Author Topic: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together  (Read 10621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11793
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #30 on: January 01, 2016, 08:47:07 PM »
So there's quite a bit missing from this documentary. 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's all kind of messed up, but unlike Serial, I think this guy actually did it.

Take a look at this article (but only if you've seen the entire show)

Forgot your link

My bad.

http://www.pajiba.com/netflix_movies_and_tv/is-steven-avery-guilty-evidence-making-a-murderer-didnt-present.php

Some of this I don't find an indication of guilt.  (handcuffs, for example)  Some I do.
#non-belief denialist

Offline Gerbig

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3048
  • Stream Crosser
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #31 on: January 01, 2016, 09:07:51 PM »
Here are the important bits from that link:

Here’s what I found.
— The documentary said that part of Avery’s criminal past included animal cruelty. To my recollection, it didn’t specify exactly what that animal cruelty was. I know that for some of our readers, knowing is enough to want to see Avery get the death sentence regardless of whether he murdered Halbach: He doused a cat in oil and threw it on a bonfire (this is not relevant to the murder trial, but it certainly diminishes the sympathy some of us felt for him).

— Past criminal activity also included threatening a female relative at gunpoint.

— In the months leading up to Halbach’s disappearance, Avery had called Auto Trader several times and always specifically requested Halbach to come out and take the photos.

— Halbach had complained to her boss that she didn’t want to go out to Avery’s trailer anymore, because once when she came out, Avery was waiting for her wearing only a towel (this was excluded for being too inflammatory). Avery clearly had an obsession with Halbach.

— On the day that Halbach went missing, Avery had called her three times, twice from a *67 number to hide his identity.

— 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).

— Here’s the piece of evidence that was presented at trial but not in the series that I find most convincing: In Dassey’s illegally obtained statement, 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.

I certainly believe that there was a tremendous amount of police misconduct in this case. I believe the police helped the case against Avery along by planting evidence (and there’s no doubt in my mind that they planted the RAV4 key in Avery’s trailer). I also don’t believe the prosecution’s theory of events: There’s no way Halbach was raped and had her throat slashed in the trailer without a speck of DNA evidence, and there’s no way she was shot in the garage without any blood splatter evidence. After all, if Avery had somehow used bleach to erase all trace of Halbach’s DNA, he would’ve also cleaned the garage of his own DNA (and the garage still contained lots of Avery’s DNA).
I don’t know how Avery murdered Halbach. I also don’t believe anything that Dassey said in his coerced confession, but I also won’t rule out Dassey’s involvement because he would’ve done anything anyone asked of him. Still, the idea that the police killed Halbach is impossible to believe, not because they weren’t capable of it, but because of the planning and foresight it would’ve required.

I also believe that Adnan Syed is guilty, but in both cases, I don’t believe the jury should’ve convicted because there simply wasn’t enough unimpeachable evidence to support a guilty verdict. I am even more convinced than after Serial that the jury system is fucked, but ironically, in both cases, I also think the jury arrived at the correct conclusion.






Updated: Here’s some additional damning evidence against both Avery and Dassey either not presented in the series, or not presented in its entirety.

— The reporter from the doc who had all the great reaction shots, added this:

— In this phone conversation (transcript in link) with his mother (which is not entirely included in the docuseries), Brendan told his mother that he did it, that Steven made him do it, and that Steven had touched him (and others) inappropriately in the past.
Mom: What all happened, what are you talking about?
Brendan: About what Me & Steven did that day,
Mom: What about it?
Brendan: Well, Mike & Mark & Matt came up one day and took another interview with me and said because they think I was lying but so, they said if I come out with it that I would have to go to jail for 90 years.
Mom: What?
Brendan: Ya. But if came out with itT would probably get I dunno about like 20 or less. After the interview they told me if I wanted to say something to her family and said that I was sorry for what I did.
Mom: Then Steven did do it.
Brendan: Ya
Mom: (Mom Crying) Why diddn’t you tell me about this?
Brendan. Ya, but they came out wi.th something that was untrue with me
Mom:. What’s that?
Brendan: They said that I sold crack

Mom: So did you talk to her family?
Brendan: No
M: Huh
Brendan: They just asked me if I wanted to say something to them, on the tape.
Mom: Did you?
Brendan: .lust that I was sorry for what I did.

