"Making a Murderer" on Netflix

Given the overwhelming reaction to the documentary, I have almost no doubt that Zellner would be able to convince a jury of 12 to let Avery go. And the very idea terrifies me to my core. Like Johnnie Cochran (and presumably a legion of high-powered defense attorneys before her), she's basically an illusionist as far as I'm concerned. Were she to provide actual "evidence"--i.e. something beyond the realm of pseudo-science and conjecture--my opinion of this whole matter would change in a heartbeat. Until then, I guess we will agree to disagree, as you don't even seem remotely interested in taking the documentary to task for its manipulative practices, hearing rebuttals to her claims, or even owning up to misinformation you've posted here yourself. Have a nice day.

 

He possibly made a false statement about Avery earlier. If his brother and/or stepdad were involved he might want to protect them or protect his mother from knowing about it.

 

What's the source for this and has someone indicated that it is from a real transcript?

 

I actually heard the phone conversation on the Rebutting a Murderer podcast. I don't know how they acquired it or the source. It must be available as a public record.

 

I’ve watched both seasons and:

Reading this thread makes my blood boil. I’m staying out of it from here on out.

 

Kathleen Zellner tweeted this yesterday morning: "Is everybody ready for some new information re our ongoing investigation of the Avery case? (x 16)"

In the afternoon she tweeted this: "So join us on Twitter tomorrow & we'll discuss hew information re our investigation after MaM2 & answer your questions."

This morning she tweeted this: "We will be with you at 12:30 pm CT. Buckle up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" @ZellnerLaw

So for anyone interested, 12:30 CT, 1:30 ET, 10:30 PT. I'll be watching. Should be good!

 

Attorney points finger at Dassey brother, says Avery was framed

 

I am 50/50 on Steven but if forced to make a call, I'd say he probably did it.

The Dassey boy is something else. How his smirking original lawyer was not brought up on ethics charges is beyond me. First he had his investigator poison Brendan's impressionable mind with all kinds of crap to make him feel a guilt he did not understand (and films it!) and then delivers him to the cops for an interview that no decent lawyer would fail to be present at or counsel responsibly his client not to do the interview at all.

If somebody in these shows deserves to burn in hell for sure it is Brendan's original lawyer.

I would love to know if deep in their hearts, Teresa's family believes Brendan did anything.

 

Zellner is making statements about Tadych and Bobby Dassey with zero evidence.

 

Watching the show I commented to my wife, as Zellner is jumping thru hoops with reenactments, that she has absolutely nothing in terms of forensic evidence, she is just playing for the camera and self-promotion.

The only good point I heard her make was the bit about the prosecution not turning over (or rather correctly identify to the defense) the computer at the Dassey home. And even that I don't know that would have been proof of anything.

 

Zellner now has 20 exonerations. It's hard to argue with that kind of success. She will be filing at the court of appeals either on December 20 or before. I can only imagine how much money Avery will get when he gets out.

 

Anyone heard any excuse why the judge barred coroner Kakatsch from testifying?

 

Did she make it to the stand? It was in the second series, but I thought it was Kratz didn’t want her there. I remember her emotional talk about not being called to be part of the investigation, even though she was the chief law enforcement officer. I remember her saying that she could’ve arrested the sheriff but was so scared because of the threats made to her.

Also, this happened over the weekend.

Making A Murderer's Kathleen Zellner has message for Irish fans behind 'Free Steven Avery' banner | The Irish Post

 

She was not called because she works for Manitowoc county, where the murder occurred. Calumet County was running the investigation because of the Avery lawsuit. Something the documentary doesn't really point out.

 

She quit working for the county due to the harassment and threats made to her, something the documentary points out quite well.

 

Just because she says it doesn't make it true. Much like most of what is in this documentary.

 

Yeah, I remember seeing her say she was threatened. Having a hard time believing she would just make stuff up on the record like that. Well, the other side could participate but they declined, just one of many other fishy things.

 

I am amazed she is able to do this. I guess they could sue her. Anybody know who is paying her, no doubt astronomical fees? Are they paid by Netflix or is she doing it on the assumption of the huge Avery pay out going through.

 

Remember Zellner is a lawyer, she knows what to say and how to say it. She is assisting Avery pro bono which means she isn't getting paid. She's an expert at bloviation much like the happily deceased Johnny Cochran.

 

Yeah, when so many things looked are so unexplained, you have to find what is the best fir for the evidence. I'm surprised we haven't heard about Bobby or something he might say when she has the evidence that points directly at him. I know her theory has yet to be shown in court, but they're looking for DNA evidence in the Dassey garage. I'm sure that information will be added to her Court of Appeals filing.

 

Any evidence that makes the prosecution's case weaker makes the defense case stronger (It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that our client committed the crime.)

It doesn't work the other way around.

Any evidence that makes the defense case weaker DOES NOT make the prosecution's case stronger (We have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime).

Shooting holes in Zellner's points does not make the prosecution case stronger, just a defensive move to not make the prosecution look weaker.

When in doubt,
you must let them out.

 

I don’t want to thread crap but I wanted to add something for everyone to consider. After practicing criminal law for around twenty years I have stopped watching these kinds of documentaries. In my experience they have a bias one way or the other and are not a reliable way to arrive at an opinion regarding the actual facts.

I am someone that has always sought information from journalistic sources that I felt I could trust. To me The New York Times, National Public Radio, Frontline, and BBC News seemed rock solid. Having had the experience of working closely on cases that were covered by the press I now see things differently.

I would say that if a case is reported on by excellent reliable sources, that are trying hard to be accurate, they get about 80% of it right. The other 20% they get wrong or leave out. That 20% can make a big difference.

Take an agenda driven documentarian with the desire to come up with something provocative and “important”and you end up with what is essentially an “interested witness.” Truth can suffer in the editing.

This goes for any case that becomes a media event. The cases of some defendant who is being vilified in the media as a bloodthirsty monster, and the cases where the defendant is portrayed as an innocent victim being railroaded by the police and prosecutors. The closer you are to a case the more nuances you see.

Don’t forget the Judge and the jury saw all the evidence and heard all the witnesses. You did not. Every exhibit and all the testimony is litigated and a Judge determines what is more prejudicial than probative. Things get in or left out for a reason.

By all means enjoy the series, discuss it, and become involved if you think it’s important. But don’t fight, get insulted or take it personally if you disagree with a friend or family member over the case.

 

I find this claim beyond dubious. I believe you are trying to poison the well. You do understand that if what you are saying is true you were under a duty to report what you saw to anyone that would listen. I’d start with the US Attorney then the State Attorney General, then the Police Commissioner and the mayor’s office. If you did not do that then the fault is on you!

Either the Cops were pulling your leg or you suffer from some kind of “faulty memory.”

 

That's right. As a 16-year-old boy living in a extremely racist and conservative suburb in Texas I did not escalate this and pick a fight with the local police department. Or I'm lying and making it all up. Good on you for pointing this out.

 

This leads me to believe they were pulling your leg.

If you believed they were serious, I don’t care what your age was or the local political climate you should have gone to an adult in a position of authority and asked for advice on how to proceed. The notion that law enforcement officers are carrying around unmarked firearms to plant on victims, in case they murder an innocent person is morally repugnant and undermines the very fabric of law and justice.