Making A Murderer (Netflix)

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Agreed. We don't think about the LONG process it took to come to this conclusion for the jury. And the fact that it's not every day in Manitowac County that a high profile case like this comes around. I wouldn't blame the jurors if they felt their personal safety was in jeopardy no matter what decision they agreed on. 

It's also a good reason why the trial should not have taken place in Wisconsin. I'm sure it was a rigorous process to attempt and find unbiased people to fill the jury. 

From my understanding how the courts work, it's really hard to move a state case outside the state. I'm fine with the case happening in Wisconsin but it probably should have been moved to the other corner of the state where the jury pool is both larger and less aware of the media leaks surrounding the case.

 

Maybe Madison, Milwaukee, Racine... Whatever. Not rural Wisconsin and certainly not within earshot of the county where the crime was committed.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, this thing should've happened in LaCrosse or Eau Claire or something, having it right in their own backyard was a really unfair and bad idea.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yeah, this thing should've happened in LaCrosse or Eau Claire or something, having it right in their own backyard was a really unfair and bad idea.

Yep, and the prosecution intentionally hampers the jury pool... As my wife put it, "the prosec can't shut up" (I think that's the nickname she used for the prosecution). It's in the interest of the DA to let all those juicy, lurid details seep into the public consciousness and taint the trial. It makes their job easier and it's ****ing terrible.

 

But I don't know how you stop it while maintaining transparency in the legal system.

[Seauville]

 

But I don't know how you stop it while maintaining transparency in the legal system.

Only allow the amish to be in juries. Solved.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yep, and the prosecution intentionally hampers the jury pool... As my wife put it, "the prosec can't shut up" (I think that's the nickname she used for the prosecution). It's in the interest of the DA to let all those juicy, lurid details seep into the public consciousness and taint the trial. It makes their job easier and it's ****ing terrible.

 

But I don't know how you stop it while maintaining transparency in the legal system.

 

Well especially the way they handled the confession of Dassey publicly.  Whatever else you think of it, it's totally unacceptable to sit there and give that to the public in that fashion.  (If at all)

 

The prosecution in this case, even above and beyond what was likely some police misdeeds, is a story in its own right.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Only allow the amish to be in juries. Solved.

The lawyers would have to spend half the trial explaining what a "voicemail" was and how a phone works. That sounds terribly inefficient.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well especially the way they handled the confession of Dassey publicly.

While many of us disagree on specific points of the documentary, I think everyone here can agree on one thing:

 

Ken Krantz is a giant douche. Good God, that guy. I cringe every time I think of him. Everything about the man is revolting, even his voice.

[Vanimal46]

 

Ken Krantz is a giant douche. Good God, that guy. I cringe every time I think of him. Everything about the man is revolting, even his voice.

Ken Kratz is #1 with a bullet for biggest douche on the documentary, following closely behind is:

 

- Len Krachinsky's Private Investigator - trying to coerce a confession out of Brendan Dassey while he was supposed to be on "his side" 
- James Lenk - There's something not right about him in the entire documentary. Whenever something fishy happened, weird, James Lenk was a part of it. 
- Len Krachinsky - Just a weasel of a man - wanted to punch him in the face every time he smiled during his press conferences. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

- Len Krachinsky - Just a weasel of a man - wanted to punch him in the face every time he smiled during his press conferences. 

HE NEVER STOPPED SMILING.

 

He's #2 on the douchebag list for me and not far behind Krantz. The guy sat there and smiled while the judge booted him out of the case for screwing over his client.

 

ARRRGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Seauville]

 

- James Lenk - There's something not right about him in the entire documentary. Whenever something fishy happened, weird, James Lenk was a part of it. 

With only the documentary as my experiences of this case, Lenk does definitely seem like a scumbag.

[Shane Wahl]

I will calm down. I am sorry.

