit when I clocked it.

somehow i feel like brendan's first attorney's investigator (the focus of the final episode) might be the most evil person in the entire thing

YES I said this EXACT thing.
I also said that mild-mannered Kratz looked exactly like the person who'd get up to some nasty shit in his private life, and like 5 minutes later the texting stuff happened

This has been bothering me: in the closing arguments of Steven's case, the prosecution says to the jury that if you say he's not guilty then you're saying the Sheriff's dept are guilty of the serious set-up crimes etc. Surely that's not the case? Been a while since I did jury duty (UK) but the judge was very clear when instructing the jury that all you need is to have reasonable doubt, not be beyond reasonable doubt that an alternative chain of events happened. That's not what's on trial, and imo a judge would not be able to instruct that or have someone suggest that's how verdicts work?

Looks like Brendan didn't get out: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/brendan-dassey-making-a-murderer-release-blocked-appeals-court

Wasn't sure where to post this, but this thread seemed like the best for people who are interested in true crime stuff on Netflix. The post below was from a year ago on the law &order svu thread. The documentary is coming to Netflix on May 19.

http://people.com/crime/sister-cathy-cesnik-murder-netflix-documentary/

A member of my family is a survivor of sexual abuse by a priest in Baltimore in the late 60s/early 70s. She's gone through a lot, met with other survivors, and become an activist. I'm pretty impressed by how far she's come. Last fall I got to attend a meeting with her and the other survivors while they were being interviewed for a documentary. I'm not sure of the status of that project, but I just found out that last week's SVU was loosely based on the case. She's a longtime L&O fan and while I haven't asked her about it directly, I hear she's very stoked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/14/cesnik-nun-murder-maskell_n_7267532.html

http://www.nbc.com/law-and-order-special-victims-unit/video/unholiest-alliance/2998226

― how's life, Monday, March 28, 2016 2:35 PM (one year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khr7dbuBjuE

Awesome!

Yeah, we're excited that the story is getting out there these days, because a couple of decades ago I remember the general response to this was "these women are just making this up to get money out of the catholic church." I'm sure some people will still feel that way, but in the past few years there's been a real community that's developed among the women who attended this high school and/or suffered the abuse.

That said, I'm kinda anxious about how much attention it's going to get and what kind of nuts are going to come out of the woodwork about this.

If you get a chance listen to the CASEFILE podcast episode 'The Catholic Mafia'. No one dies but its pretty shocking.

Oh shit! Will check it out for sure.

man fuck your shitty corrupt country

but first make zellner president

tbh the whole series was utterly frustrating (if compelling) - here's yet another brilliant refutation of the case! oh wait it doesn't matter though because you are fighting an enemy that will not let you win

i could listen to taped phone calls of steve & his mom all day, something abt their exchanging like single words or fragments of phrases i really love and id w/ on some level idk

zellner is v good

bobby dasseys search history is a trip - http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Exhibits-Part-1-of-2.pdf

https://nypost.com/2019/09/23/wisconsin-inmate-confesses-to-infamous-making-a-murderer-slay-report/

so there's a new documentary-style show in post-production that seems to take the prosecution's side? if the confession by someone completely unrelated pans out, they're going to look... not good

is it supposed to be taking their side? Or merely focuing on them?

the title seems to imply a conclusion

"sadly, the inmate who confessed to the murder later flung himself down six flights of stairs and died"

this song will singlehandedly get Dassey out of prison

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRlXzoIZ0hk

classic for "everyone loves my brother like they love bbq ribs".