"Making a Murderer" on Netflix

I just finished Part 2. Overall it was not as compelling as part 1. Too much time was spent on the families dealing with their sons in jail. I would like to have seen more time with the attorneys and their case building.

As for Steven, it does seem he was railroaded with the evidence they presented. Zellner is all over it. On the other hand, I can't help thinking he knows something or was somehow involved. His speaking sounds too naïve about the whole thing.

As for Brendan, his interrogation is sad to watch. At times, his mental capacity seems very low (critically low). On the other hand, I think one needs to watch the entire interrogation from start to finish to make an informed judgment. I thought I heard the appeal judges mention things he said that I think the documentary didn't previously cover (or maybe I missed it).

Overall I enjoyed the series.

 

I just finished watching it a couple hours ago and thought they did a great job. Most of it was Kathleen Zellner and experts doing experiments to find out what really happened. They did amazing work. I think it was full of the her and Dassey’s attorneys building their cases. And, Dassey’s attorneys had to show that his “confession” was coerced and did a great job getting his appeals through. He’ll have to wait until Avery is set free again before he’ll get out of prison.

I agree with your first two sentences. If you saw the whole thing, Avery doesn’t know what happened. People may not like him for all kinds of reasons, but there was so much reasonable doubt, if not proof that he wasn’t involved in any way.

I’ve watched the interrogations of Dassey and it’s painfully obvious that he was fed key information that Katz wanted to use to get Avery with. Possibly you’re talking about the male appeals judge who obviously thought Dassey was guilty and asked his attorney questions that showed his bias. It’s a shame the state of Wisconsin didn’t let him out after winning appeals. It’s criminal that kid (I know he’s 29, but he’s still a kid) is still behind bars. He’ll get out when Avery is released, I hope.

I have to agree with your last statement too.

 

I am in the middle of MAM2, and I have my doubts and reservations. But I can't stop thinking, for all his faults, if Avery was really involved, knowing he was about to become a millionaire. Seems like it would take a real psycho nutjob to do that. Having a real hard time not to think about that while I read and watch any news about this.

 

He threw his family cat into a bonfire for kicks.

 

I think there are about seven different personality disorders. Working in psychiatry, I should know them, but I don't see them that often . . . thank goodness. Me being be a lover of domesticated and wild animals, the one feature that I always remember is that those with sociopathic personality disorder are characterized by "cruelty to animals." I have only encountered that about three or four times in the last ten years, but I consider that a huge red flag.

 

He didn’t throw any animals into a fire. The documentary addresses the fire quite well, as well as bone “evidence.”

 

What did you think of Kathleen's theory about Bobby and Scott? That phone call between Steven, Barb and Scott was intense.

 

I think they’re strong candidates! That phone call was so intense. Methinks they doth protest protest too much.

 

Indeed, and that's one of the reasons I suspect he is guilty and is something of a sociopath BUT he hides it well. On the other hand, I do feel that he was convicted on questionable evidence throughout the trial. If he did do it, it needs to be a fair trial based on the science and his defense team didn't get a chance to fairly question the science nor the changing testimony of his nephew Bobby.

If he didn't do it, the suspects presented Bobby convincingly as a possible candidate. The boyfriend isn't looked at in depth but there were some troubling things about that as well.

 

He did. He was arrested for it and convicted of animal cruelty or something similar. It was addressed early in the first season (episode 1?) and was not disputed. Is this heinous act addressed in season 2?

 

He’s a sociopath based on what information? Being in prison the majority of his life for at least one false incarnation? He doesn’t meet the criteria.

I think many people see a family with little education, eeking out a living doing manual labor, tattoos etc. and think the worst of them. They’re certainly rough around the edges. The comments like “he’s gotta be guilty of something” fall on deaf ears here. The science shown in the documentary will set him free.

I don’t know if people want discussion about the documentary yet or not, so I’ll put this as a spoiler:

Spoiler: Science

The brain wave activity that would show if he knew about facts that only the killer would know showed he had no knowledge of facts that occurred.

The thing I liked about Kathleen Zellner right off the bat was that she tells anyone she represents, “If you’re guilty, think twice about asking me to be your attorney because I’ll find out and I’ll let everyone know.” She told the story about one guy (a famous case I can’t recall right now) who was guilty and she held her knowledge until he died. She wouldn’t be wasting her time on this if he was guilty. She doesn’t need the money and it would be so much work with no gratification.

 

No

 

There was some evidence in the first season of this including when he threw the cat into the fire among other things. Now, I could be wrong and he may have moved past that but generally speaking cruelty to animals like this typically points to larger problems.

I think that the

Spoiler: Science

The brain wave activity that would show if he knew about facts that only the killer would know showed he had no knowledge of facts that occurred.

