(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSsFaFsN.jpg&hash=f37f5da5eb158d321dac5e63a0e30a53e7750dab)
The story focuses on Steven Avery, who was imprisoned for 18 years, only to be exonerated based on DNA evidence. Two years after his release, he became a prime suspect in a murder investigation. Release Date - Streaming on Netflix starting December 18
The interrogation footage at the end of episode 2 is outrageous.
Oh, don't worry, it gets so much worse.
halfway into episode 4 and this one of the most frustrating, infuriating things i've seen this side of
dear zachary. really glad i started this the week of christmas.
trump 2016.
I'm somewhere in Episode 2, and I've read enough about it to basically know what happens, but I'm still intrigued to see how it all plays out. It might take a while, though. The whole thing just makes me feel scummy. Also (this is going to sound bad)... I can only listen to people struggle to put together an English sentence for so long.
Here's a petty complaint: Why in God's name did they not deinterlace their video? It is monumentally distracting. And they must be using the absolute worst DV cams. There are handheld shots, walking through the junkyard or something, that have no image stabilization whatsoever, like they're using the video mode on a DSLR camera. And then, inexplicably, there are gorgeous helicopter shots of the junkyard.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on December 28, 2015, 05:06:16 PM
I'm somewhere in Episode 2, and I've read enough about it to basically know what happens, but I'm still intrigued to see how it all plays out. It might take a while, though. The whole thing just makes me feel scummy. Also (this is going to sound bad)... I can only listen to people struggle to put together an English sentence for so long.
Here's a petty complaint: Why in God's name did they not deinterlace their video? It is monumentally distracting. And they must be using the absolute worst DV cams. There are handheld shots, walking through the junkyard or something, that have no image stabilization whatsoever, like they're using the video mode on a DSLR camera. And then, inexplicably, there are gorgeous helicopter shots of the junkyard.
Seems clear to me that they started with no particular budget, or a very low one, and started in or around 2005, so we're still talking miniDV or something like that.
After they put it together, were able to get some money to finish and go back to get some drone shots (which by now is actually cheap to do quality HD helicopter-style shots) to generally beef up the production value, get that professional music and sound design, etc.
Anyway, I've finished watching it. It struck me as very watchable, but ultimately underwhelming, primarily because the bias is clear and gives you only one real way of understanding the story and the vague lesson that the criminal justice system is, um, flawed. It's a good story, though.
It is very one sided but it does provide a pretty compelling argument. I thought the stuff at the end with Ken Kratz's sexting scandal was a bit of a cheap shot, it felt a little sleazy to include it as it had little or no bearing on the case. Other than that it's very well put together and totally heartbreaking.
This exchange from episode 7 made my head explode
Asshole Moustache Attorney: Do you believe it was impossible or improbable for them to plant that key?
Deputy Dipshit Dawg: [...] I would have to say that...it could be possible, as in I was doing other things [...] so if we're just limiting it to 'if it was possible that they could do it without me seeing it', i'd have to say 'yeah, i guess it is possible!'
Asshole Moustache Attorney who Very Possibly Framed Someone for Murder: Is that in the sense that...anything's possible!? *smirks like a piece of shit*
Deputy Dipshit Dawg: That's in the sense that...possibly aliens put it there I guess
Frustrated Defence Attorney: There weren't any aliens in the room, right?
Deputy Dipshit Dawg: Not that I know of.
Frustrated Defence Lawyer: So it being possible in the same way that aliens are possible really isn't a fair characterisation of what you meant, is it??
long pause
Deputy Dipshit Dawg: I don't understand.
WHAT IN THE ACTUAL FUCK
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on December 28, 2015, 05:06:16 PM
Here's a petty complaint: Why in God's name did they not deinterlace their video? It is monumentally distracting. And they must be using the absolute worst DV cams. There are handheld shots, walking through the junkyard or something, that have no image stabilization whatsoever, like they're using the video mode on a DSLR camera. And then, inexplicably, there are gorgeous helicopter shots of the junkyard.
