Author Topic: Making a Murderer  (Read 6718 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2016, 06:13:25 PM »
0
Jeremy, the "cat-in-the-fire" incident has come up a lot for a lot of people... Its true, the filmmakers would have been better served in presenting a "rougher," truer version of the cat story... but this is still something that happened some 20 years before under drastically different circumstances. knowing the whole story obviously helps in understanding avery as a "mouth breathing degenerate," as reelist describes.. but for me i don't know that this type of behavior is necessarily predictive of rape/murder. i trust there are more people out there who have killed domestic pets than have killed humans... shouldn't i be able to accept that there are varying shades of criminality; even homicidal tendencies? it seems tough to me that the "cat-in-the-fire" would necessarily indict him for any other crime he might be accused of for the rest of his life.

I agree, actually — you're responding to a different argument, though. This is less about Avery's shade of evil, and more about the doc containing false information, and in places lying by omission. They made a conscious decision to simply present Avery's version of the cat story, which is almost certainly not true. That understandably raises other questions about credibility.

for me the politics of the filmmaking here are much clearer and less problematic than the jinx, in which the filmmakers make themselves central to the narrative, convince the main subject that they're making a movie different from the one they're making, etc.

Completely disagree there. I'm fine with their activist role, especially considering the positive impact it's had, and as long as they don't egregiously bend the truth.

(From a journalism ethics POV, The Jinx is definitely problematic, but I'm okay with viewing it as something else. And it's certainly a lot simpler than the Avery case.)
"Hunger is the purest sin"

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
  • Respect: +52
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2016, 08:40:29 PM »
0
Jeremy, the "cat-in-the-fire" incident has come up a lot for a lot of people... Its true, the filmmakers would have been better served in presenting a "rougher," truer version of the cat story... but this is still something that happened some 20 years before under drastically different circumstances. knowing the whole story obviously helps in understanding avery as a "mouth breathing degenerate," as reelist describes.. but for me i don't know that this type of behavior is necessarily predictive of rape/murder. i trust there are more people out there who have killed domestic pets than have killed humans... shouldn't i be able to accept that there are varying shades of criminality; even homicidal tendencies? it seems tough to me that the "cat-in-the-fire" would necessarily indict him for any other crime he might be accused of for the rest of his life.

I agree, actually — you're responding to a different argument, though. This is less about Avery's shade of evil, and more about the doc containing false information, and in places lying by omission. They made a conscious decision to simply present Avery's version of the cat story, which is almost certainly not true. That understandably raises other questions about credibility.


okay, i agree. i ultimately wish the filmmakers just included all of it, the cat incident, as well as other choice pieces of evidence. (for example, avery's repeated calls to theresa on the day of the murder; or the fact that on a prior visit, he was wearing only a bath towel, which she told co-workers creeped her out; OR, the shackles he bought only a few weeks before). its all potential ammo for the other side, yes, but i think its still operating within the parameters of the show's main theme. it could have presented this material while still exposing the flaws in our justice system and still maintaining avery's innocence. i do think the structure of the series is designed to provoke, and so the unsophisticated viewer watches with a sense of conviction that steven avery is definitely innocent (as opposed to the more nuanced POV - steve avery may or may not be innocent, but justice was definitely not served).


Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2016, 09:15:10 PM »
+1
Right, it's like Adnan Syed. There's a decent chance that he's guilty, but that's not enough — there are mountains of reasonable doubt. In this case, at the very least there was enough evidence tampering that the case should've been thrown out.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2016, 01:15:11 AM »
0
Read the full transcript of His confession with monumentally important tidbits left out of the film.

I read this, then started episode 4, which is where they show parts of this interview. I think your assessment is actually charitable. The show is downright deceptive. It just shows clips of the investigator instructing Brendan to draw specific things... "draw yourself doing this, draw this now," etc. But as you can tell from the transcript, that's NOT how it happens at all.

Brendan begins by making 4 drawings with no specific prompts. The investigator asks Brendan to make further drawings after Brendan brings them up or describes them. Here's a particularly telling passage:


MOK: OK. [BD writes] And how come she didn't get up from-from the bed?
BD: Because she was tied down.
MOK: What was she tied down with?
BD: Like, rope.
MOK: And what else?
BD: Cuffs.
MOK: What kind of cuffs?
BD: Leg cuffs.
MOK: I'm sorry?
BD: Leg cuffs.
MOK: I don't know what you mean.
BD: Like the ones that they put on their legs.
MOK: So they had chains?
BD: [nods]
MOK: OK. OK, why don't you do this-why don't you draw a picture of the bed and how she was tied down? But draw--draw a big size so we can see it.
BD: [draws] So how should I draw the chains?
MOK: I don't know-I didn't see it so I can't help you.


