"Making a Murderer" on Netflix

The thing I find amusing is someone questioning the validity of the documentary when they’re only seen half of it.

 

It's not nearly as amusing as those who think they know all the details when they've only seen the documentary. One doesn't need to see "scientific reenactments" (eye roll) in order to know all of Zellner's arguments, but thanks for playing.

 

Interesting. I guess the first season hit me differently. I didn't walk away from the first season thinking Avery was innocent -- I just got the sense that documentary tried to point out just how strangely this case was handled, how it wasn't the straight ahead cut-and-dry case, and how there is a lot more doubt there than originally perceived.

If anything about the documentary, it reinforces what I already think are the major problems with our justice systems -- "justice" often just comes down to just how much you can afford... "justice" often resides in your wallet.

 

This is actually one of the only genuine messages to emerge from the documentary.

 

You’re welcome.
As a resident of Northeastern Wisconsin, I was well aware of this case long before this documentary was released.
Thank you though for pretending to know one iota about my opinions on the matter. Then again you already knew that you read more books than the other forum member who dared to disagree with you.

 

While I agree with you that "The Staircase" is a far more even-handed documentary (or at least it was during its initial run), all your assumptions about the state in the Avery case were never actually proven. If you get the idea of Avery being "framed" out of your mind, all you're left with are some shoddy miscalculations and the idea that this dude quite obviously committed the crime. Furthermore, investigators didn't "conjure up" the idea that Dassey witnessed the murder. Dassey was definitely there that night, and brought into the investigation months after Avery was arrested, when his cousin told police he was talking about body parts in the fire. And while the two investigators assuredly botched the interrogation in a number of ways, it's kind of obvious that they also thought they were getting a real confession. I'm not here to lend credence to Avery's former inmate--who claims that Avery confessed--but one should remember it's totally possible that Dassey was involved.

To be clear, I'm not saying that it's beyond the realm of possibility that the police framed Avery, or that Dassey is totally innocent. I'm saying that the documentary makes a lot of accusations, but proves literally nothing, and drastically edits key information. By contrast, the evidence against Avery is overwhelming. Meanwhile, as pointed out numerous times, Dassey would have probably gotten off with a better lawyer at his disposal, regardless of what he did or didn't do.

 

I agree totally. I should have been more clear that I don't think Dassey actually witnessed the act. He could've been there after the fact. The interrogation was awful. They planted a confession on him that he actually participated in the murder.

 

I'm not pretending to know anything about your opinion--I was responding to your post. And I never said I read books about the case--I went straight to the trial transcripts (among other things) instead. As for the forum member(s) who "dare disagree with me", they might consider reading up on the actual facts of the case themselves, or at the very least holding the documentary accountable for how it totally butchered information the first time around. Meanwhile, those same members fail to see the irony as they talking about "misleading" jurors, as if that's something exclusive to the prosecution. It implies a total inability to understand the justice system. Furthermore, it implies they still don't quite grasp just how misleading the documentary was in the first place. Perhaps you're not aware of just how many folks watched the first season and thought the blood vial was evidence of something, when it was in fact total bunk. Or maybe you are aware, and you just don't see why that means, for some, that the documentarians shouldn't be trusted.

I would also add that it's possible Avery was framed, but it's not proven, no matter how many "scientific reenactments" the documentary/Zellner would like to present. Hard logic still points to him as the killer. Take away the "framing" angle and this whole matter becomes very cut and dry. If people were more reserved in their judgments (as they dispense accusations in every possible direction), I would have far more patience with this whole debacle. Instead, a documentary that was supposed to be about corruption in the justice system has invariably exposed just how vulnerable people can be when presented with a convincing argument, minus any semblance of context. In other words, the documentary itself became as corrupt as the system it was supposed to expose, if not far more so.

 

did you even watch S2 or are you just being confrontational cuz it's fun for you? Wow. Every question you bring up here was explained in the show. The theory anyways.

 

ok, Kratz is an arrogant #$#@. OK, Investigative process may have left a lot to be desired. At the end of the day I'd much prefer to live next to Ken Kratz than Mr. Avery. And so would all Avery's defenders. Maybe he should get a new trial, then Netflix and the Producers would be held accountable as well.

Again, I can't stress enough the problem I see with 'advocacy' journalism. The basic premise here is that "Steven Avery must be innocent or we don't have a show. We could care less if he's innocent or not. We just want to prop him up and pretend we're ethical and humane and hope no one finds out how dishonest we really are."