I spent a few years in the WM3 discussion boards, on a weekly basis. It drove me crazy. There was literally nothing to convict those three other than a ridiculous confession from a 17-year-old boy with a 73 IQ. The two cases are not the same, as there is a shred of credibility to the claim that Steven Avery was the murderer. It's possible. It doesn't square with the evidence, but whatever.

In the WM3 case, even with ZERO evidence, it still took 18 years for them to get out of jail (and one of them off death row). This case points, to me, toward innocence. Yet I don't see this working out for these two (forget Avery being a generally bad guy at times . . . Brendan Dassey . . . in prison??).

I also routinely get students who seem so *authoritarian* (see Election thread for an article about Trump I just posted today) about punishment and they simply do not care about the problem of thousands and thousands of innocent people being in prison or the dozens of innocent people on death row. This, to me, points to the need for a complete overhaul of how the courts and our penal system have to operate.

Presumption of innocence? Forget it. Not in these times. And that's a horrible problem going forward.

Anyway, I have clearly been carrying other conversations from other places into this one (in my mind) and I apologize!

Also, Aaron Hicks should not have been traded. And Joe Benson is back to bust some balls for the Twins.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I also routinely get students who seem so *authoritarian* (see Election thread for an article about Trump I just posted today) about punishment and they simply do not care about the problem of thousands and thousands of innocent people being in prison or the dozens of innocent people on death row. This, to me, points to the need for a complete overhaul of how the courts and our penal system have to operate.

Presumption of innocence? Forget it. Not in these times. And that's a horrible problem going forward.

I believe there's a greater presumption of innocence today than at any point in our history... The courts are certainly more "fair" than they were in the past.

 

But that doesn't mean the system is just. It's terribly flawed and I hope people take stock in this documentary to implement change because it does a good job of showing how a stacked system can wreak havoc on the lives of people who don't have the means to fight back.

 

While watching this documentary, I was constantly battling with the depressing thought of "if Avery's skin was a few shades darker, most of America wouldn't give a **** about him and they wouldn't be talking about this perceived injustice."

[Shane Wahl]

 

I believe there's a greater presumption of innocence today than at any point in our history... The courts are certainly more "fair" than they were in the past.

 

But that doesn't mean the system is just. It's terribly flawed and I hope people take stock in this documentary to implement change because it does a good job of showing how a stacked system can wreak havoc on the lives of people who don't have the means to fight back.

 

While watching this documentary, I was constantly battling with the depressing thought of "if Avery's skin was a few shades darker, most of America wouldn't give a **** about him and they wouldn't be talking about this perceived injustice."

 

Absolutely. That said, I have seen a LOT of the same kinds of things uttered about Steven Avery that were uttered about Michael Brown. "He did . . . . this and this and this, so maybe he had what was coming to him" kinds of attitudes.

Also, let's say that some of the domestic violence stuff against Jodi is true. Maybe he should have already been in jail by that time (obviously for a much shorter sentence) if we actually took violence against women seriously . . .

[stringer bell]

The presumption of innocence isn't high enough yet IMHO if the prosecution leaves so much unproven. They have no workable hypothesis on the murder and improperly used the "Dassey confession" to influence everyone (again IMHO).

 

The evidence presented doesn't pair up with any plausible scenario. The prosecutors said several times they wanted the jury to decide who killed Teresa, instead of providing justice. 

 

On the douche vote, I put Krachinsky first. He willingly sacrificed the life and future of a 16-year-old when he was charged with defending him. The bit with his investigator was beyond the pale to me.

 

[Shane Wahl]

Oops .. . . I didn't mean to agree about the presumption of innocence. I think that has changed in the past twenty or so years back in the other direction.

[stringer bell]

It is interesting that the ex-girlfriend has turned 180 degrees. She supported Avery initially and now is giving stories of abuse.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Oops .. . . I didn't mean to agree about the presumption of innocence. I think that has changed in the past twenty or so years back in the other direction.

It's possible. The 24 hours news cycle has had some ill effects on the presumption of innocence.

