ADVERTISEMENT

Making a Murderer - includes spoilers

haven't finished this year (have watched 8 so far), but a couple thoughts:

- how are they not making a bigger deal out of that officer finding the car TWO DAYS BEFORE it was found on the Avery lot? that is so damning IMO

- how did they not notice the area where the bones were found right away? you're telling me that you wouldnt be able to tell that dirt had been disturbed?

- aren't they able to go to another county to get jurors when they had ~150 responses and only ONE didn't think Avery was guilty before the trial? thats insane to me
 
bmoneynova said:
- aren't they able to go to another county to get jurors when they had ~150 responses and only ONE didn't think Avery was guilty before the trial? thats insane to me
Click to expand...

For the kid's trial they brought a jury if from another county. I don't know why they didn't for Steven Avery.
 
This series is fascinating. We have the final 2 episodes left. Episode 4 was a real turning point. The amount of crap this guy has seen in his life and all of the circumstantial evidence giving reasonable doubt is insane, he totally should have walked just based on reasonable doubt.

The kid's court appointed lawyer, Len, was a real shitbag.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FatPhilM
I don't know that Jack McMahon is a shining example but I thought the two lawyers representing Avery were good and seemed to have integrity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickleDimer
Unethical prosecutor + pro-State biased judge = wrongful conviction?

Seems to be a common formula in this country.

The thing that is interesting about prosecutor reform and the importance of seeking justice, not victory, is that it is often led by former prosecutors who are now on the defense side.

Regarding the prosecutor, Ken Kratz, he definitely looks like a stereotypical prosecutor. Just has that look about him. But he's not off the wall horrible (or maybe I am not deep enough into the series yet). Early in the trial it appears he hid inconsistent witness statements (Dassey's new version of a conversation that he learned of during prep), which would be bad enough for me to want a mistrial and sanctions. But you can't really fault him for bringing the case, and it's not his fault that the judge was pretty much the second prosecutor in the room.

Obviously with the sexting scandal the guy is a scumbag and he does have one of those punchable faces. But I was checking his website now that he's a defense attorney and he seems to have a pretty good grasp of the problems defendants face.

I am a little sympathetic to Dassey's lawyer. He comes off like a spineless twit, and he probably is one, but he was playing the hand he was dealt. He has a defendant with a confession and the girls bones next to his house. That's a tough case. Part of his job is to advise his client of the facts of the case and to let him know where he stands, and he was going to get his client a pretty good deal in light of some strong evidence against him. Seeks like Dassey's was flip flopping so much that he was probably telling his lawyer he wanted the deal but changing his mind when he spoke to the family. It's real tough to work with a client who isn't committed to a plan. Whether that plan is to fight the case or plead out, just need to know what the plan in.

The defense attorneys for Avery are very impressive.
 
FatPhilM said:
I don't know that Jack McMahon is a shining example but I thought the two lawyers representing Avery were good and seemed to have integrity.
Click to expand...
McMahon is undoubtedly good at what he does, even if he is scummy. I think that's more what ND was saying.

The ironic thing about Avery having such good lawyers is that it makes it substantially more difficult for him to win a new trial on appeal. That being said, I'm not sure that Avery would have ever been able to meet the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington even if he his lawyers put up no defense at all when you take into account the extensive physical and circumstantial evidence against him.
 
Last edited:
avery's lawyers weren't working for free- he took that 400k settlement to pay them. I'm sure that they've done the same work for obviously guilty scumbags, like McMahon has repeatedly. If I were living in Wisconsin, watching the sensational nightly news and gory DA press conferences, I would have looked at them just like I look at McMahon.
 
The sleaziness isn't simply bc he represents guilty clients. Every defense attorney represents guilty clients. It's more which guilty clients you represent, how you represent them, and how you interact with the media and the public.

It is true, however, that there is always a certain stigma associated with being in the criminal defense business. But defense lawyers are defending their clients' rights, not their morality.