As the series is still unwinding (thrills, reveals!, missing evidence!), here's a counterbalance by someone who was actually interviwed in the program. An Attorney, btw, who has some relevant legal insights:
‘Making a Murderer’ rebuttal podcast will ‘tell the story’ the crime doc refuses to show, says host

I think this is going to blow up in netflix's face. I hope the Halbachs sue the hell out of them and the 'producers'.

 

Hahahahaha. Explained.

PS. The seriousness with which I take your questions depends on your opinion of season one and the way it presented information, so feel free to elucidate.

 

I do agree with a lot of your points. Unfortunately it’s just hard to reply or even engage in a healthy debate since you keep bringing up your opinion on the documentary when you haven’t seen all of it.
It’s easy for it to seem one sided when the other side refuses to participate.

 

I'll make a deal with you. You read through the entirety of these rebuttals to Zellner's arguments (which have admittedly been modified in the time since), and point out to me which rebuttals are flawed, and why. Upon doing so, I will re-read through the rebuttals, and if I agree with you, I will watch season two. Also, there's no need to point out the obvious fact that the person supplying the rebuttals is "biased", since everyone involved has a bias of some sort.

Here you go:

Part One: Zellners stupid questions easily answered part 1 questions 1-50 • r/StevenAveryIsGuilty

Part Two: Zellner's stupid questions easily answered part II quesitons 51-100 • r/StevenAveryIsGuilty

 

You’re off the hook.
I just can’t get past the bias and name calling.
The “author” of this also can’t have it both ways. They write off the absence hair in the garage by saying Dassey lied about cutting her hair, yet it’s not possible Dassey lied about other things such as his involvement. I could weasel my way out of any argument by tossing out hypotheticals and assumptions.

People are either going to find the documentary interesting and (even though flawed) somewhat informative or they are going to think it’s garbage, one sided and not factual. Those opinions can be formed after one or twenty episodes. If I didn’t enjoy something, I’d stop watching as well. I would just do my best to not assume what happened after I tuned out.
This is a very polarizing topic. Sometimes there just isn’t a middle ground.

 

Hypotheticals and assumptions are basically the defense's entire arguments up to this point, no matter how many "scientific reenactments" they want to perform. I'd have to go back and read the specific passages in regards to Dassey. But overall, the person is responding to hypotheticals with hypotheticals. I'm not saying the rebuttals are intrinsically correct--I'm saying that Zellner's theories are far from foolproof. In the meantime, I refuse to watch a documentary that was so egregiously misleading in the first place, as if it has changed its ways.

Last but not least, allow me to introduce super_pickle, a Redditor who as far as I'm concerned has the tightest grip on the actual facts of the case. If you're at all interested in current rebuttals to both the doc and Zellner, she's as good as it gets. Whether you engage with me or not is completely up to you, but I can guarantee you there's no question about the case that this particular Redditor hasn't addressed.

 

I'm a criminal defense attorney. I don't see my job as purposefully misleading juries. In my experience, if one takes a careful look at just about any case, one can find things the police did incorrectly or suggest additional things that the police could have done. Pointing these things out to the jury is not misleading: the point is to carefully test the government's evidence by suggesting inconsistencies, problems, and alternatives. Only by considering all of those things can a jury come to a proper conclusion about whether the requisite standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is met.

I'd just add that I've done death penalty appeals, oftentimes years after the murder(s) took place. It is remarkable what one can find when one really has the time to scrutinize an investigation, which one has in the death penalty appeal context and not necessarily in the trial preparation context.

 

What's remarkable is that you're a criminal defense attorney who apparently doesn't think other defense attorneys mislead juries. Furthermore, for every person like you, there's a prosecutor or cop who's equally fair in his or her pursuit of justice. The point is that there are all types on both sides. Johnnie Cochran was on yours. So is Buting (and Zellner for that matter).

I would also add that no one said it was a defense attorney's "job" to mislead juries. What I said was that anyone who thinks defense attorneys (expensive ones in particular) don't manipulate information so as to lead (or "mislead", if you will) jurors down a certain path as much as prosecutor's do, then that person would be sorely mistaken.

No investigation of this magnitude is going to be perfect. Flaws are inevitable. But if you actually go back and see what Avery's defense attorneys did and didn't do, it would be virtually impossible to suggest they didn't try to play the system to their advantage. Just because they lost the trial--or didn't succeed on all fronts--doesn't mean they're somehow nobler than Kratz (in regards to the case, that is).