[Seauville]

 

It is interesting that the ex-girlfriend has turned 180 degrees. She supported Avery initially and now is giving stories of abuse.

It is. She claims that Avery threatened her to do so, and that she was afraid for her well-being if she didn't however. I feel that it is a little bit convenient to say that now in January of 2016 with the case being 10+ years ago now, but if it is the truth then it is the truth. Either way has no bearing on whether Avery was guilty or not. It just provides an alternate view of Avery versus the positive light that the documentary provides of him.

[TheLeviathan]

It is interesting that the ex-girlfriend has turned 180 degrees. She supported Avery initially and now is giving stories of abuse.

Police reports back her up to some degree but it's another weird angle.

 

I think we are in a weird age of presumption. We have the vast mJority of people rushing to judge innocence or guilt on even the most flimsy of evidence. Michael Brown's eyewitnesses were a total joke and forensics showed the initial narrative most people heard (and Drew conclusions from) was total nonsense. Here we have a one sided documentary that is leading people, based on less than ten minutes of screen time, to build elaborate reddit threads to the guilt of her ex boyfriend.

 

We seem so predisposed to take whatever side aligns with our politics or sympathies that facts and patience and good sense be damned. It's terrible.

 

For me there just isn't enough to know beyond the fact that a new trial seems warranted, anything beyond that I can't say. What I take away is how badly we need to reform the way we defend the presumption of innocence and the importance of the various facets of our justice system to demand integrity of each other and of those accused.

[biggentleben]

Heck, we as sports fans are all guilty of the "presumed guilty until proven innocent" in sports. Look at the baseball hall of fame voting recently...

 

It's an issue throughout the country to assume the worst about someone and then have them have to prove to you their innocence/goodness/whatever. That's just astounding to me.

[Seauville]

 

Heck, we as sports fans are all guilty of the "presumed guilty until proven innocent" in sports. Look at the baseball hall of fame voting recently...

 

It's an issue throughout the country to assume the worst about someone and then have them have to prove to you their innocence/goodness/whatever. That's just astounding to me.

You're right. It just seems that it is very difficult to prove guilt of someone like Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, etc. unless you catch them at the right time with a drug test or happen to catch a witness to the use of PEDs doing something wrong and they snitch on the player.

 

Doesn't mean we should instantly assume guilt, but it makes it harder actually determine guilt.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What I take away is how badly we need to reform the way we defend the presumption of innocence and the importance of the various facets of our justice system to demand integrity of each other and of those accused.

Out of many things that bother me, this is perhaps what bothers me the most. Any just and fair system needs checks and balances to overcome possible corruption at any single level... And that simply didn't happen, particularly with Dassey. The judge did the right thing by removing his lawyer but then he allowed that tainted evidence to stay in court. If a person's own counsel doesn't fairly represent them, then it's on the judge. The system failed Dassey nearly every step of the process, just as it failed Avery in a similar fashion in 1985.

[nicksaviking]

Somehow there needs to be less familiarity with the investigators and the prosecutors.

 

It wouldn't be very efficient for cops to be moved from their jurisdiction, but perhaps the prosecutors could be rotated through the state. For federal crimes, prosecutors from other states should even be assigned.

 

You can't expect men and women who work closely together to contradict each others findings publicly.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Somehow there needs to be less familiarity with the investigators and the prosecutors.

 

It wouldn't be very efficient for cops to be moved from their jurisdiction, but perhaps the prosecutors could be rotated through the state. For federal crimes, prosecutors from other states should even be assigned.

 

You can't expect men and women who work closely together to contradict each others findings publicly.

 

Or, in this case, not just contradict their findings but outright accuse them of manipulating the facts.  There are perfectly understandable reasons for judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and law enforcement to all be on the same page...but it is so freaking important that they NOT be.

[#1ShaneMackFan]

Finished the doc on Sunday.  Was waiting to read this.  There are three things that came up that I don't think have been discussed in this thread.  They don't show guilt or innocence, but were just kind of fascinating to me.