I noticed this too. On top of Matt's explanation, I think that them keeping the video in the original state it was taken kind of timestamps where we are in the story, because it spans 30 years so for it all to have a kind of cohesive look might jar the viewer as to where we are in time.
Anonymous claims to have evidence that Netflix documentary's subject, Steven Avery, is innocent
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/making-a-murderer-anonymous-claims-to-have-evidence-that-netflix-documentary-s-subject-steven-avery-a6790546.html
Supporters of the online activism movement say that they have evidence that will help Steven Avery, the subject of Netflix's 'Making a Murderer' documentary. The series follows Avery as he is convicted in a case involving the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department. At Avery's trial, the defence suggested some of the evidence against him might have been planted.
The group has set up a Twitter account to taunt the two police officers who are profiled in the film, claiming that they have found emails and phone records that support the allegations.
Those behind the group posted a threat to the local sheriff's department that they would release the documents unless they were officially released. The deadline that was given in that tweet has since passed, but no information has yet been made public.
The account has said that another group — Ghost Security, which is close to Anonymous — will be taking charge of releasing the documents. They would be unveiled "shortly", the account posted.
The Netflix documentary highlights a range of alleged problems with the case, including what critics have said was coercive questioning and a reliance on possibly dubious evidence.
Can anyone respond to this?
Evidence 'Making a Murderer' Didn't Present in Steven Avery's Murder Case
http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php
Some highlights:
— The bullet with Halbach's DNA on it came from Avery's gun, which always hung above his bed.
— Avery had purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the ones Dassey described holding Halbach only three weeks before (Avery said he's purchased them for use with his girlfriend, Jodi, with whom he'd had a tumultuous relationship — at one point, he was ordered by police to stay away from her for three days).
— Dassey stated that he helped Avery moved the RAV4 into the junkyard and that Avery had lifted the hood and removed the battery cable. Even if you believe that the blood in Halbach's car was planted by the cops (as I do), there was also non-blood DNA evidence on the hood latch. I don't believe the police would plant — or know to plant — that evidence.
You know what's been sticking in my craw about all this? If Steven Avery didn't kill Teresa Halbach, THEN WHO THE FUCK DID?! Are people really under the assumption that the police killed and cremated an innocent woman just to throw a man in jail for SUING THEM? Do any of you here actually believe that? If so, then the documentary has masterfully manipulated you. I will accept that they rushed to indict him and probably planted evidence to make that process go smoother, but he 100% killed her, and Brendan helped. Read the full transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwgcpqtc/Transcript%20-%2005-12-2006%20-%20Dassey%20and%20O'Kelly.pdf?dl=0/) of His confession with monumentally important tidbits left out of the film. Sorry, but I think we've been duped into caring about these mouth breathing degenerates.
Unfortunately I think you're on the right track, and that's why I've been reluctant to finish. There are things left out of the series that are, as you say, monumentally important. Would we have let The Jinx get away with that?
Another example: The doc lets Avery shrug off the cat-in-the-fire incident by saying he was recklessly tossing a cat around, and it was an unfortunate accident resulting from youthful indiscretion. But what actually happened is the cat was soaked in gasoline and oil and put in the fire.
Quote from: Reelist on January 04, 2016, 02:08:42 PM
You know what's been sticking in my craw about all this? If Steven Avery didn't kill Teresa Halbach, THEN WHO THE FUCK DID?! Are people really under the assumption that the police killed and cremated an innocent woman just to throw a man in jail for SUING THEM? Do any of you here actually believe that? If so, then the documentary has masterfully manipulated you. I will accept that they rushed to indict him and probably planted evidence to make that process go smoother, but he 100% killed her, and Brendan helped. Read the full transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwgcpqtc/Transcript%20-%2005-12-2006%20-%20Dassey%20and%20O'Kelly.pdf?dl=0/) of His confession with monumentally important tidbits left out of the film. Sorry, but I think we've been duped into caring about these mouth breathing degenerates.
