"Making a Murderer" on Netflix

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

  1. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
    The court of public opinion allows us to discuss this as much as we like. Obviously, there are people steadfast in their opinions. The judicial court system however is finite, and Avery (unless Zellner pulls a rabbit out of her hat) has reached that finality by law.
     
  2. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    Nope, still active.
     
  3. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
    I read through that and thought is this for real. I suspect it was not allowed as evidence for some reason.
     
  4. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    It’s still an active case. If you want info and maybe some chuckles, look at Kathleen Zellner’s twitter. She’s a smart woman who knows exactly what she’s doing. As she said in part 2, the judge tried to say she couldn’t file more motions. Zellner knows Wisconsin law and knows she can file forever. Like the medical examiner who in Wisconsin is at the top of the legal chain and she could arrest the sheriff if she wanted. They told her eventually, after telling her that she wasn’t allowed on the property, that if she tried to go to Avery’s property that she would be arrested. She finally decided to step down from her job in 2012. So, there was medical examiner or coroner that testified at the trial because it was her.
     
  5. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    If I remember correctly, police came to Avery's property to find him strangling his fiance (or wife) at the time. I don't remember if charges were pressed or not, but would you consider this to be "criminal" activity? If you'd like, I can dig up some sources.

    This implies you didn't read through super_pickle's feed very closely. If Avery confined the victim to a bed and burned the bedsheets, why would there be DNA lying all about the room? Furthermore, most theories have him killing the victim in the garage with a gun, not slashing her throat inside the house. I can't remember what Kratz's theory was, but he didn't have to be entirely correct to make his case. And you are aware of the fact that Dassey helped clean up a stain in the garage that night, right? And came home with bleach on his jeans?

    Let me try and explain this another way. Do you think OJ Simpson was guilty? If so, why would he commit a crime when it meant potentially losing millions of dollars, and his freedom? Why would anyone commit a crime if it meant losing money, or "not gaining" money in Avery's case? What's the real difference? And if the answer is, "well, Avery was poor and he could finally make money", I would ask in return: was he really poor? Because his family owned a lot of property. Ultimately, you're making up priorities on a stranger's behalf, which amounts to zilch, especially when piles of evidence are taken into consideration.

    If he's guilty, he's guilty. If he's innocent, he's innocent. Got it.

    This once again reads like you simply didn't do the independent research you said you did. The documentary provided TONS of false impressions and a number of the "bad actors" don't have the motives you think they do (Lenk and Colborn in particular). I'm not stating with 100% confidence that police didn't plant evidence, but it remains to be proven.

    I'm sure season 2 will only cement your suspicions, but I would once again recommend diving into super_pickle's feed. Go back far enough and virtually every question gets answered. It's a bizarre case, but it's also one where a little logic can go a long way, at least in terms of breaking it down. There are numerous arrows pointing straight at Avery. Some were mentioned in the doc, others weren't. At the very least, he was the one who requested the victim. He was also the one who had a long fire that night. He was also the one who invited his nephew over to clean up a big stain in the garage. And that's before we dive into the sheer piles of physical evidence. The idea that we was framed by both the killer and the police isn't completely beyond the realm of possibility, but it's definitely a stretch, especially when you really think about it. Take away the blanket of misinformation and you're left with a crime that might very well be as cut and dry as it seems, despite a few "twists".
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
    GentleSenator and GodShifter like this.
  6. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    The motion you linked to pointed to Ryan Hillegas as the killer, was rejected by the court, and has since been revised. That's my understanding of it anyway. It also says the killer took blood from Avery's sink, but I think Zellner is now suggesting it was the police who did that. Also, I'm still waiting for you to point me to the source where Kratz said Avery committed the act and burned the body in 2 hours total.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2018
  7. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I think that call might have been in the doc. If not, I definitely saw it somewhere. In any case, I think Dassey ended up swapping his story once again, which might explain why the call didn't ultimately hold up.
     
  8. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    The motion I linked to gave, as suspects, Ryan Hillegas, Scott Bloedorn, Scott Tadych and Bobby Dassey. Zellner added to her original motion as more scientific evidence came out, particularly the computer evidence of Bobby Dassey, not Brendan, as Fassbender conveniently mislabeled as “Brendan’computer,” and 2400 pages of information.

    It doesn’t say the killer took blood from Avery’s sink. Zellner thinks the police planted the blood they got from the sink. It’s in the timeline Kratz used against Avery at trial and documented in her motion. It’s not hard to find if you read motion.
     
  9. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    Just read pages 3-6 of her motion for a new trial. It’s actually interesting reading and doesn’t require watching part 2 of MaM. I’d recommend watching part 2 if you can, but all the new information (scientific evidence) is in the motion.
     
  10. Pastafarian

    Pastafarian Forum Resident

    I've get to start series 2, as I'm not sure I can stand more outrage TV.

    What I was appalled by was the US legal system, I suspect given the lack of a appropriate adult which fundamentally undermined the conviction of Dacey the UK court would have thrown it out straight away.

    Guilty or innocent(?), is not the issue, presumed innocence rules

    Then we had Len Kachinsky, a disgrace to the legal profession, he seem not to understand the role of a defense lawyer.
     
    rburly likes this.
  11. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Directly from page 103 of the motion: "The killer quickly collected the blood from the sink in Mr. Avery's bathroom and deposited the blood in several spots throughout the RA V-4." It's not hard to find if you read the motion. I would also point out that the very same pages you referred to in a separate post have Kratz claiming that Avery took 3-4 hours to burn the body. Didn't you say something earlier about it taking 2 hours?
     
