Making a Murderer

[a500lbgorilla]

On Episode 4 right now and I've got to say this shit is amazingly unreal. I don't want to spoil anything, but it's in every way worth it.

Anyone else watching this?

[rong]

Skipped past it, but tempted to give it a look now.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Where would I watch it?

(I don't own a TV.)

EDIT: I mean, I do own a TV, but all it has is a Wii plugged into it. I do all my passive video entertainment via the internet.

[JKDS]

It's on netflix. I'm only on ep 2, but its cases like this that inspired me to go for public defense

[JKDS]

Funny story.

I'm watching this, and I'm not pissed off. My fiance, who is normally the hard core pro cop, pro prosecutuon, pro victim guy who wants all criminals executed, is seething and has to take breaks to cope. My friends are like this too. I guess I'm kinda numb to it now. I've seen so many of these kinds of stories that this one hasn't really taken emotional hold of me yet. Still makes me want to be on the defense, but I'm not as invested as others.

It's fun watching it from a lawyers perspective though. I like seeing things happen, then going "uh oh, that's gonna bite em".

Example, witholding exculpatory evidence is often called a Bradey violation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure

[Galapogos]

Binged it over the holidays, definitely a good watch.

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

I was in law school at UW (wisconsin) when he was originally freed and had friends who helped work on his Innocence Project case. I was then an attorney at the Wisconsin DOJ (the AG's office) when he was arrested and subsequently convicted for murder. I am definitely interested in watching this because in the AG's office at the time, this was considered to be a pretty cut and dried case - Mr. Avery had a pretty long and bad rap sheet including torturing animals, domestic violence, and stalking; and the gossip was that he thought he sort of had a get out of jail free card because he had been wrongly convicted before. But I have also worked as a public defender so I know that cops and prosecutors can be so set on convictions that small things like truth and due process are easily brushed aside.

[The Bean Counter]

Watched the first two episodes tonight and it's fascinating, so thanks for the recommendation. I'd like it to be more objective though and it would have been interesting to hear some more about the prosecution and defence arguments that resulted in the initial sexual assault conviction. Without that, it just seems that the authorities decided it must have been the local weirdo and were blinkered into going full steam ahead to secure a conviction.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

I was in law school at UW (wisconsin) when he was originally freed and had friends who helped work on his Innocence Project case. I was then an attorney at the Wisconsin DOJ (the AG's office) when he was arrested and subsequently convicted for murder. I am definitely interested in watching this because in the AG's office at the time, this was considered to be a pretty cut and dried case - Mr. Avery had a pretty long and bad rap sheet including torturing animals, domestic violence, and stalking; and the gossip was that he thought he sort of had a get out of jail free card because he had been wrongly convicted before. But I have also worked as a public defender so I know that cops and prosecutors can be so set on convictions that small things like truth and due process are easily brushed aside.

I could have put in more targeted spoilers, but I just played it safe for anyone who doesn't know the end results of this rollercoaster ride.

[chardrian]

Watched the first two episodes tonight and it's fascinating, so thanks for the recommendation. I'd like it to be more objective though and it would have been interesting to hear some more about the prosecution and defence arguments that resulted in the initial sexual assault conviction. Without that, it just seems that the authorities decided it must have been the local weirdo and were blinkered into going full steam ahead to secure a conviction.

here is a pretty good account of the first trial.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/case...t/steven-avery

but yeah, he (and his entire family) were definitely seen by the police and prosecutors as the town's trashiest of white trash.

[Galapogos]

Watched the first two episodes tonight and it's fascinating, so thanks for the recommendation. I'd like it to be more objective though and it would have been interesting to hear some more about the prosecution and defence arguments that resulted in the initial sexual assault conviction. Without that, it just seems that the authorities decided it must have been the local weirdo and were blinkered into going full steam ahead to secure a conviction.

Apparently the prosecutor didn't want to participate in the documentary. Definitely would have been nice to hear more from the other side.

[Renton]

Spoiler: Show

I've never had a documentary make me feel so ambivalent about something. I think I took a different message than the filmmakers intended. They seem to think that Avery is 99.9% innocent. I'm still processing my feelings about the whole thing but right now I'm going with 100% chance that the state shouldn't have convicted him given their case, and at least a 40% chance that Avery did it, and an over 60% chance that someone in the Avery clan did it.

Also I find it incredibly likely that some of the evidence was planted, but unlikely that the bones and car were planted on the Avery property by cops. And the notion that cops would murder a white woman is flatly ridiculous. Steven Avery is the most likely person in the world to have killed her, given the evidence, and her roommate and ex are a close second and third, with Avery's brothers/relatives trailing in fourth.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

On the car not being planted by the cops: What about when that one guy was on the stand and they play the recording of him running the cars plates and he says, "99 Rav-4?" "Yeah" and his eyes go as big as the sun. He was looking at the car days before it was found on the Avery property. He thought that info was supplied by dispatch but it was supplied by him.