Was pseudo science. I don't buy that the brain can be measured that way. I'd want to see some successful cases and failures to compare them. In other words, clinical trials would be helpful to establish how reliable this system is and we aren't provided with any of that information.

Again, while I believe he is guilty, I'm open to something truly proving he wasn't. Season two suggests that he isn't guilty and that's why he needs a new trial to fairly look at what the state had and the defense's chance to refute it.

I also think that Zellner is convinced that he isn't guilty otherwise I couldn't see her wanting to pursue a case like this so late in her career add in that the original trial was less than fair when it came to science, witnesses, etc. and too many questionable elements, makes it essential that he get a second trial where all of the information can be presented fairly and unbiased.​

 

The man is safely away in prison. No need to be alarmed about his behavior today.

Part 2 picks up immediately after the events of part 1. Both “killers” went straight to prison where there are lots of murderers and rapists. Again, focusing on personality disorders is unnecessary. Also, anyone who has watched part 2 should be able to understand why it’s a miscarriage of justice that they’re both in prison currently.

 

What did you think of the pictures found on Bobby’s computer (that Kratz labeled as Brendan’s computer)?

I have to say that Kratz and Kachinsky come across as worthless human beings. Also, the cop who was told where Teresa’s car was and didn’t write a report about it and the next place it’s found is in Avery’s place somehow!

 

There are other antisocial personality traits (this is the preferred term in psychiatry) that he would need to meet for the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (see list in DSM-5). Having said that, some sociopaths commit murder, and some sociopaths don't commit murder. In other words, even if a court-appointed psychiatrist diagnosed him as having antisocial personality disorder, that does not prove he murdered Teresa Halbach.

One horrible symptom is that he/she has no remorse for hurting (or killing) others. That is kind of hard to imagine, isn't it? That element of remorse, regret -- a natural human emotion when we hurt or harm others -- is crucial as a moral fiber that helps to hold a society together.

If this is accurate, then it is ludicrous to keep asking the question "why did X do Y?" as if continuing to ask the question will produce some form of satisfactory explanation.

The following quote is lifted from the wikipedia article: Antisocial personality disorder - Wikipedia
"Fire-setting and cruelty to animals during childhood are as well linked to the development of antisocial personality. The condition is more common in males than in females, and among people who are in prison."

 

Attempting to diagnose someone from a documentary is an exercise in futility and unnecessary.

If you’ve seen part 2 of the documentary, there’s a lot of information to discuss. I’m not sure how many people have watched part 2 yet, but there’s so much new information based on science that I’d love to discuss. In part 2, Kathleen Zellner answers all the unanswered questions from part 1. As she says in part 2, the attorney defending the accused in a crime must know everything there is to know about the crime. She does an amazing amount of scientific work figuring out who lied which leads her to a very good understanding of what happened, again, answering questions and finding out facts that would have helped in part 1. If I was ever accused of a crime, I’d want her as my attorney, without question.

 

Ok, so he did bad, bad things... Wasn't that years before he was about to score millions of $? Taking it another level at that point, a murder, makes no sense...

 

Because psychotic people act irrationally and compulsive. The compulsive desire to commit the act outweighs their ability to reason, at least in the moment. I will admit my bias - I think it takes an extra-specially sick person to throw a live cat into a bonfire.

 

Curiously, you would expect some sort of reports on confrontations or killings in prison if he did indeed kill Teresa. It's not like killers suddenly stop killing.

 

Agreed. Arm chair psychiatry rarely works so I withdraw my comment about him being a sociopath although there are certainly signs of that behavior.

 

No one has ever considered him to be psychotic. He doesn't have hallucinations of any kind nor delusions that I've ever heard. If he was psychotic, it would be a whole different story altogether. If you want to consider him a sociopath, he would have to have other diagnostic criteria that just don't match him.

You don't have to like him. There are a lot of people who don't like him, but that's meaningless with regard to his crime. Again, Kathleen Zellner has scientific evidence that leads away from him being the murderer to one, two or three other people and completely away from Avery.

 

Exactly. Or you would expect him to be aggressive while in prison which hasn't been the case. No one is saying that he has ever been an alter boy.

 

I understand that my personal bias (that people who throw cats into fires are the lowest of the low) doesn't affect his guilt or lack there of (obviously). Yes, I replied in haste and mistook psychotic for sociopath, which is what I was truly thinking. I'm sure you are much more well-versed in what defines a sociopath, but, after 15 or so seconds of Googling:

A sociopath can be defined as a person who has Antisocial Personality Disorder. This disorder is characterized by a disregard for the feelings of others, a lack of remorse or shame, manipulative behavior, unchecked egocentricity, and the ability to lie in order to achieve one's goals.

Which box goes unchecked?

 

FWIW, Avery's teenage friend Jerry Yanda threw the cat in the fire. That's in the public record via the Wisconsin judicial system.