Mom: Did he make you do this?
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Then why didn’t you tell him that.
Brendan: Tell him what
Mom: That Steven made you do it. You know he made you do a lot of things.
Brendan: Ya, I told them that. I even told them about Steven touching me and that.
Mom: What do you mean touching you?
Brendan: He would grab me somewhere where I was uncomfortable.
Mom: Brendan I am your mother.
Brendan. Ya.
Mom: Why didn’t you come to me? Why didn’t you tell me? Was this all before this happened?
Brendan: What do you mean?
Mom: All before this happened, did he touch you before all this stuff happened to you.
Brendan: Ya.
Mom: Why didn’t you come to me, because then he would have been gone then and this wouldn’t have happened.
Brendan: Ya ..
Mom: Yes, and you would still be here with me.
Brendan: Yes, Well you know I did it.
Mom: Huh
Brendan. You know he always touched us and that.
Mom: I didn’t think there. He used to horse around with you guys.
Brendan: Ya, but you remember he would always do stuff to Brian and that.
Mom: What do you mean.
Brendan: Well he would like fake pumping him
Mom: Goofing around
Brendan: Ya but, like that one time when he was going with what’s her name Jessica .. sister. Mom: Teresa?
Brendan: Ya. That one day when she was over, Steven and Blaine and Brian and I was downstairs and Steven was touching her and that.

— There’s no denying that it was unethical as hell for the investigator of Dassey’s own attorney to elicit a confession out of Brendan, but the documentary suggests that the investigator peppered Brendan with leading questions and basically fed him the answers. From the full transcript, that is not the case at all. Brendan not only confessed, he gave a very detailed account of what happened. They had sex with Teresa on the bed, then they carried her out to the garage, where they cut her throat, and that’s where Steven shot her five times with the .22 Brendan said he pulled from above his bed. Then they threw her in the fire. She begged for her life through the entire ordeal. Brendan even cut off some of her hair. Then they cleaned up with bleach and burned all the clothes in the bonfire.

The bits and pieces from the interview provided in the series make it seem like Brendan is kind of making it up as he goes along or is being fed answers. The 21-page transcript leaves very little doubt of Brendan’s role. But again, Brendan’s IQ is 70. He’d been molested by Steven in prior occasions. Basically, Steven forced him to do this, and Brendan wasn’t bright enough to say no. He’s also not bright enough to make up a story that matches much of the evidence, without being fed the answers.

On the other hand, make no mistake: That was tantamount to a coerced confession. From a legal perspective, the information contained within it was worthless. Brendan would’ve said anything at this point, and it should’ve never been admitted at trial. Yet, it was, and to any jury seeing it — and the specificity of the details — you might see why they believed Avery and Dassey committed the crime.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2016, 09:15:54 PM by Gerbig »

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11793
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #32 on: January 10, 2016, 10:26:30 AM »
You can watch the entire multi-hour interview of Brendan here:

http://www.justice4brendandassey.com

There are a ton of other videos on their YouTube page too.

It's even worse than you thought from MaM
#non-belief denialist

Offline ScepticalBadger

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2016, 10:49:56 AM »
I am not 100% certain of his innocence, but I certainly believe there were several gross miscarriages of Justice in the trial, and the major pieces of evidence were highly suspect.   The Police and state certainly had the motive and opportunity to plant and create evidence. These are the big red lights for me that cause concern.

- The fact that the Evidential seals were broken on the previous blood evidence. It had clearly been tampered with, which casts sufficient doubt on all blood DNA evidence in the case to reason that it should be excluded.
- The key being found after many previous searches, and by the same guy that keeps cropping up in suspicious circumstances.
- The repeated involvement of the Manatwoc sheriff's officers at all of the key points that suspicious evidence were found.  They had a clear conflict of interest and should have been nowhere near the crime scene.
- The fact that the Bones were not examined by experts in the pit and there was evidence they were burned elsewhere is highly suspicious.  Again forensic procedure was not followed and it was the Manatwoc sheriff's officers involved.  I think it is most likely they were burned in the Quarry and then moved to the property in the barrel.
- The suspicious call by the Deputy asking dispatch about the plates of a vehicle on the side of the road and identifying the make and model. This is compelling evidence that the vehicle was discovered and then moved to his property.
- If as claimed he did shoot her in the garage there would be a significant quantity of blood evidence.  Concrete is porous it would soak in and stain.  Also the floor showed no evidence of being cleaned. No spatter on any of the junk in there. It would be impossible to remove all trace.
- The entire Brenden Dassy evidence is completely unusable.  There is no way this should ever have been allowed in court.  His attorney should be in Jail, not him, as should the guy that coerced the confession out of him.  He should have also had a responsible adult present at all times and a competent attorney.