 

1.  What about the cop who basically said they could have killed Avery if they really wanted to get rid of him?  That was just mind-blowing.  Really?!?!?

 

2.  How was Avery found guilty of murder, but not guilty of mutilating a corpse?  I'm sure someone can explain that to me a little, but it makes no sense at all on the surface.

 

3.  At the end of the Avery trial, Katz (And I agree with everything Brock said about him right down to the awful voice) said that one person and one person only was responsible for the murder.  He repeated it.  Shortly thereafter, he's back in the courtroom trying Dassey.  What??  I still can't believe the kid is in jail.  Outside of the weird confession, there is just no evidence (that we saw) that he did anything.  None of it matches up with his "story."  I was shocked he was convicted, more so than Avery.

 

[#1ShaneMackFan]

"According to the juror, the finding of not guilty on the count of mutilating a corpse -- a "split verdict" -- was intended to "send a message to the appellate courts," Demos said.
"They thought that Steven would get a new trial," Demos added. "That was sort of their plan and it didn't work out that way."
Wisconsin's Supreme Court rejected Avery's later bid.
Demos said the juror told them that "they were afraid if they held out for a mistrial -- that it would be easy to identify which juror had done that and they were fearful for their own safety."

 

Just saw this in the article linked above.  Kind of answers my question #2.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

3.  At the end of the Avery trial, Katz (And I agree with everything Brock said about him right down to the awful voice) said that one person and one person only was responsible for the murder.  He repeated it.  Shortly thereafter, he's back in the courtroom trying Dassey.  What??  I still can't believe the kid is in jail.  Outside of the weird confession, there is just no evidence (that we saw) that he did anything.  None of it matches up with his "story."  I was shocked he was convicted, more so than Avery.

While the second Avery trial is murky as hell - like Levi, I understand how anyone could feel he's guilty or innocent - the Dassey trial is what really stuck with me after I finished the documentary.

 

I wasn't surprised when Avery was convicted but the Dassey thing still has me shaking my head. There's a lot more to the story but damn, the kid got a raw deal. There's no other way to look at it. Even if he's guilty, he didn't receive his due process.

[TheLeviathan]

I could be wrong, but is the Dassey thing because of his recanting and not testifying against Avery?  It seems to me he was going to get a much lighter sentence if not for recanting.  It could be they threw the book at him for not cooperating.

 

Not that I endorse such a thing, that kid was painfully stupid.

[nicksaviking]

 

I could be wrong, but is the Dassey thing because of his recanting and not testifying against Avery?  It seems to me he was going to get a much lighter sentence if not for recanting.  It could be they threw the book at him for not cooperating.

 

Not that I endorse such a thing, that kid was painfully stupid.

 

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he recanted until AFTER the prosecution decided that this interviews and confession were so bat#@*% illogical that they could never try to use it against Avery. Pressured by his shady public attorney, it looked like the kid was ready to roll on his uncle until the DA decided his contradictions would likely work in Avery's favor.

 

But after the DA held his press conference stating as fact Dassey's gory but unlikely details about the crime, it's not like they could let the kid walk without admitting that the gory details were largely fabricated, which would have hugely hurt their case against Avery. So they had to prosecute Dassey or risk looking like frauds regarding Avery. At that point I think Dassey recanted.

 

Side note: The kid took the stand in his own defense, and the prosecution kept asking him why he said the things he did if he didn't actually do them. That poor kid was so mentally deficient that he didn't realize all he had to say was, "The detectives told me to say that and said I wouldn't be in trouble if I did."

[Seauville]

 

Side note: The kid took the stand in his own defense, and the prosecution kept asking him why he said the things he did if he didn't actually do them. That poor kid was so mentally deficient that he didn't realize all he had to say was, "The detectives told me to say that and said I wouldn't be in trouble if I did."

Yeah I don't know if his lawyers just didn't prep him enough for those questions, or if he just simply couldn't handle the questioning.