to me, this is a bizarre reaction after having watched all ten hours! i trust that you watched the whole thing, right? why do you feel like you've been duped? i watched with the knowledge that, inevitably, the filmmakers may be omitting certain elements from the story to present their side, so after it ended, i did my due diligence and continued my research. i do wish that the filmmakers were a little more comprehensive in presenting the prosecution's side, but i don't think any of their omissions are especially egregious, especially considering that they're not trying to solve a case, but instead trying to reveal flaws in the system. as such, i've continued to read about the case , and have tried to see it from both sides. considering all of the evidence, i think its very possible that steven avery did it, i still think its very possible that he did not. there are lots of possibilities, but i don't think anyone really thinks that the police killed an innocent woman... i think most people who watch the doc are left to infer a whole slew of possibilities. the one i've heard most often is that steven's family members bobby dassey and scott taydch are responsible.
still, the absolutism of your reaction begs elaboration - how can you say he 100 percent killed her? if there's one lesson to glean from these 10 hours, its the uselessness of this kind of verbiage... even today dean strang, the defense laywer for steven avery, says that he isn't sure Steven is innocent, but he is sure that the case itself is extremely troubling...
I don't want to get into the specifics of the case too much - i would just end up copying and pasting a lot of info from reddit - but the transcript Reelist shared demands context, which the show definitely provides. the above transcript is one of many many "confessions" dassey gave over a period of months, and its definitely not the first. i read the transcript from the
first dassey confession and and watched the video, because i was curious how his "confession" evolved over a series of interviews, and i have to say, after reviewing the materials, i'm no closer to believing anything brendan "confesses" to in the video.
Many I've talked to have concluded that Steven may be guilty, but that Brendan's confessions are definitely wack - the confession was clearly coerced out of him. how can you be so sure of brendan's guilt, reelist, especially in response to all of the information the doc provides about the transcript you shared?
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.
that seems like its been a conundrum for people - to accept that steven avery might be a little "evil," or have disagreeable aspects of his character, but still be able to believe that he he did not commit the crime.. or alternatively, that he might actually be evil enough to commit a crime like this, but did not actually commit this one... these distinctions matter, no?
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.
Quote from: JG on January 04, 2016, 03:57:55 PMJeremy, 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.
Quote from: JG on January 04, 2016, 03:57:55 PMfor 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.)
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2016, 06:13:25 PM
Quote from: JG on January 04, 2016, 03:57:55 PMJeremy, 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).
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.
Quote from: Reelist on January 04, 2016, 02:08:42 PMRead the full transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ej65jscjwgcpqtc/Transcript%20-%2005-12-2006%20-%20Dassey%20and%20O'Kelly.pdf?dl=0/) 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.
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)
here's kratz and strang on megyn kelly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUzCSVyX6xI)
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."
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.
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.
A brief take on Making a Murderer from the host of Read It and Weep (http://read-weep.com), 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&feature=youtu.be
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 (http://www.avclub.com/article/read-pro-steven-avery-list-what-was-left-out-makin-230634)
TLDR: The DNA evidence is very problematic, and Bobby Dassey is highly suspicious.
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.)
https://youtu.be/u91VsLcu30Y
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: polkablues on January 16, 2016, 03:30:22 AM
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.
I agree with that 100%, and just for clarity, I assume we're all taking that for granted.
Quote from: 03 on January 16, 2016, 03:44:21 AMi keep looking at the accusations that this doc is manipulative and i just don't see it. maybe i'm crazy.
"Shocking evidence left out" is one matter, but I'm talking about two very specific and
demonstrable things. (1) Brendan's second interview (where he draws the pictures) — compare the transcript to the version that's in the doc. Their edit is plainly deceptive. Described here (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=13393.msg342757#msg342757). (2) The filmmakers apparently ignored Jodi's plea to be removed from the doc because she was lying out of fear, and decided to instead give her and Steven a sweet romance that tragically ended too soon.
At this point, I think there's at least a 75% chance that Steven Avery is innocent. Most of the further reading I've done has pushed me in this direction.
Teresa was not killed in Steven's bedroom or in his garage. That much is clear. She was probably killed at the quarry and initially burned there (the "secondary burn site"), then brought to Avery's property, perhaps in Teresa's RAV4. To state the obvious, Steven would have to be insane to bring the evidence home to further implicate himself. It's much more likely that was done by someone like Bobby Dassey and/or Scott Tadych.