All of the evidence about past behaviour, the phone calls and the fact he had leg irons is all circumstantial and is not proof of anything.  It does lead one to believe he is no angel, but it does not attest to his guilt either.

If he was in fact guilty of this crime and the police decided to just help the case along, they have done more harm than good to the case by casting any legitimate evidence into question.  No matter how frustrating the police should abide 100% with the law and correct procedure, or they simply will loose all credibility.

At the very least an open and independent investigation into the case and the state legal system is required to discover or disprove any corruption.

The state Governors "Policy" on "no pardons" is clinically retarded.  He has the power to pardon, for the very good reason that it is in order to rectify a wrong.  I am not saying he should use it, but he sure as shit should investigate before saying no, or it is a dereliction of duty.

I think Jury's are terrible ways to determine the relevance of evidence.  They should at the very least have people to advise them on applying critical thinking to the evidence, and to ensure they are not taking evidence that was struck from the record into account.  It would be much better if the jury were professionals trained in the logical analysis of evidence, or at least 4 of the 12 were.  They should also report on how the information were analysed and how the decision was reached.  It could be in their contract that they were not to watch Fox news, so they wouldn't have nearly as much of the poisonous, racist, biased and bigoted reporting that seems to be their main stream of noise (as are several other stations).

Offline wastrel

  • Great poster... or greatest poster?
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 13372
  • Science: A cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #34 on: January 16, 2016, 02:52:10 PM »
Thanks Mr(s) Badger, an excellent synopsis that mirrors my thoughts almost exactly. 
« Last Edit: January 17, 2016, 02:57:18 PM by wastrel »

Offline Nuorder

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2016, 04:34:56 AM »
So there's quite a bit missing from this documentary. 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's all kind of messed up, but unlike Serial, I think this guy actually did it.

Take a look at this article (but only if you've seen the entire show)

You are just regurgitating the same talking points the prosecution has put out to the press about how "there's a lot missing from the documentary.." Well, the same can be stated about the defense. There's also a LOT left out from Strang's and Buting's side that just didn't make the 10 hour cut from HUNDREDS of hours of actual testimony. Nobody wants to watch a documentary where EVERY single minute of a trial is documented.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15479
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2016, 09:06:20 AM »
Nobody wants to watch a documentary where EVERY single minute of a trial is documented.
Thats why I think documentaries are a stupid thing to use to make our minds up over in the first place.
I personally havent (and wont) watched this because I dont see the point in raising my blood pressure over something so easily skewed either way by simple stuff like editing and what tone of voice the narrator uses.

One positive thing that could come of this would be an increase in public will to push for tighter regulation of the police in cases like this.
One thing I havent been able to find is where was the kids IQ recorded initially? I often see IQ cited in cases such as this and I wonder if its something they had done in school or with social workers or in prison? Just curious if anyone knows off hand.

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18814
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2016, 10:10:35 AM »
How about watching a pro guilt documentary which still manages you to think the defendant is innocent?
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11793
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2016, 02:06:03 PM »

You are just regurgitating the same talking points the prosecution has put out to the press about how "there's a lot missing from the documentary.." Well, the same can be stated about the defense. There's also a LOT left out from Strang's and Buting's side that just didn't make the 10 hour cut from HUNDREDS of hours of actual testimony. Nobody wants to watch a documentary where EVERY single minute of a trial is documented.