  12. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    Remember that why Zellner is describing is what Kratz said happened that day.

    What I saw in part 2 was that he saw her at 2:30 and was showered and all cleaned up at 4:30. I read the part about burning the body. I’ll look at it again. I trust Zellner’s expert witnesses and their findings. They completely exonerate Avery.
     
  13. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    This is what you wrote: "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:"

    This suggests you're (miraculously) unaware that the fire started that night, and burned for numerous hours.

    I also noticed you previously said this: "People seem to have this idea that Avery is a cold-blooded murderer who planned this out. I would expect someone like that to have a long history of criminal behavior."

    Except Avery does have a history of criminal behavior, which includes cat murder, public indecency, violent threats with a firearm (for which he was charged), domestic violence, death threats, and accusations of sexual assault.

    We get that you "trust Zellner's expert witnesses and their findings", but it seems to comes at the expense of virtually all counterpoints. It's like you don't seem to be aware of things that have most definitely been brought to your attention.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
    GodShifter likes this.
  14. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    I’ll suggest this: since you have the motion now, please point out any problems/issues you have with Zellner’s written motion.

    Also, I didn’t see anything about the fire on page 103. But yes, there was a fire at night.
     
  15. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I didn't say the fire was on page 103. Seriously?

    EDIT: Okay, I see where the confusion lies. I said the "very same pages you referred to in a separate post", meaning pages 3-6.

    EDIT #2: Literally every single point she makes has a counterpoint. I linked to a bunch of them earlier.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2018
  16. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
  17. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
    I think what most people fail to realize is that a documentary is not journalism, it's an art. Even the two women who made this documentary say that.
     
    bopdd likes this.
  18. tman53

    tman53 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Pa
    The biggest problem I have with Zellner in the series is that she and her experts think nothing of executing uncontrolled experiments. Not very scientific and it makes them completely useless and are nothing but show. No doubt, Zellner is a good lawyer but I think she is in over head on this one.
     
  19. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    I’ll bet she’s heard that in past cases. Someone asked her if she works on other cases while this was being made. She said she’s gotten two other people out in that time.

    One of her tweets yesterday was that the jury knew the bones in the burn pit were planted because they acquitted Avery of that charge.
     
  20. Martinn

    Martinn Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Chicago
    I had a hard time reading through super_pickle on my phone, so I am sure I missed a lot of interesting things there. Anyone found any reasonable explanation about the 'mistake' of mislabeling Bobby Dasey's computer as Brandon's?
     
  21. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I can't specifically answer this one (and I don't know if super_pickle has specifically addressed it), but I did find some responses from a different Reddit member, who posted them over a year ago (they're copy/pasted below):

    "Here's a perfect example of why you have to be very careful when you read the actual expert statements.

    1. That wasn't Bobby Dassey's computer. It was a computer that everyone in the house used.

    2. The expert says he found a list of searches from various dates. This list cannot be attributed to any one person in the house since he gave no specifics on when the searches were carried out. This list contained the searches for dead bodies. It's entirely possible Bobby made those searches, but it's equally possible that Brendan did.

    3. The expert gives another list of searches that he says are all from the morning of 9/18/06 (Monday). All of the searches in this list relate to pornography, with no dead body searches. It's alleged that only Bobby would have been home at the time these searches were made because everyone else has school. However, the actual exhibit lists the dates as 9/18/05, which would have been a Sunday. The 2005 dates have to be the correct dates and the 2006 a typo since the forensic image of the computer was created on 4/21/06.

    4. There is a list of search terms with images of dead bodies. All of the times on the pictures are roughly between the window of 10:30a - 11:00a which is interesting because they're taken from two separate days 4/9/06 (Monday) and 4/19/06 (Wednesday). Steven and Brendan are both in jail awaiting trial at this point. Would be interesting to know who made these searches."
    Another post from the same member:

    "There are three groups of searches:

    • Section 11.b of the affidavit: Undated, so you can't rule out Brendan, at least with the information we have right now.

    • Exhibit B: Is from 2005. There is no other way to interpret it. The 2006 date in the affidavit cannot be accurate since the date is after the computer was seized and the forensic image created.

    • Exhibit C: Is the only group of searches that you can definitively rule Brendan out since he was behind bars when the searches were made."

    Here's the thread: Disturbing pornographic content on Bobby Dasseys computer : MakingaMurderer
     
    Martinn likes this.
  22. bopdd

    bopdd Forum Resident

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    No, it means the prosecution was unable to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how it works. Is Zellner really this messy?
     
  23. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    Special Agent Fassbender mislabeled it and kept the CD until fairly recently. Mislabeling it as “Brendan’s computer” (Bobby was the only person at home on the days the computer was home). Also, a letter from Kratz to the defense said that he went through the computer and there was nothing of evidentiary (he left out exculpatory) evidence. The defense didn’t look into the computer evidence.
     
    Martinn likes this.
  24. rburly

    rburly Sitting comfortably with Item 9

    Location:
    Orlando
    Correct, he wasn’t found guilty of that specific charge.
     
  25. Martinn

    Martinn Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Chicago
    Thank you, interesting. Any idea if that was the only computer in the house at that time? Or Brendan had his own?
     

Share This Page