And I wouldn't characterize Avery/Dassey as obviously guilty either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FatPhilM
NickleDimer said:
avery's lawyers weren't working for free- he took that 400k settlement to pay them. I'm sure that they've done the same work for obviously guilty scumbags, like McMahon has repeatedly. If I were living in Wisconsin, watching the sensational nightly news and gory DA press conferences, I would have looked at them just like I look at McMahon.
Click to expand...

They got paid and they should have. The money wasn't outrageous at all considering the amount of work involved. Also, that $400k likely had attorney's fees deducted from it for the civil attorneys. The criminal lawyers probably had to split around $250k.

Everybody is entitled to a competent and zealous defense - guilty or not. It is not the lawyers' job to pass judgment and only take people who appear innocent. I also don't know much about Jack McMahon but being vilified comes with the territory when you represent people accused of notorious and heinous crimes.
 
it still boggles my mind how Dassey was convicted of everything when they literally had NO evidence against him outside of the shaky confession. no DNA, no blood, no murder weapon(s). that is sickening.

he is basically in jail for the rest of his life (barring some miracle appeal) because his chubby cousin made up a story about something he had said. think about that.
 
And the chubby cousin made up the story because she saw the theatric presentation of his false confession on TV.

So, McMahon is scummy because he represents his clients positively to the media in the same way the DA will vilify them to the media?
 
Reminder:
The DA went on TV during the trial suggesting it would be cheaper to kill Avery than frame him. that's Mind-blowing.

Jack McMahon is the kind of guy whose client list is so incredibly and irredeemably scummy and he is such an insufferable angry bastard that you can't help but wonder if maybe he's onto something. A real life troll. I remember reading in "A Prayer for the City (of Pussies)" that he was in amazing hardworking, honest and effective prosecutor and then had some huge falling out with the Rendell machine. I forget the details. Not sure if it was solely over being videotaped talking about racist jury selection or if he went full super villain or if he just stopped giving a f*ck.
 
TheFoyeEffect said:
I have no idea why there wasn't a gag order in this case. The press conferences after each day is just a crazy touch.
Click to expand...
Gag orders are rare and likely useless in a case like this. The press would still attend the trial and report on it (a gag a order in a case like this trying to gag the media would be patently unconstitutional), just without the benefit of the lawyers' input.
 
danmcguire said:
Gag orders are rare and likely useless in a case like this. The press would still attend the trial and report on it (a gag a order in a case like this trying to gag the media would be patently unconstitutional), just without the benefit of the lawyers' input.
Click to expand...
The media can report something while, but pre-voir dire statements detailing potentially inadmissible evidence from a prosecutor or police officer carrys a lot more weight than a news report during the trial. The case that I would look towards as guidance for this is Scott Peterson. Not only was there a gag order, but a venue change as well. Now, the Avery case didn't get nearly the same national media coverage as Peterson, but Peterson also came from a much bigger place where people were much less likely to know each other.

Again, I don't think any of the mistakes in Avery's trial amounts to reversible error, because even with the information shown in a documentary made with a slant towards the defense, there was clearly enough evidence to convict. Absent newly discovered evidence that would create a reasonable probability of trial outcome being different, Mr. Avery is where he belongs both practically and constitutionally.
 
I understand your point in theory, but if you've ever spent a decent amount of time in a small town, you'd know that everyone would know everything whatever his name said at that pre trial press conference regardless of whether he held a press conference. Word travels fast.
 
TheFoyeEffect said:
The media can report something while, but pre-voir dire statements detailing potentially inadmissible evidence from a prosecutor or police officer carrys a lot more weight than a news report during the trial. The case that I would look towards as guidance for this is Scott Peterson. Not only was there a gag order, but a venue change as well. Now, the Avery case didn't get nearly the same national media coverage as Peterson, but Peterson also came from a much bigger place where people were much less likely to know each other.

Again, I don't think any of the mistakes in Avery's trial amounts to reversible error, because even with the information shown in a documentary made with a slant towards the defense, there was clearly enough evidence to convict. Absent newly discovered evidence that would create a reasonable probability of trial outcome being different, Mr. Avery is where he belongs both practically and constitutionally.
Click to expand...


