"Making a Murderer" on Netflix

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by JimC, Dec 21, 2015.

  1. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    No. I think Kathleen Zellner has used science (scientific testing) to disprove the prosecution’s case. She found so many times where the prosecution outright lied and withheld evidence to keep their story intact. There is so much evidence that it was someone else or others who could have killed her. Those people, including Katz, should be very afraid.
     
  2. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
    If you want to hear this story from someone who actually attended the trial check out Dan O'Donnell's podcast - Rebutting a Murderer. He punches holes in the Netflix documentary and covers both parts.
     
  3. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Forum Resident

    I binge watched season #1 a week ago. Wow. Really enjoyed it. Don't know what I can conclude about most of it, but it was certainly compelling viewing for me.
     
  4. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    I don’t subscribe to iheartradio and don’t plan to subscribe.

    My response to any naysayers is that Kathleen Zellner’s work has led to 17 convictions being overturned. She wouldn’t still be working on this case if she believed Avery was guilty.
     
  5. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    Part 2 picks up right after Part 1. I think Dassey would have benefited from having Zellner as his attorney.
     
  6. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Forum Resident

    Not submitting this as any excuse whatsoever for torturing an animal, which as you rightly point out is a sick, hideous act, but it's not clear to me based on the text provided that it was "his own family's cat." They lived on a -- what was it? a 40-acre junkyard compound? I can easily imagine dozens of strays and feral cats occupying a place like that. Decades ago I had to check out an abandoned warehouse in a remote rural area (as part of my job) and the place was home to, my guess is anyway, at least 50 feral cats, maybe more. These were not pets and I can tell you the experience was unnerving. I'm just saying that one might come away with a completely different outlook on cats if one had to routinely encounter feral cats.

    Again, though, you're right in pointing out that torturing and viciously killing an animal like that is a sick act, evidence of a problem mind.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2018
  7. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Forum Resident

    I don't know what to think about him, except that it sure looked like malfeasance to railroad a kid into a pre-constructed confession like that. Watching the interviews with me was just exasperating. The kid didn't know what he was thinking or saying -- that was obvious. A kid with those kinds of cognitive problems needs to be approached by someone with a specialist's understanding of how to elicit truthful, cognisant-of-reality statements from him. That simpleton's game of "I want you to tell me the truth this time, I want you to tell me the truth this time" comes across as just "I want you to tell me something different" to a child's mind like Dassey's. I'm fairly sure we don't know the full story at all with that one.
     
    AndrewS, BluesOvertookMe and rburly like this.
  8. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
    His IQ is in the 80's so he knows right from wrong. I think he knew exactly what to think and say. He said very little and he was thinking, if I talk I am going to jail, or worse for a very long time.
     
  9. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Forum Resident

    Just digging in to super_pickle now. Pretty interesting stuff.
     
    bopdd likes this.
  10. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Forum Resident

    That's what I kept thinking during the first season (haven't watched the second). Why on earth would anyone, even a 'psycho nutjob' who had just spend nearly half his life in prison and was set to get a multi-million dollar payoff for being wrongfully convicted, have anything whatsoever to do with anything that would risk not getting it? That in itself just made no sense whatsoever.

    There don't seem to be much in the way of positive characters in all of this, but no matter how guilty Avery looks to be to people (and he looks dicey for sure), I still can't help but think that even the most craven of psychopaths still have self-interest mostly well intact. Risking the loss of $30+ million sure looks like throwing self-interest right out the window to me.
     
  11. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    Yeah, watching that interview, all 5 hours, was tough to watch. The thing they said to him that bothered me the most was, "We know what happened..." As is the law, and pointed out in part 2, children and those with limitations, are to be treated with "special care." One of the judges in the 7th court of appeals said, "Watching that made my skin crawl" during the appeals hearing. She was the one also who brought up the special care statute by federal law. Fassbender and the other guy fed him the "facts" they wanted him to talk about and after he did, they asked him for details which he "provided" (made up)

    During the second time with the full 7th court of appeals they asked one of his attorneys, "What should law enforcement do learn from this?" She didn't answer the question and went on to what she already planned to say. I thought to myself, "Answer the question!" What they were looking for was the special care in interviewing children. The full 7th circuit overturned what the 3 person panel had granted. So, imo, Dassey will have to wait until Avery is freed to be able to have a reconsideration.
     
  12. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    I think his IQ was reported as 70 or 71. From memory of part 1, I think he wanted to be able to go home and play video games. He knew right from wrong, but he had never had police tell him something happened and to come up with details. As the brain develops and sense of self becomes stronger, he would be able to stand up for himself and deny what they were alleging. Kids who are socially and psychologically limited are very concrete in their thinking and something like just answering questions leading to going home (or not) is motivating.
     