The defense team has so many mic drop moments during the trial. Jerry Buting is particularly amazing. This interview (http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/making-a-murderer-steven-averys-lawyer-on-the-evidence-left-out-20160115) with him is essential reading.
Steven's face during the verdict reading is very interesting to me. It doesn't say "damn, I didn't get away with it." Instead it's more like, I can't believe this... how could they get this wrong?... a great injustice has been done... they'll just put me away forever. If he's not innocent of this crime, he certainly in that moment believes he is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqjGEO4lmuc
Quote from: 03 on January 16, 2016, 03:44:21 AMwho 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.
I was more distracted by Laura Nirider. (http://www.flare.com/culture/laura-nirider-making-a-murderer-interview/)
Quote from: 03 on January 16, 2016, 03:44:21 AMbut 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.
Well, premature greying is a thing. John Slattery, in fact, is a prime example (http://[quote%20author=03%20link=topic=13393.msg342941#msg342941%20date=1452937461), along with Anderson Cooper, Julian Assange, and many others. Less beautiful people don't qualify for "silver fox," so they have to dye their hair.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 27, 2016, 08:53:50 PMHighly recommend
I know I probably say that too much. But this time I
emphatically implore you to check this out:
One of my very favorite podcasts, Read It And Weep, has just tackled Making A Murderer. It's really insightful, but above all highly entertaining. And it's so fascinating to see which details from the series capture people's imagination.
#326 - Making A Murderer (http://read-weep.com/#!/episode.php/making-a-murderer)
This show hands down has the most incorrectly given title of anything that I've ever heard. I've heard it be referred to as how to make a murderer and in numerous podcast the making of a murderer. Seriously what's up with that
There's the other show "How To Get Away With Murder" that I think has really interfered with people learning the title. I still think they should've gone with the original "Muderville, USA"
The latest episode of This American Life — "Anatomy of Doubt" (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/581/anatomy-of-doubt) — is very reminiscent of Making A Murderer. There was a rape (not a murder), and it's more about police incompetence, ignorance, and prejudice than active corruption. But in all other ways, it very much hits the same points. You can just see things going wrong from the very beginning. (It's a collaboration with Pro Publica.)
Making a Murderer was apparently the #1 most popular TV show among millenials (18-24) during the fall TV season.
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/millennials-prefer-netflix-series-1201756677/
QuoteSymphony studies multiplatform U.S. viewing based on listening apps audiences have been paid to download onto smartphones, PCs, tablets and other devices. These apps pick up sound from shows viewed on those platforms, spanning broadcast primetime series and streaming originals across Netflix, Amazon, Hulu and Crackle.
Whoa.
Brendan Dassey's conviction overturned
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-brendan-dassey-conviction-overturned-20160812-snap-story.html
A federal court in Wisconsin has overturned the conviction of a man found guilty of helping his uncle kill Teresa Halbach in a case profiled in the Netflix documentary "Making of a Murderer."
The U.S. District Court in Milwaukee on Friday overturned Brendan Dassey's conviction and ordered him freed within 90 days unless the case is appealed.
Dassey confessed to helping his uncle, Steven Avery, carry out the rape and murder of Halbach, but attorneys argued that the confession was coerced.
Dassey was 16 when Halbach was killed in 2005 after she went to the Avery family auto salvage yard to photograph some vehicles. Avery was tried and convicted separately in the homicide.
Dassey's case burst into the public's consciousness with the popularity of the "Making of a Murderer" documentary.
What do you think about it? Even if he did help him it wasn't the movie version he gave. And he's obviously not dangerous. Anyway, I think that he shouldn'y live all his life behind bars.
I can't conceive of a reason why he belongs in prison. Probably innocent. At the very least, not enough evidence to convict. He's basically the poster child for false confessions at this point. (Even if it wasn't a false confession, that's exactly how they happen.)
