"Making a Murderer" on Netflix

I believe accepting money from Netflix, a corporation profiting from the on going documentary, would constitute a conflict of interest. They have vested interest in perpetuating the controversy that has nothing to do with justice.

Some of the Attorneys who take these cases just devote the time to the case and use resources earned from other clients. Others push to get the convictions overturned then sign up the Defendant as a client for the Civil suit which can be quite lucrative.

In truth, helping to overturn wrongful convictions is hard work and very worthwhile. Most large Prosecutor’s Offices now have Conviction Integrity Units that review old cases where there is a likelyhood of wrongful convictions or misconduct by Police or Prosecutors.

No rational person wants to convict the wrong person. Our system of justice is founded on the notion that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted. That’s why the burden for a conviction is high.

 

They weren't, and you don't have enough context to be a judgmental prick, but don't let that stop you. Also, at no point did I say I did the right thing. This particular officer was a detective and was well connected in the local government and possibly involved in a large, well funded meth distribution ring. There was no one I knew to go to. I was raised in a cult and beaten from the age of three. I had zero capacity to do anything and no responsible adults to address it with who I thought would do anything, including my parents. **** off.

 

Niiice. Sorry about your unfortunate upbringing but as an Attorney working in Criminal Law for many years I take these kind of allegations seriously. Not trying to be judgmental I just have to stress how serious the allegations you made are.

Let’s not hijack the thread. You may PM me if you want.

 

No thanks.

 

I've pointed out that almost all documentaries are not journalism, they are art. The women involved in Making a Murderer admit that it is art and not meant to be a truth document. As we can see by the reaction to this documentary, the problem is too many people have no notion of this and believe what they see on TV or on film must be the truth.

 

Not that I don't admire your posts here, but you should be aware that any pleas for rationality will more or less fall on deaf ears (or should I say eyes). The documentary did a number on its viewers and now the prosecutor, various officers, a judge, jury members, Avery's relatives, his neighbors, the victim's family, and the victim's ex-boyfriend are all engaged in a vast conspiracy to protect the "real" killer (this is obviously an exaggeration, but you get the point). You could even go into detail about all the things the documentary (or Zellner) either left or edited and it won't matter--a good 90% of the viewers are now armchair defense attorneys. Along similar lines, it doesn't matter to them how much information they get wrong. Like the good amateurs they are, they just move on to Zellner's latest tweet. Meanwhile, the evidence still squarely points to Avery. Cochran would be so proud.

I would also add that I don't think Netflix is directly responsible for all this nonsense. I think the blame lies at the filmmakers' feet, and that the media fans the flames (for the most part) because it's the only thing they know how to do anymore.

 

I am sure the doc makers are loving this. They will probably have studios standing in line with money to make their next one.

 

As at least one other poster and I have pointed out, there were 79 people or organizations that refused, for whatever reason, to participate in the making of the two documentaries. Yes, I understand that making video is an art. But I think they go with what they have to work with (making it an art). So if there are facts left out, I don't think anyone can fault the filmmakers for that. If they aren't presented with other facts, they do their best job with what they do have.

As far as why Zellner has taken on the job of doing pro bono exoneration cases, I would guess that when she started doing them and won, the civil lawsuits gave her enough money to be able to continue on with her current clients. She's a smart woman who's successful at what she does. It's really hard for me to argue with her success.

 

This is a misunderstanding on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

 

Give us just one, please.

 

Well, for starters, the majority of information left out in season one was completely available to the filmmakers at any given moment. I mean you're not actually suggesting that they needed the prosecutor to participate in order to know the blood vial was bunk, are you? Or to find out that Avery had violent tendencies? Or that he blocked his number? I mean, what information was there to glean that they didn't have access to over the course of 10 years? Furthermore, how would that account for all the manipulative editing or false leads?

 

I think part two of the documentary answers all those questions. Zellner took what the first two defense attorneys did and did her due diligence with forensic help to get where they are right now.

If the purpose of this thread is to point out inaccuracies in part one, fine. But the series moved on and developments have changed the picture completely. I'm not here to criticize the doc makers.

 

In my professional opinion it is inappropriate for District Attorneys, Law Enforcement, or government agencies to take part in grandstanding or trying cases in the press.

It is unseemly and it can contribute to tainting the Jury pool. I have little respect for the ones who do it, unless they are out of Office and/or retired. Legitimate press conferences to inform the public of the facts, or releasing documents that are already part of the public record is different. That is not a problem.

The duty of prosecution and law enforcement, ideally, is to the People, the Constitution and to justice. The duty of the defense Attorney is to provide zealous defense for the client. Some defense lawyers court the media, engage in grandstanding, try the case in the press and work tirelessly to sway public opinion by any means they can. That includes vilifying the opposition and pointing the finger of guilt at other suspects. It is a different game for them.

