Making a Murderer SPOILERS

[Vanimal46]

I'm with Shane on this one. Could Avery be guilty of this crime? Sure he could... It's not like the guy was a Saint and didn't have a prior history of crimes... On the other hand, I felt the defense provided enough evidence that the jury could not convict Avery of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  

Brock, I think I read you say that your wife has a background in Law, and maybe she has insights on the case that she shared with you. I don't claim to know anything about the specifics of criminal defense, especially for a case like this. 

[Shane Wahl]

The jurors, as most people, do not like to consider the possibility--ever--that people with power could be guilty of such corruption and general evil.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And the car could be stripped before crushing. And strewn all about the place. Or, you know, if Steven Avery actually did this . . . DRIVEN away to some other damn place and not on his property. Good lord. He is not a bright guy, certainly, but come on.

Sure, he *seems* smarter than that but given his education level and familial background, it's not unthinkable to believe he'd try to hide the vehicle on the property with the notion he'd destroy or move it later. If you're going to stash a vehicle for later transport, there's no better place to do it than a scrap yard that covers 40 acres.

 

And he never received the opportunity to move it due to search parties, police presence, or what have you.

 

As I said to my wife, this is how it breaks down for me:

 

There is too much evidence to suggest Avery is free of all wrong-doing. On the other hand, every piece of evidence presented to us in the documentary can be argued in some fashion. That's why I believe he's guilty but would struggle to convict him of the crime. The evidence points in his direction but I'm not sure it points at him conclusively enough to go beyond the reasonable doubt threshold.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Brock, I think I read you say that your wife has a background in Law, and maybe she has insights on the case that she shared with you. I don't claim to know anything about the specifics of criminal defense, especially for a case like this. 

She has a lot of opinions but ultimately, she's also smart enough to realize we were fed a focused narrative in the documentary. We didn't see the prosecution present their case at all.

 

The documentary failed to tell us one of the most basic elements of a criminal case: the prosecution's timeline of events and how the crime was committed. That's a problem.

 

Most of her (and my) issues stem from the Dassey case more than the Avery case. That was a ****show from day one and the judge didn't do enough to stop it. Maybe Dassey is guilty... Maybe it's even likely he's guilty... But that doesn't change the fact that a borderline mentally-impaired CHILD was railroaded by his own counsel and the judge allowed that railroad evidence to stay in court.

[Brock Beauchamp]

One thing to keep in mind with Making a Murderer is that the documentary didn't make a real attempt to tell us the facts. It built a narrative and told us only what it wanted to tell us.

 

Yes, there were singular events that should be called out, as they were unfair and just plain wrong... But that doesn't mean the convictions (particularly Avery) were incorrect. I'm skeptical of his guilt but I was presented only half the evidence and temper my judgment because of it.

 

Which is why I believe we should focus on the system that badly mis-stepped time and time again during those singular events and worry less about the conviction itself.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We should also think about why we decry the actions of the system in this documentary yet applaud the same actions in fiction. Film and television is chock full of the crap we saw in the Avery trial(s) and we eat it up.

[Willihammer]

 

We should also think about why we decry the actions of the system in this documentary yet applaud the same actions in fiction. Film and television is chock full of the crap we saw in the Avery trial(s) and we eat it up.

The Bad Cop movies make no pretensions about that. That is pure entertainment, people know the difference. The media we need to think about are ones that pretend to relay the truth in an objective, fact-telling way. Like the news or this documentary itself.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The Bad Cop movies make no pretensions about that. That is pure entertainment, people know the difference. 

Is it, though? Nearly every police procedural in the history of television - and there are dozens, if not hundreds - employ that very thinking in many of their episodes. It's not an infrequently used trope, it's a mainstay of the genre.

 

It's not dissimilar to our view of torture. We know it doesn't work and isn't reliable, yet we cheer its use in fiction all the bloody time.

 

There's a cognitive dissonance there that makes me uncomfortable. Sure, the occasional use of such an element in fiction is fine but we don't see it occasionally... We see it all. the. frickin. time. There's a disturbing taint in that idea that carries over to real-life situations such as this.