I have almost no doubt in my mind that he is completely innocent. There is absolutely nothing against him besides the confession, which was not only egregiously handled by the cops and attorneys, but doesn't even correspond remotely to the actual physical evidence of the case.
I have an uncle who was a cop for 30-something years, a police chief for 15. He told me that if he saw that interrogation tape from officers who worked for him, they would have been immediately demoted or fired. It's only by the grace of the deep well of corruption and incompetence that permeated that county's systems that the confession was ever even presented at trial, much less became the sole point of evidence that convicted him.
Just listened to Rebutting A Murderer (https://www.iheart.com/podcast/139-rebutting-a-murderer-27424970/) to get a different perspective. This podcast was done by one of the reporters who covered the case, and he brings journalistic rigor to the story. I have to say, I was not expecting to be so thoroughly persuaded. In fact, it would take a lot to bring me back on board.
What this podcast does quite effectively is remind of you of all those "off" moments from the series, and you quickly realize that the entire show was constructed on suggestion, innuendo, and conspiracy theory, with very little compelling evidence. By contrast, the physical evidence against Steven Avery is actually overwhelming. Yes, the podcast goes through each allegation of evidence tampering and evidence planting and convincingly debunks most if not all of it.
I never thought I would be convinced of Brendan Dassey's guilt, but I have to say I'm leaning in that direction. I previously described (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=13393.msg342757#msg342757) how the show's handling of Brendan's interviews/interrogations was outright deceptive. What I didn't realize is just how thoroughly Brendan's answers lined up with the physical evidence. It's a coerced confession, clearly, but I'm not sure how "false" it actually is. I am not convinced that he would've had the information to make those connections were he not present during the murder and/or cleanup.
Many or most of these details he provides are unprompted. I'd be willing to hear a counter-rebuttal, but some of these connections are hard to get around. For example, Brendan describes Steven being sweaty and then messing with the battery in Teresa's car; Steven's sweat DNA was found on the hood latch, and the battery was indeed removed. Those details, as far as I know, were not planted in his mind by the cops.
More than anything, the show is absurdly misleading in nearly every episode, even and especially where it counts. They do things like construe blood DNA with sweat DNA, and claim that a DNA sample was tainted when actually the control sample was tainted, not the sample from the crime scene.
[Edit] Remembered another BS thing the show does. If I'm remembering correctly, the show (and/or Avery advocates) claim that Brendan saying they brought Teresa outside to be killed vs. in the garage to be killed is wildly/egregiously inconsistent. But this is what Brendan actually says:
"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."
Damn, really? I guess I'll give it a listen. I think one obvious lesson from all of these true crime shows is it's not difficult to manipulate your audience.
I'm only about 6 episodes into this asshole of a second season and I'm not sure I'll continue. In the first episode, the creators begin with a meta-media montage of critics debunking and criticizing season 1, as if by simply acknowledging the controversy around the show, they are absolved from it. Which, no.
I think I'm just starting to sour on true crime, as much as I shamelessly binge it. There's a scene where Steven's father screams in agony at the sight of one of the cameras being there, and regardless of whether Steven's guilty or not, just hanging on that mom's sad face over and over, it's misery porn at this point.
I will say, JB, there is a new layer in the second season that's very captivating, and the only real reason to watch it. I'd be curious to hear your take on her.
Yeah. That podcast is absolutely devastating to the documentary. I think it's the most thorough (yet somehow concise) debunking of anything that I've ever encountered. Based on the evidence alone. But also logic. It lays out all the dumb ways we were manipulated. I have to say, more than anything, I felt
embarrassed that I had ever fallen for it.
I do like how Reelist called it pretty much immediately.
Quote from: Reelist on January 04, 2016, 02:08:42 PMSorry, but I think we've been duped into caring about these mouth breathing degenerates.
I think this podcast dude would make a far more convincing case if he weren't so grating and fueled with vitriol. He makes some interesting counterarguments, but there's no smoking gun. And ironically he's as one-sided and sensational as the series he's attacking. He even steals the show's music cues.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on December 12, 2018, 05:12:10 PMThose details, as far as I know, were not planted in his mind by the cops.
