OT: Making A Murderer on Netflix

[dahliaclone]

http://mashable.com/2016/01/07/inve...r/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link#poQT3Neezuq9

 

[HitItHard58]

But that Grey guy was sexy (or so I'm told)

Yeah in a clean mysterious billionaire kinda way. Steve has that whole dirt poor could be a psychopath Wisconsin hillbilly vibe going on and the chicks dig it from what I've heard.

 

[Tailg8er]

The answer to the jury question is in there. The defense ran out of strikes and they felt the two jurors in question were better than six others they struck.

Yeah that was the major point I gained from that link too.

I guess I understand a limit on how many potential jurors they can strike, but imagine it'd be nearly impossible to get that many unbiased people from a town that small with the amount of (false) media attention this case had before it even started.

 

[Miniclone11]

It'll be interesting to see if the media attention this has attracted actually does something with this case. Not really in the legal sense, but if other lawyers try to come in and do more with it to try to gain some national attention for themselves.

 

[Tailg8er]

http://mashable.com/2016/01/07/inve...r/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link#poQT3Neezuq9

Pretty easy way to make a show with amazing ratings, while releasing vague details about what it entails. I don't expect anything ground-breaking, but will watch.

 

[Ficklone02]

I just don't buy this part. These are some of the dumbest people that inhabit the planet, I doubt they would have been able to successfully remove DNA from the scene. Because of how truly dumb these people are, there is no way they can be guilty IMO, because there would have likely been many mistakes that the authorities would have found with a DNA kit.

How awkward would that be for a lawyer to argue, "your honor my client is far too stupid to have covered up this crime so skillfully."

 

[JBone84]

Just started watching this last night and can't wrap my mind around how poorly these cases were handled by law enforcement. To some degree, nefariously, and to some degree, out of pure idiocy.

 

[Cystheman]

After finishing the series yesterday and reading more about it including the information that wasn't shown or the defense didn't deliver. I am not sure if Steven did it or not, however I truly believe that Brenden didn't have anything to do with it at all. It is hard to think that he went to jail at 16, and has an opportunity to get out in his upper 50s. There won't be anything for him when he gets out, the only work experience he would have is from prison. It would be incredibly hard.

 

[awd4cy]

Pretty easy way to make a show with amazing ratings, while releasing vague details about what it entails. I don't expect anything ground-breaking, but will watch.

Sounds like it will include a lot of details the Netflix documentary failed to show that made Stephen Avery appear guilty.

 

[awd4cy]

For you to say "I'm not really sure" means if u were on a jury you would have to say not guilty. It's the prosecutors job to prove without a resonable doubt that Steven Avery was guilty and they did not do that IMO.

Except I wasn't on the jury and I don't think Netflix presented all the evidence.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Sounds like it will include a lot of details the Netflix documentary failed to show that made Stephen Avery appear to be a creep.

FIFY. Kratz hasn't brought anything forward to make him appear guilty of murder.

 

[CY88CE11]

Finally finished it last night. I have no idea how they can declare him guilty when the prosecution didn't provide and prove a murder weapon or location. And they kept throwing out "last person to see her alive", as if that's some sort of proof. He's the last one that admitted to seeing her, but they can't and didn't prove that he was the last to actually see her alive.

 

[CycloneGB]

One thing I didn't really understand was why didn't Steven Avery go on the stand? If he was innocent wouldn't you want to have him up there? Or did they just feel like there was not enough to gain and more to lose?

 

[Tre4ISU]

One thing I didn't really understand was why didn't Steven Avery go on the stand? If he was innocent wouldn't you want to have him up there? Or did they just feel like there was not enough to gain and more to lose?

Did you see what they did to Dassey? You don't put stupid people on the stand. Nothing good comes from it because there is nothing you can say to help your position.

 

[Gunnerclone]

Did you see what they did to Dassey? You don't put stupid people on the stand. Nothing good comes from it because there is nothing you can say to help your position.

Even after being wrongfully convicted and serving 18 years in jail because of some crooked cops Avery still didn't have the aptitude to not say a word to the police in the interview room and immediately ask for counsel when they brought him in for the Harbach situation.

 

[CloneIce]

Finally finished it last night. I have no idea how they can declare him guilty when the prosecution didn't provide and prove a murder weapon or location. And they kept throwing out "last person to see her alive", as if that's some sort of proof. He's the last one that admitted to seeing her, but they can't and didn't prove that he was the last to actually see her alive.

They linked the bullet with her DNA directly to his gun. They provided a murder weapon. They just didn't mention that part in the documentary.

They also provided a location, though I don't know how convincing it was.

 

[CloneIce]

Except I wasn't on the jury and I don't think Netflix presented all the evidence.

This. There were so many things wrong with the prosecution of this case, but people who are making their judgement based solely on the documentary are not seeing the same evidence the jury was provided. The documentary intentionally left out evidence.

 

[CY88CE11]

They linked the bullet with her DNA directly to his gun. They provided a murder weapon. They just didn't mention that part in the documentary.

They also provided a location, though I don't know how convincing it was.

Lol. The location was far from convincing. They did better at proving it didn't happen in his trailer or garage than proving it did. I've seen nothing that links the bullet fragment to Avery's gun, other than they're both .22s.

 

[CY88CE11]

https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMur...defense_information_that_was_left_out_of_mam/

 

[BBHMagic]

After finishing the series yesterday and reading more about it including the information that wasn't shown or the defense didn't deliver. I am not sure if Steven did it or not, however I truly believe that Brenden didn't have anything to do with it at all. It is hard to think that he went to jail at 16, and has an opportunity to get out in his upper 50s. There won't be anything for him when he gets out, the only work experience he would have is from prison. It would be incredibly hard.

I too don't believe Brenden was guilty but the show also made me wonder if his sentence was justified even he was guilty. He was only 16 when the supposed crime was committed. There is SO MUCH development and understanding of size and scope of things that occurs after 16 that I just don't know if it's justice to lock someone up that long at that age.

That is just considering his age, let alone his incredibly small mental capacity. They basically locked up a 12 year old kid. Obviously something would have to be done if he was guilty because he would be a danger to society but is there not a better way?