I'd wager you are one of the only ones that feel that way....
 
It would really take either flagrant misconduct or one in a million bad luck for either Avery or Syed to be innocent. There isn't much evidence for the former and the latter is so improbable that it isn't even worth entertaining.
 
Well its one of three things for Avery. 1. guilty, 2. bad luck, 3. framed. I think 2. and 3. are mutually exclusive. Avery's lawyers were very good, and really presented the only defense available given all the evidence. The fact that the Manitowoc police department was so invovled (despite saying otherwise), having such a conflict of interest - and the fact that none of the evidence was found the first 3-5 times those exact areas were search, except for the vehicle, which only Manitowoc sheriffs had access to for 4 hours. Also no evidence of the actual murder.

Also, did the prosecution ever even try to come up with a motive?

BTW that one hot reporter is annoying as hell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jvm3
I think the most frustrating character on the show is Len kachinsky (played by rick moranis). Obviously exposed dassey to situations that he could not cope with even if illegal. When writing the confession for the investigator dassey clearly did not understand the gravity of the situation
 
  • Like
Reactions: jvm3, NickleDimer and SnottieDrippen
TheJoker203 said:
I think the most frustrating character on the show is Len kachinsky (played by rick moranis). Obviously exposed dassey to situations that he could not cope with even if illegal. When writing the confession for the investigator dassey clearly did not understand the gravity of the situation
Click to expand...

Lmao at "played by rick moranis"
 
TheFoyeEffect said:
The media can report something while, but pre-voir dire statements detailing potentially inadmissible evidence from a prosecutor or police officer carrys a lot more weight than a news report during the trial. The case that I would look towards as guidance for this is Scott Peterson. Not only was there a gag order, but a venue change as well. Now, the Avery case didn't get nearly the same national media coverage as Peterson, but Peterson also came from a much bigger place where people were much less likely to know each other.

Again, I don't think any of the mistakes in Avery's trial amounts to reversible error, because even with the information shown in a documentary made with a slant towards the defense, there was clearly enough evidence to convict. Absent newly discovered evidence that would create a reasonable probability of trial outcome being different, Mr. Avery is where he belongs both practically and constitutionally.
Click to expand...

hqdefault.jpg


over here...
 
My favorite lousy witness was the Lady that matched Teresa's dna on the bullet and had moronic explanations for contaminating the control.

Her own notes from a call with the sheriff said "need to place her in the garage".
 
NickleDimer said:
My favorite lousy witness was the Lady that matched Teresa's dna on the bullet and had moronic explanations for contaminating the control.

Her own notes from a call with the sheriff said "need to place her in the garage".
Click to expand...
Let he amongst us who hasn't contaminated a DNA sample while demonstrating how to test a DNA sample to students cast the first stone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NovaTras22
I just read online what wasn't said in the documentary. That the bullet that with the victim's blood on it came from the rifle that Steve Avery kept hanging above his bed.
 
that proves nothing to me, especially given the fact that they basically had control of the Avery compound for days and days
 
A lot of the inferences being made about fabricated evidence requires outright misconduct if not criminal wrongdoing by multiple parties. That would be a massive conspiracy, and I have to believe that there would have been a whistleblower.
 
so you watched that entire thing and are telling me you dont think there is any remote possibility that is was a conspiracy?

like Avery's lawyers said- they really only need 1-2 people to orchestrate it. my money is on Lenk and maybe 1 other guy. EVERY time Lenk showed up, something happened. that would have to be an awful lot of coincidences.
 
Not sure it's necessarily a major conspiracy, just some dishonest sprucing up of the evidence to strengthen their case.

Why was their pieces of her bones in a burn barrel behind the Dassey house? Could those dudes have planted the key and the ashes instead of the police?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J

A couple of thoughts in mid-July

Replies
48
Views
2K
'Nova Nation
novajoe
N
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back