He doesn't back this argument up enough in my mind. He speaks so definitively but there's a lot of conjecture here.
I'm more convinced Avery did it though, but I'd welcome an objective rebuttal to both the podcast and series.
Reading the transcripts and/or watching the tapes reveals quite a lot, separately from either the show or the rebuttal podcast. What I have seen, in its full context, does no favors to the show. Their edit tends to be so egregiously deceptive (like what I described here (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=13393.msg342757#msg342757)) that I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
It's true though, Dan O'Donnell does not always have the best tone. And apparently he's a conservative radio guy now. But I simply can't deny how rigorous his rebuttal is. Worse yet, it confirms the suspicions I had and brings crystal clarity to the unease I had about specific parts of the show.
Like you, I'd absolutely welcome a more objective breakdown of the case. But it's going to take a whole lot to bring me on board. Certainly more than the series provides.
Quote from: ©brad on December 15, 2018, 11:14:02 AMHe makes some interesting counterarguments, but there's no smoking gun.
These are smoking guns, in my opinion:
The bullet that killed Theresa is proven to have come from Steven's gun, which was still in his possession.
Steven Avery's blood DNA and sweat/skin cell DNA were both found. It seems insanely unlikely that the cops had access to such a wide variety of Steven Avery DNA to plant. How would one even go about planting sweat? Also, the part in the show where they supposedly discover that Steven's blood was stolen is ludicrous in retrospect and is completely debunked in the podcast.
The physical evidence corresponds with Brendan's testimony to a startling degree of specificity, without those very specific details being suggested to him. Many of the things Brendan told the cops about had not been found/discovered yet, and then they were found to be exactly as he described.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on December 15, 2018, 12:21:59 PMIt's true though, Dan O'Donnell does not always have the best tone. And apparently he's a conservative radio guy now.
Ha, that doesn't surprise me. He's so self-righteous and smug. The podcast is almost unlistenable as a result.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on December 15, 2018, 12:21:59 PM
Reading the transcripts and/or watching the tapes reveals quite a lot, separately from either the show or the rebuttal podcast. What I have seen, in its full context, does no favors to the show. Their edit tends to be so egregiously deceptive (like what I described here (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=13393.msg342757#msg342757)) that I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I haven't read the transcripts but I believe you. The filmmakers have admitted they have deep personal connections to the people involved in this story, and that has obviously fueled their storytelling. I'm not sure I'll finish season 2, as it doesn't seem anything new to exonerate Avery will be discovered. Any big development would have been spoiled by the press already.
Some of Dan O'Donnell's smugness is his reporter voice (which you have to admit is a very good reporter voice). And much of it is probably the fact that he covered the case locally day in and day out and is kind of upset that Making A Murder became so popular while also being so misleading, and that his work on the story basically meant nothing. So I imagine that's where he's coming from.
Trust me, it gives me no pleasure to admit that a conservative news guy has assessed something accurately and with journalistic rigor, but that's what I think he's done. I would be thrilled if someone were able to debunk his debunking. It would have to be done with some kind of evidence I can grab onto, though, with minimal amounts of insinuation and speculation.
Quote from: ©brad on December 15, 2018, 02:18:10 PMI haven't read the transcripts but I believe you.
I haven't read all of the transcripts, to be clear. What I have read has been pretty damning to the show, but I'd be open to having missed something crucial.
I remember being kind of sure that Avery killed Theresa, even if the documentary did try to make it seem like a troubled case. Even if his nephew helped him I have a hard time thinking he should be in jail. There's a kind of dumbness that numbs you to the world—Avery used him as a tool. Making a Murderer can be read as "The police department created a fake murderer" or "By fucking up once the police transformed Avery into a real murderer". The twisted reality being that Avery probably would have killed someone no matter what...? Maybe...
It seems clear that Brendan was uninterested and unwilling to do whatever Steven made him do. So I'm fine with him going free, to be honest.
It also seems clear that Steven was on a pretty bad trajectory before prison... a trajectory that prison exacerbated and made much darker. I actually doubt he would have murdered Teresa had he not been wrongly imprisoned.