It ends up giving the Public a one-sided sense of things. The whole thing becomes a sideshow. It is sad because the stakes are high and real people’s lives are at stake.

 

You were saying the doc maker's did what they did due to a lack of participation. That was untrue--they had full access to the trial transcripts (among other things) and proactively chose what to (and what not to) include in season one. By season two, Zellner came in and presented her own slew of half-arguments and false impressions. Both Zellner and the doc makers had plenty of access to counter-arguments while making both seasons, hence a lack of "participation" is completely irrelevant. Furthermore, why in the world would anyone trust the documentary after everything they pulled in season one? We get you're not here to criticize the doc makers, but your defense of their decisions is paper thin. They quite obviously chose what to include based on what would make for the most convincing argument. Apparently, both they and Zellner were counting on the majority of viewers doing zero independent research. As it turns out, they were completely right in that assumption.

 

Baltimore Cops Carried Toy Guns to Plant on People They Shot, Trial Reveals

Your innocence is touching, or is it denial? It is the police planting guns that is "morally repugnant and undermines the very fabric of law and justice."

 

He's not denying that police plant evidence--he was directly engaging in a back and forth in regards to a specific story and then elucidating upon his point. No one is saying that there aren't dirty cops in the world. The problem comes when people fail to grasp the full scope of an investigation, or understand the difference between proven fact and unproven conjecture. Are you suggesting the documentary didn't lie or create false impressions? Furthermore, what does a case in Maryland have to do with another one in Wisconsin, the latter of which involved hundreds of officers? Your lack of nuance says pretty much everything.

 

Nothing about that link changes what I said. Those cops are being prosecuted and convicted which is exactly what should happen. More importantly the claim they carried “fake” guns to plant on victims is merely an allegation at this point.

They were bad corrupt cops they should go to jail. That is what I was telling you should have happened to your friends in Texas. I merely said you should have blown the whistle on them, if they were serious.

Your ignorance is alarming. I have devoted my life to practicing Criminal Law and have worked in poor, high crime areas, my whole career, so you want to school me. I’m anything but innocent and I’ve seen things that would give you nightmares.

You totally misunderstand everything I’m saying. I believe in social justice and I think it takes constant struggle to achieve. I don’t believe in fairy tales, cop shows, and every documentary that comes down the pike.

You don’t hear anything I’m saying. I’m treating this forum the way I do my Criminal Justice class, just trying to provide reasoned information.

Most cops can’t even fill out a Parking Ticket without making a mistake.

 

You're talking to a different forum member than the one who was in Texas, just FYI.

 

No, they are editorials. Editorials are part of the journalism process mixed with a point-of-view or personal opinion. You take facts and spin from there with a logical argument. There are some editorials that are complete fiction of course but they aren't documentaries either. As with any editorial, you focus on the points that support your case and question those that don't.

 

Your points in this post are nothing I would disagree with.

I was reacting to this sentence:
"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."
In specific, THE NOTION as meaning the idea, or saying that a LEO's would PLANT EVIDENCE was morally repugnant ..." I still believe that is what that sentence conveys, but I will take your word that it is not what you meant.

Perhaps we actually agree. If your saying that police officers who do such acts as planting etc, are morally repugnant and undermine the rule of law, I completely agree and is why I was responding.
Perhaps I see it as more of a systemic problem than you do.

 

Think it through. All the detective did was show me a revolver with the numbers removed. He told me that they take them from criminals and forgo processing them as evidence. Then, if they happen to shoot someone they have a throwdown. Those were his words. There was no crime save a delay or choice not to enter an item into evidence. That could have been easily denied or explained away to a sympathetic supervisor. I knew that shop and the other cops. There was other shady stuff going on. I understood that interaction as a threat. He certainly knew I had heard things. Looked to me like the whole show ran on silence and lies to protect the officers in the department. Cops don't get prosecuted much for shootings. The certainly didn't forty years ago. It was a different world, and it would take much more than my coming forward in a my word against a police detective scenario to make any real change. I suppose as a teen I had no resources for trying to locate a trustworthy adult to confide in.

 

Oops

 

Gotcha. What are your thoughts on Prosecutor Kratz giving a press conference the day after the Dassey "confession"? Might that not have tainted the jury pool?

 

How might they have used the transcripts in the documentary? Perhaps someone reading the transcripts?

Why do you think Zellner's theories and evidence are "half-arguments"? Do you think the doc makers have an agenda? If so, I agree. But I think we do so for very different reasons. What independent research do you have that Zellner is wrong about how she thinks the prosecution got it so very wrong?

 

I think in this specific case the leaning is more art than editorial in my view. The documentary makers proposed that they are not taking sides or expressing their point of view. However, what they've actually presented seems quite the opposite.