XIXAX Film Forum


Making a Murderer

wilder · 53 · 8935

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

İbrad

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 4574
Reply #45 on: December 13, 2018, 08:26:08 PM
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. 



Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 11345
Reply #46 on: December 13, 2018, 11:28:50 PM
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.

Sorry, but I think we've been duped into caring about these mouth breathing degenerates.
"Hunger is the purest sin"


İbrad

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 4574
Reply #47 on: December 15, 2018, 11:14:02 AM
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.

Those 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.


Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 11345
Reply #48 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) 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.

He 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.
"Hunger is the purest sin"


İbrad

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 4574
Reply #49 on: December 15, 2018, 02:18:10 PM
It'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.

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) 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.



Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 11345
Reply #50 on: December 15, 2018, 04:05:13 PM
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.

I 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.
"Hunger is the purest sin"


Drenk

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
    • Posts: 1136
Reply #51 on: December 15, 2018, 04:16:17 PM
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...
I'm so many people.


Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
    • Posts: 11345
Reply #52 on: December 15, 2018, 05:02:46 PM
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.
"Hunger is the purest sin"