The way this is edited down is an absolute hatchet job. Here are more examples of the detail that Brendan goes into. Why wasn't this, or anything like it, included in Episode 4?


BD: He showed me her and then told me to have sex with her.
MOK: Continue.
BD: And I looked at him and then I was thinking of going home but then I seen that he --I thought he was too strong for me, so I did it.
MOK: Continue.
BD: Then after I was done I cut off her-he told me to cut some hair off and then when we were done we took her off and we brung her outside into the garage and then he stabbed her and then shot her.


What's more likely — that Brendan has the intelligence and the imagination to weave this story, or that his account is inconsistent because he doesn't remember all the details correctly? He doesn't even know what "inconsistent" means.

In the episode, they didn't just omit some important details, they literally cut out the most crucial content. When they show the next interview, they also completely omit Brendan's confession, as if we should just assume it was 100% coerced. I feel insulted as a viewer.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

JG

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1365
  • Respect: +52
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2016, 09:59:53 AM »
0
i don't know the timeline of the episodes, but there's TONS of info presented throughout the series as to why one should discredit that entire interview. it isn't like this interview happened in a vacuum... its after months and months of suggestive interviews during which the "narrative" evolves. brendan's lawyer is somehow not present. the list goes on... the show argues its less what he says in that interview, and more the fact it should have never happened at all. its an interview that i believe is ultimately inadmissible in the avery case.

definitely not interested in changing minds or arguing for a certain side, so i'm trying to keep it brief (don't know how some reddit users do it!)..  we all bring our biases to stuff like this. for example, as i watched the series i wasn't frustrated by the avery family's inability to speak eloquently, i only found it fascinating, dramatic. It evoked my sympathies. i watched without knowledge of how it would turn out, and felt myself rooting for their innocence. i was compelled to binge watch this show, which i rarely do, so obviously it "seduced" me in some way. in the days since, i've allowed more room for the possibility that avery did it, but that doesn't diminish the show's impact for me. ultimately, i'd encourage you to watch the whole show, because it provides a relatively comprehensive overview of a court case, one where the ethics are extremely questionable. it seems like you mostly worry that it isn't comprehensive enough, maybe you're right. i recognize the challenge of economizing a case that was several weeks into a few hours, and i recognize the inevitability of the filmmakers' presenting us with a POV.  i don't think the show is at all vague - several of the episodes comprise almost exclusively footage from the trial - even if is isn't definitive or conclusive, it provided me with a lot insight as to how our criminal justice system works, or doesn't.

EDIT: here's a timely NYtimes article

here's kratz and strang on megyn kelly

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2016, 10:56:08 AM »
0
Seriously though, compare the version of the interview they present in Episode 4 to what actually happened. It's outright deception; I can't see how that can be interpreted any other way. I will find it very difficult to trust the rest of their reporting on the interviews, unless they can show that those details were specifically suggested by the interviewers.

My impression from this interview is that he believed being more open was going to help his case, and that the blame could be shifted to Steven, where it belonged. He genuinely starts to believe this guy is there to help him. Brendan goes into a lot of detail in this interview with essentially no specific prompting. Yet in the previous interview with the actual interrogators, he is pushed on very specific things and says almost nothing of substance. When he meets with those interrogators again, he clams up, because he recognizes them as adversaries. He's smart enough for that, at least. But... I'll keep watching and withhold judgment on those points.

I'll say that, so far, I don't think Brendan is evil or or wanted to participate or deserves any significant amount of jail time. Seems pretty clear already that he was entirely under Steven's control. The phone call to his mom in Episode 4 is especially telling, the way he sheepishly says he did "some of it."
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2016, 06:29:03 PM »
0
Making a Murderer's Steven Avery Believes His Brothers Could Have Killed Teresa Halbach

http://www.people.com/article/making-a-murderer-steven-avery-presents-alternate-suspects-in-appeal

Since his arrest in 2005, Steven Avery has steadfastly maintained his innocence in the murder of young photographer Teresa Halbach.

The case is the focus of Making a Murderer, the popular – and controversial – docu-series on Netflix.

Avery is currently serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. His nephew, Brendan Dassey, is also in prison for his alleged role in the murder. (Dassey will first meet the parole board in 2048.)

For their part, police and prosecutors tell PEOPLE that the right men are in prison.

If Avery and Dassey didn't kill Halbach, who did? In post-conviction court documents obtained by PEOPLE, Avery has pointed the finger inside his own family, claiming that his brothers – who have never been charged in connection with the murder of Teresa Halbach – could be suspects. (Calls to Avery's brothers have not been returned.)