[Willihammer]

 

Is it, though? Nearly every police procedural in the history of television - and there are dozens, if not hundreds - employ that very thinking in many of their episodes. It's not an infrequently used trope, it's a mainstay of the genre.

 

It's not dissimilar to our view of torture. We know it doesn't work and isn't reliable, yet we cheer its use in fiction all the bloody time.

 

There's a cognitive dissonance there that makes me uncomfortable. Sure, the occasional use of such an element in fiction is fine but we don't see it occasionally... We see it all. the. frickin. time. There's a disturbing taint in that idea that carries over to real-life situations such as this.

I bet the carry over is coincidental to some pre-existing hubris or other failing in the psyche of these crooked cops. If they didn't manifest in law enforcement, they would in other ways. Most people have no trouble telling the difference. Hell, look at the popularity and outrage over this documentary. A lot of them are the people who gobble up the bad cop stories. I know I am. If anything, the danger is taking it too far, and mistaking this documentary for truth which it is not.

[mikecgrimes]

There were times when it seems in proper context the truth was revealed.  At the end when his own lawyer says he hope Avery was guilty it suggest to me that his lawyer thinks it's very possible he is in fact guilty.  Also when his lawyer stops seeing the vile of blood on file as a winning piece of evidence it suggest he knows something other then oh darn the feds are going to screw us too.

 

As for the assumption that the kid was not involved I understand the movie set you up to think that, and edited portions of the confession make it appear he never actually confessed to anything on his own, but it is possible these film makers used him as the hook to make Avery look innocent.  I felt sorry for both of them when watching but my best guess is the verdicts were correct even if the process might have been flawed.  I'd like to see the first half hour or so of his confession tapes because the truth may have been he did confess but was leaving something out and that's what the prying was all about.  If he made up some of the details at that point it's great for the filmmaker but wouldn't change the facts.

[Shane Wahl]

I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could remotely believe that Brendan Dassey was involved.

 

He provided not one single bit of information that was relevant.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could remotely believe that Brendan Dassey was involved.

 

He provided not one single bit of information that was relevant.

...That we saw in the documentary.

 

But at the very least, Dassey got screwed by his counsel and that should be examined very closely.

[Shane Wahl]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/making-a-murderer-full-video-emerges-of-confession-by-brendan-dassey-a6802521.html

 

 

[Shane Wahl]

After disclosing these "facts" Dassey wonders about going back to school that day. Does anyone honestly think that someone guilty would have that thought?

Recommended viewing before this doc should be "Paradise Lost" and, um, "Dexter."

[mikecgrimes]

 

I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could remotely believe that Brendan Dassey was involved.

 

He provided not one single bit of information that was relevant.

 

I know this is out there a bit, but the fact 12 jurors found no reasonable doubt leads me to think that the things this show didn't tell us are significant.  The confession tapes were 4 hours long, this show maybe showed us maybe 10 minutes edited in any way the film maker could to make you think what they want you to think.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

After disclosing these "facts" Dassey wonders about going back to school that day. Does anyone honestly think that someone guilty would have that thought?

 

 

It's as if being dumb and under 18 is thought of as a get out of jail free card.  He said he did it, I'm sure soon after he regretted that.  Cops play nice to get as much information as possible even when dealing with dumb suspects, and maybe the thought crosses his mind that they really mean it when they say he's not in trouble so he says something he thinks makes him sound smart and responsible.  Most people are willing to accept that Avery might have been guilty.  I get why people refuse to think the same about Dassey, but it's silly.   

 

By the way why do you think his first lawyer wanted him to admit to it?  Given the result the "better" lawyer got him it seems the original lawyer was doing the right thing given the facts of the case.

[Shane Wahl]

I don't understand your comments at all, given the actual facts of the case.

 

Again, see "Paradise Lost" for another doc about a false confession. And it is less egregious than this one.

 

Anyway, for those of you who think the right people are behind bars . . . provide a narrative of how the crime was committed. The State is clearly way off about that. What happened?