 

I've known a lot of criminal defense attorneys, and I don't think that a meaningful percentage set out to mislead juries. I agree that the vast majority of police and prosecutors are fair in their pursuit of justice. Of course, there are exceptions to this on both sides, as you say.

I think a lot of what you're saying depends on what you mean by manipulating information to lead to a certain path or conclusion. The job of the jury is to find what the facts are and apply the law given to the facts they find. The role of both attorneys in the adversarial process is to argue the facts and the logical conclusions that can be reached from those facts. It is pretty rare that any set of facts leads simply to one conclusion, even if everyone agrees with what the facts are in the first place. Arguing the various possible conclusions could, I suppose, be viewed as a manipulation of the facts. I don't think our criminal justice system views things that way, though.

At any rate, one thing to bear in mind is that the prosecutors can be involved in the investigative process, so they have the earliest opportunity to assist in the determination of what the facts are going to be and which facts are going to be important. Prosecutors are very good at constructing stories that make sense (they are big on presenting juries with "common sense" explanations). Reality is sometimes more complicated than prosecutors like to present, though. All that is to note that in the realm of story construction, prosecutors play a role in the building. And confirmation bias, even when it comes to something that most people assume is purely objective science like DNA analysis, is a very real thing in many investigations.

But, yes, flaws are inevitable in any investigation. There is always something for a defense attorney to point out as erroneous or missing. That certainly doesn't mean that the correct person has not been arrested and convicted or that the government cannot meet its burden. The first season of this show, which I did watch, is illustrative of the sorts of flaws that one will inevitably find when engaging in a post hoc exhumation of just about any murder case. Whatever the rights of this particular case, I certainly agree that one cannot gauge the rightness or wrongness of the trial's outcome on what is presented in this documentary. I'm sure I could make a documentary that ably demonstrated my client's innocence even in a case where I knew for certain he was guilty.

 

Agree with everything you say here, 100%. Also, bear in mind I'm not just referring to defense attorneys in murder trials. Corporate attorneys, for instance, are not above misleading a jury when defending their client in say a lawsuit. All I'm really referring to is what you describe: depicting the events in a way that suits your version of the story. However, the documentary takes that sentiment to an outrageous extreme, leaving out entire swaths of evidence while introducing things that aren't evidence of anything at all.

 

You're probably right about other attorneys. We criminal defense attorneys don't get invited to their fancy parties, so I don't know any of them.

 

I think of the OJ trial as ground zero for all of this. Odds are that Cochran figured OJ was guilty. Either way, he defended his client the only way he knew how: by turning it into a racially motivated frame job, and leading jurors in that direction. In retrospect, it's easy to call this "misleading". The Avery case is actually not all that different, since Avery being framed is the only possible way to explain away all the evidence. Whether or not the defense attorneys believe it to be true is almost irrelevant. They have one way to get their client off, and to pursue that path effectively, they need to control the flow of information. It is by its very own nature misleading in a manner of speaking, because it involves a certain level of manipulation. The same goes for the prosecution.

 

You're right about this -- if juries knew all the pre-trial litigation and discussions that exist for the sole purpose of everyone making sure certain information is excluded from their consideration, they would likely be pretty annoyed. But that comes along with having a rule-based system so I don't see it as manipulation. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical having done this job for as long as I have, though.

I do not have a high opinion of the tactics used in the OJ case. I have found, in reviewing death penalty cases from small towns, though, that the attorneys there are much more likely to be incompetent than misleading*... however that might apply to the present case under discussion.

* For example, I worked on a small town death penalty case where the defense lawyer didn't give a closing argument. Examples could be multiplied.

 

I only mean manipulation in the most literal sense, meaning the control of information (as opposed to the idea of trying to mentally control the jury, for example, which is kind of what Cochran did).

Brendan Dassey would certainly agree!

 

Where do these small town attorneys go to law school . . . . somewhere on a Caribbean island?

 

You aren't being forthcoming about your firmly held belief that the once framed Avery has certainly not been framed again. Who are you? I mean, what's happened to you or someone you know? Something isn't right. No humility. Little or no good faith.

It's not going to matter to you when there's an evidentiary proceeding. It won't matter if a new trial is ordered. It won't even matter if the real killer is tried and convicted.

Flaws like the bullet fragment which the prosecution claims as the cause of death. It never penetrated a human skull. No blood DNA. No skull. Oddly, the DNA comes from chapstick. Oh, and there's only wood embedded in it. Oops.

The prosecutor is a genuine hero though. No character flaws. He's the salt of the earth.​