Charles Avery

The 59-page document alleges that Steven Avery's brother, Charles, had a history of strange behavior against women, including women who had visited the Avery Salvage Yard, the family's auto salvage business. In one 2005 police report from the Calumet County Sheriff's Department, he allegedly paid unwanted attention to a woman whose car he had towed. "She reported to her co-workers that she was afraid of him," the police report states.

Also according to the document, Charles Avery was charged in 1999 with sexual assault by use of force on his then-wife. (PEOPLE has independently verified the arrest.) Charles Avery was not convicted and his wife later dropped the charges.

According to the court document, Steven Avery believed that Charles had a reason to “frame Steven over money, a share of the family business, and over [Steven's former girlfriend] Jodi Stachowski."

Earl Avery

The document also alleges similar behavior from Steven's other brother, Earl Avery.

According to the document, Earl Avery was charged with sexually assaulting his two daughters in 1995. (He pleaded no contest.)

The documents claim that Earl Avery was "hunting rabbits" on the day that Halbach was murdered – and that he later drove his golf cart past her car on the salvage yard.

"Both Earl and Charles Avery would have known more about the Avery Salvage Yard than anyone else," says the document.

"They had taken over the day-to-day running of the business. They had the means and the opportunity to kill Ms. Halbach, to move her car, to plant evidence to incriminate Steven, and then to leave the car so that it would be discovered in a search."

Scott Tadych

At the time of the murder, Scott Tadych was dating Brendan Dassey's mother, Barb Janda, who lived next door to Steven Avery.

According to the document, "Tadych's motive to kill Ms. Halbach is his violent and volatile personality. According to Tadych's co-workers, he is a short-tempered and angry person capable of murder. Tadych was described as a chronic liar who blows up at people, 'screams a lot' and is a 'psycho.' Another co-worker described Tadych as 'not being hooked up right.' "

To corroborate Avery's claim, he listed Tadych's multiple arrests for criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, and battery. (PEOPLE has independently confirmed the four cases against Tadych, in 1994, 1997, 1998 and 2002, as well as a 2001 temporary restraining order filed by an ex-girlfriend.)

Tadych was a witness against Avery during the trial and has never been considered a suspect in the murder.

Bobby Dassey

The fourth person named as a possible alternative suspect was Avery's nephew, Bobby Dassey.

Although Bobby Dassey didn't have a history of violence, the documents claim that he "also had the opportunity, as he was at home at the time that Ms. Halbach was on the property. Given that Ms. Halbach was coming to photograph his mother's car, Bobby would have known that Ms. Halbach was coming to the property. Bobby admitted that he saw Ms. Halbach and her car as he looked out the window. He had the means to shoot Ms. Halbach; he is a hunter and thus would have access to weapons.

The document continues, "Thus, there is circumstantial evidence tying Bobby Dassey to Ms. Halbach's murder."

The document, filed in 2009, sought to have Avery's conviction overturned. The court disagreed, and denied the appeal.

None of the "suspects" Avery put forth have been connected with the murder of Teresa Halbach.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7020
  • Respect: +1737
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2016, 07:32:05 PM »
0
My understanding is that those are the four that Strang and Buting intended to introduce as alternate suspects, before they were hamstrung by the judge not allowing them to do so.

At this point, I don't have a strong opinion (nor would my opinion be particularly relevant) of Steven Avery's actual guilt or innocence, but it seems pretty apparent that his prosecution and conviction were fundamentally corrupt. If nothing else, the two Manitowac County cops who OBVIOUSLY planted evidence need to face consequences for their actions.
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2016, 11:42:20 AM »
0
A brief take on Making a Murderer from the host of Read It and Weep, from their newsletter. (Yes, I subscribe to a podcast's newsletter.) It sort of encapsulates how I feel at the moment.


Have you watched Making a Murderer yet? I put all 10 hours down in about three days, which isn't a huge surprise since I also couldn't put down Serial season 1 or The Jinx. I can't get enough of this true crime stuff.

And yet I can't help thinking that fake crime was way better. At the end of Law & Order, they tell you the answer. They just tell you. It's great! As Murderer is winding down, all I want is a flashback that tells me what actually happened. Is that so much to ask?

Just like Serial, it's possible he did do it, which really takes the fun out of being indignant about the judicial system. But either way, it's clear he didn't do it the way the state said he did. Authorities didn't find a single drop of the victim's blood in Steve Avery's house. You think this dude flawlessly scrubbed every inch of his junk yard trailer? He didn't even wear a clean shirt to his trials! There's no way he became Martha Stewart for just one day.

But the main thing I've learned is that I do NOT want to be murdered in a small town. If you like justice, I highly recommend being murdered on one of the coasts.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2016, 02:43:02 AM »
0
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2016, 04:11:23 PM »
0
Check this out at the AV Club. Too much formatting to repost here.