    BluesOvertookMe likes this.
  13. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    A few things to keep in mind (I'm mostly regurgitating previous responses from super_pickle here):

    1) $30 million is what he was suing for, but not necessarily what he was going to make. People act like this is the first wrongful conviction in the history of law enforcement, and it's (obviously) not. There are precedents for this sort of thing, and odds are he would have walked away with far less than what he was suing for. Meanwhile, the doc was misleading in regards to both the insurance policy, as well as Colborn's involvement with the lawsuit.

    2) To say "he couldn't have done it because of all the money he stood to make" is what would might call projecting, in that maybe you wouldn't have done it, but you have no idea what Avery would or would not have done. Keep in mind that he'd racked up a sexual assault accusation and a domestic violence incident in the time since leaving prison (neither of which are mentioned in the doc).

    3) You're assuming that Avery outright premeditated the murder, leaving no room for spontaneity. There are plenty of indicators (none of which are mentioned in the doc) that Avery was planning to do "something" to the victim, but that "something" wasn't necessarily murder.
     
  14. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Forum Resident

    All good points, but still, just a smidgen of self-interest argues against the acts. Could be his lack of control or psychotic/criminal tendencies could trump the self-interest, I admit. But he spent 18 years in prison, stood to gain even if it wasn't the $30 million being asked for, etc., etc. I am projecting, but I can't help but think anyone with a modicum of normalcy would not go anywhere near even a hint of the criminal in that position.
     
  15. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    What I find interesting also is that Kratz has Avery doing everything, i.e. whatever supposedly happened in his bedroom, whatever supposedly happened in his garage, building a huge fire to dispose of the body, moving her car to the back of the property and taking a shower, all in 2 hours. C’mon Kratz! :laugh:
     
    Jamey K and BluesOvertookMe like this.
  16. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    And he didn’t. If the state of Wisconsin would just give him a new trial, they could find the real killer(s) and deal with the acts of law enforcement. It’ll stay in the news until they do. Then the Halbach family will finally get justice.
     
  17. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
    Avery is in jail to stay unless Zellner finds new evidence that would warrant a new trial. I doubt that is going to happen based on some of the laughable things she's presented so far. The real tragedy is that the Halbach's will never be allowed to move on.
     
    GodShifter and bopdd like this.
  18. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    You seem to already be forgetting that he possibly committed other criminal acts after being released (if certain accusations are to be believed), which in and of itself refutes your point. Another reminder: you don't know how the events the played out. Maybe his original intention was to hit on her, and things escalated from there. Also, trying to use "self-interest" as a reason why someone may or may not have done something is, in my opinion, a thoroughly weak argument. Nobody who commits a heinous, unprovoked crime is acting in his or her self-interest from your point of view, since walking around free is always preferable to spending a lifetime in prison, with or without millions of dollars. Last but not least, if Avery is indeed a total psycho, you ultimately can't account for his motivations, and there's really no skirting around that.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  19. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Can you please point me to the source where the prosecution claims Avery was burning the body for 2 hours? If my memory serves me correctly, it was more like 7 (that could be wrong, though).
     
  20. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
    I'm pretty sure it was 7 hours, not 2.
     
  21. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    She’ll get him out.

    Here is a link to the documents in the Avery case: Avery’s Appeals Documents – Steven Avery Trial Transcripts and Documents

    Here is a link for anyone interested in the motion she filed with all the scientific evidence, etc. It’s some interesting reading if you read how she portrays Kratz (sweaty Kratz) and Avery, according to Kratz theory of what happened. Avery is both an idiot and savant according to Kratz: http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Motion-for-Post-Conviction-Relief.pdf
     
  22. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    You mean the motion that was already rejected by the court?
     
  23. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
  24. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Forum Resident

    Actually, "possibly committed other criminal acts" refutes nothing until "possibly" becomes "did."

    That's right. I don't know how the events played out. No witnesses = no one does.

    We do know how some events didn't play out, however. You can't murder someone in your bedroom, especially not someone handcuffed to a bed that's raped and has her throat cut, without leaving some evidence somewhere. Not these messy, not grinding a full pound of coffee people. Maybe someone in law enforcement could, who had the knowledge and wherewithal to thoroughly clean everything up down to the micro level, but that guy? Nah.

    Um, yes?

    ??

    I'll be honest -- I cannot follow your reasoning. My reasoning is simply using a rational actor model -- if Avery was a rational actor (and he may not have been) then it would make sense for him to be a boy scout till his settlement.


    I don't think anyone's skirting around anything. If he's a murderous, raping psychopath, then no, his motivations could be anything.

    On the other hand, if he's not, then his steadfast maintenance of his "I'm innocent of the crime" position makes sense.

    I've only seen season #1 of the documentary, but based on that, all I see are bad actors. I find it hard to see how people can be so cocksure of their positions when there are so many unanswered questions all over the place -- from dicey law enforcement acts and huge motive to frame, to the dicey Steve Avery family and relations themselves, to some dicey editing work on the part of the film makers, to the dicey jury decisions -- if I were a betting man (and I'm not) I would not wager a position on any of this. Way too much wrong in all of it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  25. EdogawaRampo

    EdogawaRampo Forum Resident

Share This Page