Did you even read the rest of my posts in this thread?  Or was it so critical that you post a knee-jerk response to a post that you found troubling that you just skipped all of those?
#non-belief denialist

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12767
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #39 on: January 17, 2016, 08:09:39 PM »
I strongly disagree that these things ought to be more objective. They are made to tell a story and really the only rules are that a. everything should be true, and then b. the story should be compelling. That's it. The thing that enticed the creators of Making a Murderer to want to tell the story in the first place was what they saw as a severe miscarriage of justice, and that's what the series reflects. If you think there's a better story in there to tell from the prosecution's side then go forth and tell that one instead. FWIW I agree that the creators of the documentary left out a bunch of stuff, although to be fair an *awful* lot of what Belg and gerbig brought up here, no offense, is the kind of salacious stuff that makes a lot of people say "well, *someone* needs to pay for this" and then go off and convict Avery because he's the person the prosecution is putting forward as the guy who did it.

In the end, sure, I'm much more ambiguous about this guy's guilt or innocence compared to, say, Adnan Syed's. That being said, I don't think it's conclusive and I do think that there was enough straight-up malpractice that went on that I could not convict Avery if I was a juror. Maybe that makes me soft on crime or something, I don't know. I just think that when you have literal evidence that a member of the sheriff's office planted evidence then that throws the whole case into doubt right then and there. What else did they plant? The confession of Brendan Dassey, which was clearly coerced in part... how much else was he led into saying? This to me is the law enforcement equivalent of catching an athlete betting on his sport or a journalist getting caught manufacturing sources (a la Stephen Glass). From that point on, the entire sanctity of not just the case but pretty much everything else they ever did in law enforcement is thrown into doubt. But at the *very least* I think it means that anything these people touched or might have touched has to be excluded. If that means that murderers go free, well, blame the town for breaking the first rule of law.

But back to the original point, objectivity is a myth. I feel like what people want when they're calling for objectivity is a viewpoint somewhere in the center of an issue. Nah, screw that noise. Do we want "objectivity" in reporting global warming, or do we want the media to acknowledge the fact that what debate there is amongst climatologists regarding AGW is whether or not humanity can still save the globe from the process? And if someone is convicted of something and the best narrative you can find is that they're clearly innocent, I think that you ought to go from the best narrative, not the artificially centrist/"objective" one. In this case, if the prosecution wants to not look like scoundrels, perhaps the prosecution should make their own case that they are not. Frankly, at this point it's not just subtle bias that makes them look like this; in order for them not to be at least populated by some scoundrels the creators of the series would need to be flat-out lying about some things.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18814
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #40 on: January 17, 2016, 10:44:03 PM »
Is there fair balance between evolution and creationism?
Evolution is right and creationism is wrong.
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11793
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #41 on: January 18, 2016, 03:55:50 AM »
Is there fair balance between evolution and creationism?
Evolution is right and creationism is wrong.

Not really a fair comparison.  Especially when we're talking about things that humans do, and where much of the evidence is reliant on human memory and human actions.
#non-belief denialist

Online Desert Fox

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 18814
  • Hopeful Non-Theist
    • Kitsune's Web Page
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #42 on: January 18, 2016, 04:04:25 AM »
Is there fair balance between evolution and creationism?
Evolution is right and creationism is wrong.

Not really a fair comparison.  Especially when we're talking about things that humans do, and where much of the evidence is reliant on human memory and human actions.

I honestly have not looked too far into this case so I cannot argue either side. I am discussing the theory behind it all however. I have looked into a lot of what I consider to be wrongful convictions. With many (if not most) of them, there are still people are are vocal that they are guilty. I consider them most certainly wrong and I think it would be unfair to give equal time. 
"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will; but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge."
— Robert G. Ingersoll

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11793
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #43 on: January 18, 2016, 04:27:35 AM »
Is there fair balance between evolution and creationism?
Evolution is right and creationism is wrong.

Not really a fair comparison.  Especially when we're talking about things that humans do, and where much of the evidence is reliant on human memory and human actions.

I honestly have not looked too far into this case so I cannot argue either side. I am discussing the theory behind it all however. I have looked into a lot of what I consider to be wrongful convictions. With many (if not most) of them, there are still people are are vocal that they are guilty. I consider them most certainly wrong and I think it would be unfair to give equal time.

But now you're talking about a DIFFERENT thing.  I don't think you need to give a side 'equal time' in order to present the case, but you must give a fair reading to the other side's evidence.
#non-belief denialist

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8711
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: Making a Murderer- Lets all rage together
« Reply #44 on: January 28, 2016, 02:16:14 PM »
Adnan who?
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

 

personate-rain