On the bones, the one expert testimony pretty much nails it - when the bones are moved, the majority of the bones are found at the place they were moved to - not the other way around. Why are there a few bone fragments at that other location in the quarry?

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

And the notion that cops would murder a white woman is flatly ridiculous.

Spoiler: Show

Because she's white? It's Wisconsin...

[Renton]

Spoiler: Show

Because she's white? It's Wisconsin...

Spoiler: Show

Yeah white isn't really a necessary word in that sentence. What I meant was that it is unbelievably unlikely that cops would commit premeditated murder like this to serve a grand conspiracy. I would say it is a less than 1:10000 chance that she was killed by a policeman, and a less than 1:100 chance that the precinct had a running command to be on the look out for a body to dump on Avery's property at the first opportunity. There are just much easier ways to fuck Avery over that aren't nearly so risky.


Re: the license plate call-in by Colborn, I really dunno. It's obviously fishy as hell but it doesn't seem to be concrete evidence of any wrongdoing on the police's part. There's nothing that says he has to have been looking at the car at the time.

edit: God, I dunno. That call seems to be pretty damning but it seems like it would have gotten a lot more play in court if it were actually damning. I feel like it's one of those things where I Am Not A Lawyer and I don't know how the court should have interpreted that.

[Renton]

Spoiler: Show

Also, this series was incredibly disappointing in how slanted it presented the story. The first few episodes were just so biased that I half expected it to subvert the whole thing in the last act and show how obviously guilty Avery was. Then the docu would have just been this epic troll to show how easy it is to persuade an audience one way or the other. If the aim of the show was to show how systemically fucked up the justice system is, it could have easily achieved that without selling the Avery is innocent narrative so damn hard. Any logical person could still see how inadmissible Dassey's confession was regardless of the truth of it. Showing how creepy Avery was being toward Teresa wouldn't have undermined any of the presentation of how badly his case was handled. Showing that the bullet came from Avery's gun wouldn't have taken away from the mishandling of the DNA evidence or possible planting of the bullet. But not showing those things just sows mistrust in any part of the audience that cares to look this shit up and ultimately hurts Avery's case even more.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

I found this that seems more reasonable than he was looking at the car at the time of the call - https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...olburn/cyiada1

[Galapogos]

Spoiler: Show

This didn't get a lot of attention in the documentary, even thought it was brought up, and I'm wondering you guys can figure why. Why would he do such a piss poor job of hiding the vehicle on the outskirts of his property like that? They said he had a crusher and was fully capable of operating it himself. Then how blood was cleaned so perfectly from all the places where it was claimed the murder happened but he completely neglected to clean her vehicle at all which was the one last piece of evidence that he hadn't properly taken care of.

I figured it was because all those arguments were all speculative and wouldn't serve much purpose in the actual courtroom. But I felt those things and the license plate call were the most confusing to me for believing the prosecution's case. I agree with Renton's post, he still seems the most likely to have committed the murder, followed by the bro/roommate, followed by his sister's hubby or someone in the clan. It definitely seems with the way things were portrayed in the documentary though that there wasn't a conclusive enough case for a guilty verdict though.

[Renton]

Spoiler: Show

In my days of reflection since I greedily binged this show, I have since decided that it's a bad show and I'm kind of ashamed that I enjoyed it so much. I'm also pretty ashamed to share the company of scum like Kratz in thinking that Avery probably did it. Or at least, Steven Avery wins by a plurality as the most likely killer and "any Avery" wins by a landslide majority.

I should add though that I didn't check my anti-redneck bias at the door. I grew up around families exactly like the Averys and they are pure scum. These guys are like 50 standard deviations more likely to rape and murder a woman than the average American and I don't think it's an exaggeration at all. You'll get no argument from me that the police had it in for these guys but wtf do you expect? Look at their rap sheets. It's a light-years long stretch to go from planting some evidence to secure a conviction to dumping a body and car on his property, though.

I feel like the documentary filmmakers are almost certainly liberal/progressives who have taken the their ideology to such an extreme that they would actively campaign on behalf of a probable murdering rapist in their quest to expose the ailing justice system, and the wild success of the show has come from captivating the contingent of the American population with the same beliefs. Which would all be fine if they would have just done it objectively instead of fellating the Averys for 10 hours.

No reasonable person knowing the full story would have believed that the state handled the case in a proper fashion, but at least they wouldn't feel an excessive amount of sympathy for this guy under false pretenses.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

I disagree that Steve Avery was most likely to kill that girl. I think you can see this in how everyone tries to wrap their head around him going from being loved, vindicated, and on his way to a 63 million dollar cash out to being charged with murder. Everyone syas, "He must just be the single most evil creature to exist." The only way anyone familiar with the case can square it away in their minds is with a magical out that Steve Avery is just evil incarnate.

What really screwed him and his cousin was his cousin's unbelievable stupidity. That he was basically a sockpuppet for whichever authority was questioning him really undid them both.

Without that, Steve rises above all the planted evidence, IMO.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Watched first episode last night.

I was confused because it's an episodic series, so I assumed it was fiction. I kinda hated it for a while.
Then my lady said something, and I was like, "You know these are all actors, right? This isn't a true story, it's a Netflix series."
She informed me that it was a true story, and my opinions changed dramatically.

Def. looking forward to episode 2.

[Renton]

Spoiler: Show

He rises to reasonable doubt, definitely. I don't think he rises to no longer being the most likely killer.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

You're thinking wrong. Anyone could have killed that girl - anyone included in the docu or not. Then the cops tried to transfer guilt over to Steve. This seems like the most plausible case because they made 35.6 million dollars just sticking the charge to him.

There's almost no reason to think Steve Avery killed her.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

Since the investigation was so ballsed up, I think the deciding factor in whether or not you think Avery is likely guilt comes down to whether you believe his time in jail made him evil or how easily you believe the cops were corrupt enough to frame him for a murder.

[Renton]

Spoiler: Show

Since the investigation was so ballsed up, I think the deciding factor in whether or not you think Avery is likely guilt comes down to whether you believe his time in jail made him evil or how easily you believe the cops were corrupt enough to frame him for a murder.

Spoiler: Show

I don't see why his time in jail is anywhere near the deciding factor. There's probably more data in the time before he went away for 18 years that suggests his evil. The stuff he did, like burning a cat alive and assaulting his cousin. The absurdly fucked up family he came from, including his sex offender brothers. None of this is really admissable in court except to suggest his character.

"Believing his time in jail made him evil" is an absurd belief without some corroborating events during his incarceration that would back that up. Like, for example, if he was frequently raped in prison or joined the aryan brotherhood or something. His correspondance with his ex wife was certainly quite fucked up and strongly correlates with the type of person who would rape and murder a woman, though.

Were the cops corrupt enough to frame him for a murder? It's an incomplete question. There is a broad spectrum of what the cops could have done to hurt Avery. They could merely have swiped the key from a less-incriminating location on Avery's property and placed it in a more-incriminating one. They could merely have planted some blood to put a nice bow on the case. Cops do shit like this all the time for people that they believe to be guilty. Is it wrong? Of course. Does it completely undermine the state's case against Avery? Of course. But it doesn't make him much less likely to be guilty in reality.

It's a huge jump to go from that kind of corruption to full on dumping a body/car on Avery's property, and a colossal jump to go from fabricating an entire crime scene to committing a murder. There really is scant evidence or logic to back up the latter two theories, IMO.

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

You're thinking wrong. Anyone could have killed that girl - anyone included in the docu or not. Then the cops tried to transfer guilt over to Steve. This seems like the most plausible case because they made 35.6 million dollars just sticking the charge to him.

There's almost no reason to think Steve Avery killed her.

Spoiler: Show

his lawsuit doesn't get kicked simply because he got arrested for a new crime. If the suit is valid, he wins damages no matter what.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

his lawsuit doesn't get kicked simply because he got arrested for a new crime. If the suit is valid, he wins damages no matter what.

Spoiler: Show

He cashed out for 400k to fund his defense

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

I don't see why his time in jail is anywhere near the deciding factor. There's probably more data in the time before he went away for 18 years that suggests his evil. The stuff he did, like burning a cat alive and assaulting his cousin. The absurdly fucked up family he came from, including his sex offender brothers. None of this is really admissable in court except to suggest his character.

Spoiler: Show

There's no evidence for any of this. It could easily be a lawyer saving face.
edit

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

"Believing his time in jail made him evil" is an absurd belief without some corroborating events during his incarceration that would back that up. Like, for example, if he was frequently raped in prison or joined the aryan brotherhood or something. His correspondance with his ex wife was certainly quite fucked up and strongly correlates with the type of person who would rape and murder a woman, though.

Were the cops corrupt enough to frame him for a murder? It's an incomplete question. There is a broad spectrum of what the cops could have done to hurt Avery. They could merely have swiped the key from a less-incriminating location on Avery's property and placed it in a more-incriminating one. They could merely have planted some blood to put a nice bow on the case. Cops do shit like this all the time for people that they believe to be guilty. Is it wrong? Of course. Does it completely undermine the state's case against Avery? Of course. But it doesn't make him much less likely to be guilty in reality.

It's a huge jump to go from that kind of corruption to full on dumping a body/car on Avery's property, and a colossal jump to go from fabricating an entire crime scene to committing a murder. There really is scant evidence or logic to back up the latter two theories, IMO.

Spoiler: Show

What I meant is that the investigation was so poor, so focused on Avery, and so apparently skewed to back-prove the conclusion that he's the guy, that they missed every opportunity to do the necessary investigating of everyone else. Because of how bad the investigation was, the real absurdity is in thinking you can decide his guilt or innocence at all based on what was known. Even if you take the evidence at best value, it's incoherent and doesn't incriminate Steve Avery further than constantly bringing up his name.

Considering that, for anyone to say he's guilty or innocent is a reflection on the mindset they're using to fill in a lot of the blanks. If you believe he's evil, I think you're more likely to see him as able to murder the girl and the cops were performing small injustices to seal the necessary verdict. If you believe in corrupt cops, all those blanks are being filled with possibilities ranging from someone doing it and the cops transferring guilt up to the cops doing it themselves.

I personally consider all of the unknowns, including the unknowns coupled with many pieces of evidence, coupled with a clear motive and historic intent to sway evidence to convict Avery and say, I can't discount 'the field' as having a appreciable chance of having committed this murder. And if the field is greater than 50% likely to have done it, then Steve Avery is more innocent than guilty.

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

I have not seen this series. And everything I am saying is just from personal experience. So take what I am saying with that in mind. But... There are very few purely evil people that exist. So this goes both ways - Steven Avery might be a sicko who enjoys raping, killing, and torturing women, but even if he is, he very likely is usually (i.e. 99% of the time) at worst sort of a putz and can probably be a nice guy sometimes. Likewise, there just aren't that many purely evil cops or prosecutors who are willing to frame a guy just to frame a guy. Most wrongful convictions come not from malice, but from the d.a. feeling a need to charge someone with heinous crimes (especially when the victim is a nice white girl) and then just going with whatever evidence you have that points to the most likely killer. In this case, you have a confession combined with Steven's blood combined with it being on Steven's property, combined with his past, combined with his thoughts that he couldn't be arrested again = most likely culprit for the d.a.

So I really doubt there is this huge conspiracy with the D.A. and the cops. It's just a case where the D.A. and the cops put blinders on and don't even bother to try to uncover any other suspects - but that isn't them being evil. It's because they truly think they have their guy.

Now - does that mean Steven is guilty? I honestly have no idea because I don't know all the facts and evidence in this case. But if people think that the cops actually framed him by putting his DNA on the scene - I think that is very likely a far far fetch.

[a500lbgorilla]

You should watch it though. It gets pretty crazy.

Spoiler: Show

I think at this point, the only way to know all the facts would be a proper investigation, which is probably well past its expiry date.

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

He cashed out for 400k to fund his defense

Spoiler: Show

but his lawsuit was still not a reason for the cops to try to transfer guilt onto Steven. No one would have any idea whether or not he would settle his case.

[chardrian]

You should watch it though. It gets pretty crazy.

Spoiler: Show

I think at this point, the only way to know all the facts would be a proper investigation, which is probably well past its expiry date.

I am sure you are right about that.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

but his lawsuit was still not a reason for the cops to try to transfer guilt onto Steven. No one would have any idea whether or not he would settle his case.

Spoiler: Show

Doesn't seem like much of a prediction that he'd start needing money real fast

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

Doesn't seem like much of a prediction that he'd start needing money real fast

Spoiler: Show

I still think that's a stretch - you are giving way too much credit of ingenuity and deviousness to the cops. Let's pin a crime on Steven so that he has to settle his lawsuit just isn't a huge likelihood imo.

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

I just watched episode 1. The show is very well done. Really good producers and moviemakers. Here are my biases be I give my thoughts. 1) I was part of the LAIP (Legal Assistance to Institutionalized Persons) program at the UW law school when Steven was freed so I know people who worked extensively on his case to help free him. 2) My first job as an attorney was as an assistant attorney general for the state of Wisconsin. Peg Lautenschlager was the AG who hired me, she also was the one who in the end concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the Manitowoc D.A. or police. I also consider her to be a good person and a great leader.

With that, here are my thoughts. I remember in law school thinking that Denis Vogel must be an evil prosecutor. And I think this series definitely portrays him as one. In reality, I think it is much more likely that he simply put blinders on in this case and then dug himself into such a big hole that once others forced the blinders off of him he got really scared and tried to cover up in any way possible so that he would not be liable.

Steven Avery was the biggest jerkoff in Manitowoc (super small town in northern Wisconsin). He didn't simply just kill a cat, he first doused it in gasoline and then threw it in the fire. He showed signs of both previous sadistic and violent sexual behavior. And his previous arrests and convictions were likely just the tip of the iceberg in terms of his police contacts. His alibi witnesses were all part of his clan - who protect their own so thinking they were lying to protect Steven was not farfetched (and clearly the jury didn't find them credible). So the first thought of "oh it must have been Steven" after the assault occurred was probably the correct one to have.

However, should Vogel have looked into Allen as a suspect? Of course. Should the whole circle jerk of showing the artist the mugshot of Avery, and then coercing the victim to think that that was her attacker, and then her being adamant that Avery was in fact her attacker which made everyone think they really had the right guy have happened? Of course not.

But was Vogel and the sheriff criminally liable? (i.e. did they purposely put an innocent man behind bars)? I don't think so. Are they very likely civilly liable (i.e. they should have to pay monetary damages because they screwed up their jobs so badly)? Yes yes yes.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

I still think that's a stretch - you are giving way too much credit of ingenuity and deviousness to the cops. Let's pin a crime on Steven so that he has to settle his lawsuit just isn't a huge likelihood imo.

Spoiler: Show

It's not a stretch at all. They could not pay 36 million dollars. You'd brainstorm some solutions out of that spot if you found yourself in it.

It's also pretty clear that the reputation of law enforcement is integral to the entire system. No one was willing to see LE admit guilt or be found guilty, especially not to Steve Avery.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

Steven Avery was the biggest jerkoff in Manitowoc (super small town in northern Wisconsin). He didn't simply just kill a cat, he first doused it in gasoline and then threw it in the fire.

Spoiler: Show

So he did kill a cat? How do we know this?

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

It's not a stretch at all. They could not pay 36 million dollars. You'd brainstorm some solutions out of that spot if you found yourself in it.

It's also pretty clear that the reputation of law enforcement is integral to the entire system. No one was willing to see LE admit guilt or be found guilty, especially not to Steve Avery.

Spoiler: Show

the fact that he was suing for 36 million doesn't mean that that is what he was automatically going to receive. That is just his attorneys' way of proclaiming that the defendants to the lawsuit fucked up big time. If the case ever made it to trial it would be the jury that would determine what, if any, damages to award. If his attorneys were so convinced that it was a multimillion dollar case then they just would have loaned him $ for his criminal defense and proceeded with the lawsuit on a contingency fee basis. His attorneys were working on a 40% contingency. Even a one million dollar verdict would have netted the attorneys 250% more than they made settling for 400k.

However, one fact which hasn't come up and I am surprised it hasn't is that the attorneys who are representing the law enforcement and D.A.s at the depositions that are being shown are attorneys from the Wisconsin DOJ (the AGs office). So there was a clear conflict within the DOJ in the report clearing law enforcement of criminal wrongdoing because it is the DOJ's job to defend these same people in civil lawsuits.

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

So he did kill a cat? How do we know this?

Spoiler: Show

The cat killing was done when Avery was in his early adulthood. He admitted to it in the first episode and referred to it as the cat incident where he tries to brush it off as simply youthful indiscretion and hanging out with the wrong guys. The documentary doesn't provide the details that Avery had first doused the family cat with gasoline before throwing it into the bonfire they were having. His tendencies of cruelty and violence were known to LE which I believe is a major reason they oinned the first sex assault on him. It was one of those cases where they didn't really care if he did it or not because they knew he was capable of doing sick sick things and was better behind bars.

.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

Related to a piece of evidence later, they find a blood vial which was improperly resealed leading to the possibility that his blood was planted in the car.

I read that the hole in the top was not suspicious but infact how the vial was filled. Any blood to be taken from the vial, the top would be taken off. Also, the package was unsealed in 2002 in an attempt to free Steven Avery. So while it doesn't take the possibility that someone grabbed some blood from the vial to plant in the car, it does reduce it considerably.

The prosecution was apparently prepared to introduce Steve's blood as evidence even if the FBI couldn't come back and prove that it wasn't from the vial as the vial still wasn't entirely as suspicious as it seemed in the docu.

If it's really SA's blood in the car, he becomes overwhelmingly likely to have killed that woman, no matter how disjointed and poorly handled all the rest of the evidence is.

[Renton]

Extremely mild spoiler for Serial podcast season 1:

Spoiler: Show

I think I may be harboring some bias against the accused cause I just listened to Serial and I don't really see how Adnan isn't guilty. I won't spoil the series further, just saying that there's a good chance I'm a curmudgeon in these matters. I definitely do not put the justice system on any sort of pedestal, quite the opposite. There's probably no one here more skeptical of institutions than I am. I just feel like some of these stories are poorly chosen as being ironclad examples of injustice in the justice system.

[BooG690]

Extremely mild spoiler for Serial podcast season 1:

Spoiler: Show

I think I may be harboring some bias against the accused cause I just listened to Serial and I don't really see how Adnan isn't guilty. I won't spoil the series further, just saying that there's a good chance I'm a curmudgeon in these matters. I definitely do not put the justice system on any sort of pedestal, quite the opposite. There's probably no one here more skeptical of institutions than I am. I just feel like some of these stories are poorly chosen as being ironclad examples of injustice in the justice system.

Spoiler: Show

That mother fucker is guilty as hell. Super wolfy. Super suspect. He did that shit.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Episode 2.

Show is equally interesting and boring.

This is America. These are 'good-ole boys'. They run the place when you're away from the "big city."

I'm not saying that what they're doing is all gravy, but its probably more common than not. Probably not to the extreme of knowingly letting a rapist stay on the loose so they can persecute a borderline retarded guy. Definitely to the extreme of making life for a certain group of people easier and another group of people harder.

We need more JKDS's in the world who look at this and are appalled.
I look at it and I'm like, "That's what's going on here. 3 choices: Leave, make friends with the good-ole boys, or live in a world of shit."

[Renton]

Man we can't even talk about discrimination or class warfare in this context. Avery family owns a huge plot of land, their own business, and are white. And they're able to afford extremely good counsel. They have all of the stuff of good ole boys, in fact. The only difference is that they have an epic history of making (legitimate) work for the police. There's every reason to understand why the police and community would have it in for the Averys. Not to justify it, but certainly to understand it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Man we can't even talk about discrimination or class warfare in this context.

That's not what I was talking about, but if you don't wanna talk about...

go on...

They have all of the stuff of good ole boys, in fact.

-.-

That's not what I mean by good-ole boys.
They don't, in general, have money. They generally distrust anyone with big money. They respect personal competence and owning land is a strong symbol to that effect, but owning land doesn't get you any respect per se.

Basic defining trait is that they are the collective us in a larger us-vs-them mentality that is perfectly predictable to develop in law enforcement officials and their close friends. It's like - cops stick up for cops, even if they never knew or worked with those other cops. They forgive each other and not other people. Those that cause them problems receive unfair consequences

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

the fact that he was suing for 36 million doesn't mean that that is what he was automatically going to receive. That is just his attorneys' way of proclaiming that the defendants to the lawsuit fucked up big time. If the case ever made it to trial it would be the jury that would determine what, if any, damages to award. If his attorneys were so convinced that it was a multimillion dollar case then they just would have loaned him $ for his criminal defense and proceeded with the lawsuit on a contingency fee basis. His attorneys were working on a 40% contingency. Even a one million dollar verdict would have netted the attorneys 250% more than they made settling for 400k.

However, one fact which hasn't come up and I am surprised it hasn't is that the attorneys who are representing the law enforcement and D.A.s at the depositions that are being shown are attorneys from the Wisconsin DOJ (the AGs office). So there was a clear conflict within the DOJ in the report clearing law enforcement of criminal wrongdoing because it is the DOJ's job to defend these same people in civil lawsuits.

Spoiler: Show

So why didn't this happen?

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

So why didn't this happen?

Spoiler: Show

Exactly.... My guess is that his lawyers did not think his civil lawsuit was such a slamdunk case as they are making it seem for this documentary.

I like the documentary so far and am up to episode 6 but it is obviously very slanted towards Avery. But even with that obvious bias, it is clear that some of those Manitowoc cops had some clear personal animus towards Avery.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

That mother fucker is guilty as hell. Super wolfy. Super suspect. He did that shit.

Spoiler: Show

Agree 100%. You can tell by some of the things he says on the phone that he's a manipulator.

I'm only on ep 4.

[a500lbgorilla]

Spoiler: Show

Exactly.... My guess is that his lawyers did not think his civil lawsuit was such a slamdunk case as they are making it seem for this documentary.

I like the documentary so far and am up to episode 6 but it is obviously very slanted towards Avery. But even with that obvious bias, it is clear that some of those Manitowoc cops had some clear personal animus towards Avery.

Spoiler: Show

How does the criminal case affect the civil suit? Does it put the civil suit on hold/Would a guilty verdict affect the payout adversely?

Is it common for lawyers to extend credit like this banking on some other payout? Not like JG Wentworth firms, but the kind of attorney small firms.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Through Episode 4.

Soundtrack is good music, but awful soundtrack.

It keeps being distracting, and I'm like, yeah... that's good music... why is it making me stop paying attention to the show, though?

Bad soundtrack.

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

How does the criminal case affect the civil suit? Does it put the civil suit on hold/Would a guilty verdict affect the payout adversely?

Is it common for lawyers to extend credit like this banking on some other payout? Not like JG Wentworth firms, but the kind of attorney small firms.

Spoiler: Show

Other than timing issues (a criminal defendant has a right to a speedy trial), the criminal case in theory at least should not affect his civil case at all because they are regarding two totally separate issues - his first wrongful imprisonment had nothing to do with his second criminal trial for murder.

Since he had different attorneys handling each case, the civil suit did not need to be put on hold. And a guilt verdict (again in theory) should not affect the payout. His civil suit was alleging that the cops, sheriff and D.A. were at a minimum negligent (and perhaps purposefully indifferent) in their duties and their negligence deprived him of his liberty for 18 years that he spent in prison for a crime he did not commit. The murder allegation after that fact has nothing really to do with that negligence that occurred 20 years prior.

It is definitely NOT common for lawyers to extend credit like I suggested because it is too risky - lawyers want to get paid. But it does also show that there is basically no such thing as a "slam dunk" case - and Avery's civil case was definitely not guaranteed to give him a huge payout.

[chardrian]

Spoiler: Show

I watched the whole thing. Like I said before, it is really good movie making so it was a good watch. But does it convince me that he was wrongfully convicted? No. Does it convince me that evidence was planted? No. Does it convince me that Dassey's confession was coerced? Yes. That kid deserves a new trial imo.

The biggest question that is left for me after watching the whole series is - if Avery didn't do it, then who did? It wasn't the cops - because they weren't on the property until after she died. But the problem that Avery has is that in the end, this was a motiveless crime - whoever killed her, killed her simply because they had the opportunity to do so. And because of this he was sort of screwed in presenting a defense. Because in WI for a defendant to try and show that someone else might have done it he has to show that the other person had a motive to do so. Since Avery couldn't demonstrate a motive for his brother, his brother-in-law, his nephews, or for anyone else who was near the property during the timeframe in question, he wasn't allowed to try to throw any of those people under the bus at his trial.

[rong]

I don't know how you guys are watching this. I mean it's pretty cool stuff, I can see why it would be if interest and it's good to get this kind of stuff out there. But 10 hour long episodes? This was a 90 minutes job. I'm through 2 episodes and I've lost interest.

[rong]

And then dude threw a cat on the fire!

[Renton]

I think it could have been tightened up to like 6-8 episodes. There was a lot of redundant and/or pointless shit like forcing us to watch Avery's white trash family living white trash life for minute after tedious minute. But I don't think it could have been done in two hours.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I agree with Renton.

There are hours of recordings of pertinent moments in this case. What's shocking is that they have so much actual documentation and interview footage of the various actors. I think presenting these recordings is paramount.

If anything, I would appreciate if they would have stripped as much drama from the presentation as possible, but their intent was, understandably, the opposite.

***
@rong: Throwing a cat in the fire is perfectly in-character for a bordeline retarded redneck who's been drinking near a cat and a fire. I'm not saying it's cool, but I'm saying it's easy to understand.

I've met a fair number of people who totally hate cats.

I've met a fair number of cats who are totally asking for it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Serial is a great follow up for Making a Murderer. It really shows how you can tow the line and entertain both ideas of guilt and innocence unlike MAM (which pushes hard for Avery).

Serial has also spawned a boatload of satellite podcasts like Undisclosed (where lawyers comb through the case over and over to try to sort out the best understanding of all the info available).

Through both, all I'm walking away with is how difficult it is to actually solve some of these who-dun-it murders and settling for a set-up where there are strong advocates for guilt and doubt trying to convince a jury of peers doesn't do anything to illuminate the Truth of what happened.

Serial really harps on how flawed memory is. MAM shows how meaningless a confession can be. Both show how the prosecution will only pursue threads that help build a case of guilt (as opposed to pursuing threads with a curiosity as to where the lead).

I love when docu-entertainment does this kind of stuff.

I'm going to watch The Jinx next.

[OccupyingSpace]

I agree with Renton.

***
@rong: Throwing a cat in the fire is perfectly in-character for a bordeline retarded redneck who's been drinking near a cat and a fire. I'm not saying it's cool, but I'm saying it's easy to understand.

I've met a fair number of people who totally hate cats.

I've met a fair number of cats who are totally asking for it.

Throwing a cat, or any creature including a human in a fire and torturing it is sick and demented at best. There are many rednecks and people who drink, but they do not torture animals and justify that it's in character. A large percentage of murders have been found to have also tortured animals. You have never met a cat that is asking you to douse it in gasoline and oil, and then not only throw it in a fire, but hold it there which is what Avery did. An innocent animal does not want to be tortured and burned alive. What a sick statement.

[Luco]

Seen about 3 episodes so far, not gonna read this thread proper until the end but as hard as some of this is to watch, i can't stop watching

[MadMojoMonkey]

Throwing a cat, or any creature including a human in a fire and torturing it is sick and demented at best. There are many rednecks and people who drink, but they do not torture animals and justify that it's in character.

I totally agree. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I said it was understandable. As in, I can understand those circumstances and the outcome seems plausible, given certain assumptions about rednecks and cats.

A large percentage of murders have been found to have also tortured animals.

These are equally true:
A large percentage of murderers have been found to have not tortured animals.
A large percentage of non-murderers have been found to have tortured animals.
A large percentage of non-murderers have been found to have not tortured animals.

Without specifics, each of these statements is a hollow assemblage of words which conveys identical meaning to 3 other statements. All 4 bear noticably different emotional content and persuasive intent.

You have never met a cat that is asking you to douse it in gasoline and oil, and then not only throw it in a fire, but hold it there which is what Avery did.

A large percentage of what I said about cats and what they ask for was utter nonsense intended to induce smiles in humans.
A large percentage of cats report you were over-thinking it.

An innocent animal does not want to be tortured and burned alive. What a sick statement.

[ ] tortured a cat today
[X] saved the world

Damn it feels good to be a gangsta

[wufwugy]

finally finished it so checking out thread now.

not terribly happy i watched it. way way too long. 90 min, 6-8 ep job or whatever indeed.

is there any explanation for the scrubbed-clean-only-avery-dna car key?

my main takeaway is that good goddamn some families are fucking stupid. genetic iq indeed.

[MadMojoMonkey]

finished it

I can't get over the disconnect between Avery's apparent IQ and the level of detail required to pull off the cleanup job.

That poor Dassey boy. SMH.

Spoiler: Show

How does his defense lawyer not include the part after his confession where he asks if he will be back to school in time for his presentation (or whatever)? If that kid just confessed to a rape and murder he committed, how is he so absolutely disconnected from the horror of his circumstances? He's not really retarded, just borderline. Is it even possible he was being truthful there?

IDK.

[a500lbgorilla]

The Jinx is a pretty funny foil to MaM. Poor guy can't shake a shakey murder charge vrs rich guy who can't get nailed with a murder charge when he dismembered and scattered the body while hiding out as a woman living under an alias and ran after posting bail.

[Luco]

Finished it. Very one sided, no attempt to present a balanced view of the trial.

That said, I wanted to punch that sissy voiced DA right in the face though and Dassey's first lawyer was a total fucking snake.

[a500lbgorilla]

Very one sided, no attempt to present a balanced view of the trial.

The Truth is one sided, Luco

[Luco]

The Truth is one sided, Luco

And who knows what that is, as it applies to Steven and Brendan? I dont even know what you're trying to get at here.

I could forgive the series if the creators had justified their bias as a counterpoint to the presumption of guilt that Steven faced during his trial, but they didn't. They went right on record and stated that they didn't try to take sides at all, and that the series is an unbiased account of the case:

We included as many points of view as were available to us, including Mike Halbach. Including Ken Kratz’s and the state’s. These were people that decided for themselves not to sit down with us and give a sit down interview but we used our original and acquired footage to tell their point of view as accurately and fairly as we could. We think multiple points of view are represented in the series

Umm, no.

[Luco]

The two things that MaM really succeeds at is emotive storytelling, and highlighting the weaknesses in the criminal justice system.

[MadMojoMonkey]

And who knows what [the truth] is, as it applies to Steven and Brendan?

Is this facetious? Or are you making the point that the truth is not evident from the series?

I assume the latter.

The two things that MaM really succeeds at is emotive storytelling, and highlighting the weaknesses in the criminal justice system.

If you don't know the truth in the matter, then what was the weakness that was highlighted?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I cannot believe that someone of Brenden's intelligence level thought, "This will be the one thing I say that will get me off scott free... I just have to innocently ask if I can go back to school after I confess." I cannot believe that he committed rape and murder, then thought that merely telling the police about it would mean that he would not face punishment.

There was no evidence of a rape and/or murder in or around the Avery property. Except for that bullet they found in the garage, which they link to Avery's gun, but not to a murder scene. It would take a Dexter-like level of detail to pull off that level of clean-up. Once they pulled off that level of evidence cleanup... then they left the car on the property... intact... no attempt at all to remove the plates or the VIN or any other identifying marks? This family that runs an auto salvage yard is better at disposing a body than a vehicle?

WTF?

It doesn't add up.


I'd say the truth is fairly obvious, personally. Not that it matters.

[Luco]

Is this facetious? Or are you making the point that the truth is not evident from the series?

I assume the latter.


If you don't know the truth in the matter, then what was the weakness that was highlighted?

1/ Yes the latter

2/ Examples of weakness:
- Stevens original conviction
- Whether or not brendan is guilty, his defense lawyer should have been working for him not against him.
- The difficulty in giving steven an 'innocent until proven guilty' trial due to police & DA use of the media prior to trial

Those are off the top of my head and don't require "the truth" over Theresa.

While watching the series I was rooting hard for both Avery and Dassey, but on subsequent reading into the case I'm a lot less sure.

[MadMojoMonkey]

1/ Yes the latter

2/ Examples of weakness:
- Stevens original conviction
- Whether or not brendan is guilty, his defense lawyer should have been working for him not against him.
- The difficulty in giving steven an 'innocent until proven guilty' trial due to police & DA use of the media prior to trial

Those are off the top of my head and don't require "the truth" over Theresa.

While watching the series I was rooting hard for both Avery and Dassey, but on subsequent reading into the case I'm a lot less sure.

Ah. Gotcha.

I agree with all of these points.

Links to further reading?

[Luco]

From one biased view to another: http://www.dailywire.com/news/2363/d...ichael-qazvini

Lots in here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/

Including Dassey interview transcripts: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurd...interviews_ht/

[pantherhound]

[spoiler] What about when that one guy was on the stand and they play the recording of him running the cars plates and he says, "99 Rav-4?" "Yeah" and his eyes go as big as the sun. He was looking at the car days before it was found on the Avery property. He thought that info was supplied by dispatch but it was supplied by him.

So what actually happened in the end with this bit? It seemed to be just kind of forgotten about...

[Hoopy]

Just finished watching it this evening, great documentary even though it was very long. It got me thinking.

Not knowing anything about the case beforehand I thought both of them would be found not guilty right up until the verdict. So I found it pretty shocking that the jury did not think that there was reasonable doubt about his guilt.

The blood vial having a hole in the top as well as the evidence seal being broken, plus the unreliability of the EDTA test. The fact manitowoc county said they would only assist with resources in the searches of Avery's property but then were very much present during them. The police manipulating Brenden into a confession because he's mentally disabled. The requirement that Avery's lawyers not seek additional suspects which hampered. The history of incompetence/fraud in manitowoc in the first case.

Maybe there isn't enough to definitely say Stephen Avery is innocent. But I think that there are way too many issues with the case to declare him guilty.

I guess the disturbing fact is that if SA and BD are innocent then the real killer/killers are still out there. Who really did it?