The pro-Steven Avery list of what was left out of Making A Murderer

TLDR: The DNA evidence is very problematic, and Bobby Dassey is highly suspicious.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10830
  • Respect: +1254
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2016, 02:17:41 AM »
0
Jodi is one of my favorite people from the documentary. She struck me as very real and quite a bit sharper than most of the people around her. So this is kind of huge, in my opinion. It seems that the reality of Jodi and Steven's relationship was nothing like what we saw in the show.

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/morning-express-robin-meade/articles/2016/01/13/steven-avery-ex-fiancee-exclusive-interview

Interviewer: What do you want people to know?
Jodi: The truth.
Interviewer: Which is?
Jodi: What a monster he is. And he's not innocent.

- She never believed Steven was innocent. She was preparing to testify against him.
- Steven beat her repeatedly. Some of the domestic abuse was reported.
- He threatened to kill her.
- He smashed her windshield to prevent her from leaving.
- She says she was not in love with him, and she once poisoned herself to get the attention of police.
- Steven directed her to make him look good for the camera crew, and this is documented on police phone records. "It was all an act."
- Jodi asked to be taken out of the documentary entirely, specifically because of that.

I did get a sense from the doc that their relationship got a suspiciously neat "tragic romance" edit. But they really got it wrong. Obviously they weren't ignorant of these things, since Jodi brought it to their attention, and there were police reports and a phone record of Steven threatening her.

I found it troubling that they deceptively edited Brendan's second interview (which they absolutely did) to make it more black and white. But I think this is probably far worse; it seems that they made a conscious decision to misrepresent Jodi and Steven's relationship.

(The interviewer by the way is quite ignorant about domestic abuse. Could have picked a better outlet, Jodi.)

"Hunger is the purest sin"

03

  • SBD
  • ***
  • Posts: 1701
  • positive energy;
  • Respect: +454
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2016, 02:40:02 AM »
0
i wrote out a huge review of the show that i was literally just about to post and it told me that a new post had been made, so after watching that i just deleted everything. i'm seriously done. there is so much bizarrely conflicting information that even thinking about this just gives me the fucking agita.

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7020
  • Respect: +1737
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2016, 03:30:22 AM »
0
Here's the way I'm looking at it. A documentary is not the place to determine Steven Avery's guilt or innocence. That is the domain of a fair trial in a court of law. What the documentary shows, and what none of the slew of "SHOCKING EVIDENCE LEFT OUT OF MAKING A MURDERER" articles negate, is that the trial he got was anything but fair.
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

03

  • SBD
  • ***
  • Posts: 1701
  • positive energy;
  • Respect: +454
Re: Making a Murderer
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2016, 03:44:21 AM »
0
pretty much.
i keep looking at the accusations that this doc is manipulative and i just don't see it. maybe i'm crazy.
because what i was left with was what i believe the intention of the filmmakers was: both sides have very good arguments.

.edit sorry
i came away from this a lot like 'lake of fire'.
i don't really know what to feel. i genuinely feel like both sides were presented fairly in the film.
both black and white outcomes are incredibly possible and i guess thats what gives this the mind boggling popularity that it currently has. my original review started with 'im so fucking tired of hearing about this show to the point i watched it in a day.'
but seriously if you don't doubt avery in the slightest by episode 6, i don't think you're paying attention, regardless of the new online reddit shitstorm.

i have some theories that i'm just going to throw out for your guys speculation if you're interested in commenting:

. avery focuses the remainder of his time on fighting his case and figuring out how to get out.
i was once in jail for a year. the things i accomplished in that time are incredible, because you have nothing but time.
18 years is a perfect amount of time to figure some shit out that may or may not be legit. just saying.

. there are these weird pictures at some point, i can't remember the episode, of some girl wrapped up in plastic posing for pictures with avery. what the actual fuck.

and in closing:

. this is probaly the most obvious complaint, but brendans confession being the only thing that closes the case doesn't even seem possible. that may be naive for me to say, so i guess that's the main appeal of the show.
damning evidence aside, the fact that a majority of this seems to hinge on some weird fucking kid saying shit when he's obviously terrified seems like an almost impossible thing to take place with this much exposure. i mean, don't get me wrong, fucked up shit happens all the time and quietly brushed under the rug, trust me, i live in alabama, i know firsthand,  but this is like right out in the open. i don't know, man.

. who else was distracted by the journalists?
we've got eyebrow crease girl whose makeup seems to be done by robots or she has a constant projection onto her face to make her the hottest chick of all fucking time? i don't know.
but she pales in comparison to the guy that's obvious like 28 years old but has the hair of roger sterling from mad men. who the fuck is this guy. like seriously. i haven't done any research yet but jesus this man is like some kind of mutant old man who found the fountain of youth that only effects your body and leaves the hair untainted. this guy is amazing.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy