Making A Murderer (Netflix)

[Brock Beauchamp]

A wonderfully written article on the documentary and why we shouldn't fall into its traps.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/dead-certainty

 

"That same reasoning, with the opposite aims, seems to govern “Making a Murderer.” But while people nearly always think that they are on the side of the angels, what finally matters is that they act that way. The point of being scrupulous about your means is to help insure accurate ends, whether you are trying to convict a man or exonerate him. Ricciardi and Demos instead stack the deck to support their case for Avery, and, as a result, wind up mirroring the entity that they are trying to discredit."

[TheLeviathan]

That was a really well written article.  Loved the Perry Mason history lesson on the front end too, never knew all of that.

[stringer bell]

 

A wonderfully written article on the documentary and why we shouldn't fall into its traps.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/01/25/dead-certainty

"That same reasoning, with the opposite aims, seems to govern “Making a Murderer.” But while people nearly always think that they are on the side of the angels, what finally matters is that they act that way. The point of being scrupulous about your means is to help insure accurate ends, whether you are trying to convict a man or exonerate him. Ricciardi and Demos instead stack the deck to support their case for Avery, and, as a result, wind up mirroring the entity that they are trying to discredit."

Agree with you and Levi, Brock. I find "Making a Murderer" entertaining, for sure. I also think that it is a documentary like "Roger and Me" was a documentary. Editing can change the content so much. However, there is plenty to implicate the prosecutors and the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department. It also shows the high wall that has to be climbed to be acquitted until and unless one has million dollar counsel.

[nicksaviking]

A wonderfully written article on the documentary and why we shouldn't fall into its traps.

Well, it should have also been obvious when they tried to paint a Wisconsin man as NOT being a murderer. That was the dead give away it wasn't objective.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, it should have also been obvious when they tried to paint a Wisconsin man as NOT being a murderer. That was the dead give away it wasn't objective.

Right, it's in the title right there for everyone. If you walked away from this convinced he is innocent and that's the takeaway you missed the larger, more important, issue.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Well, it should have also been obvious when they tried to paint a Wisconsin man as NOT being a murderer. That was the dead give away it wasn't objective.

Well played, sir.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I've been going 'round with my wife for two days over this documentary, which has helped coalesce my thoughts into something more coherent. So here we go:

 

- There are important lessons to be learned and they're mostly about Brendan Dassey, not Steven Avery (after 2003, anyway). Steven Avery was a falsely convicted man with several hundred thousand dollars on his side. He hired not only one of the best lawyers in WI, but two of the best lawyers in the state. If anyone had goodwill and power to topple the corrupt system, it's Steven Avery. Dassey, on the other hand, didn't stand a chance from day one. He was a minor. He's mentally-impaired. He had no money. His counsel didn't give a **** about him. He was, in essence, Steven Avery in 1985 all over again. The police railroaded him just as they did to Steven in 1985 and just as they do to countless other people in this country on a yearly basis.

 

- If righteous justice is on your side, you shouldn't need to omit details to the point of deception. If your cause is true, the facts will support your cause. The documentary throws many emotionally charged moments at the audience, only to never come back to those points again (radioing in the license plate three days prior, the missing voicemails, etc). It straight-up omits some of the most damning evidence against Avery entirely. It's devious and manipulative. All I ask is for a presentation of the facts. You can also give me your opinion but if I feel you're trying to trick me...

 

- Lying and deception bring everything into question. What else am I missing here? What else have the documentarians slipped under cup #3 while I wasn't looking? How else are they deceiving me? As I said, there are many important lessons to be learned from Making a Murderer but if the documentarians manipulate the facts of the case to the point where I question their motives, they've lost the argument. I begin to view everything I see with skepticism of its veracity, not outrage. The documentarians have ceased to be a reliable source of information in my eyes. And maybe most importantly, the people who need to see this documentary the most - the people who consistently side with law enforcement and vehemently swear "this stuff doesn't happen" - are handed a big fat "get out of jail free" card. They have multiple "gotcha" moments that allow them to disregard everything in the documentary. Instead of being forced to acknowledge some ugly truths about our legal system, they can play "hide the ball" and shift the argument because the documentarians were playing their own game of "hide the ball".

 

So, at the end of the day, we're left in an echo chamber and circled around to exactly where we began. Those people who want to believe the documentary believe it. Those people who want to disregard the documentary are given ample opportunity to point out how the documentary can't be trusted and should therefore be ignored.

 

And that's really disappointing because the documentary presents important lessons that shouldn't be ignored.

[Seauville]

Did anyone watch the interview with Jodi (Avery's former fiance) on HLN?

 

I am wondering what people draw from it. For example, my father-in-law think that is rather damning for Avery. I feel that is holds absolutely no bearing on anything regarding this case however. She seems to perfectly recall things that show Avery in a negative light, while claiming that "it was 8-10 years ago now" for things that may go against the Avery is a monster narrative. Avery was clearly not a good dude, but doesn't mean he murdered someone. Just another example of the media being an avenue to rub someone's name through the mud without presenting anything that holds any merit. That is whether he is guilty or not.

[Shane Wahl]

Wild naivete about the corruptness of cops, here.

For the love of God, see "Paradise Lost."

More later. Good grief. The Dassey confession doesn't square with any of the actual evidence. Againn, for the love of God.

[TheLeviathan]

I think more should be made of the fact that there were multiple domestic disturbances at the place and evidence of domestic abuse.  Choking, for example, is considered a strong indicator of the capacity to commit murder.  So his checkered history of behavior should be more relevant.

 

He's not just some easy going idiot, which is what I think most of the documentary portrayed him as.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Wild naivete about the corruptness of cops, here.

For the love of God, see "Paradise Lost."

More later. Good grief. The Dassey confession doesn't square with any of the actual evidence. Againn, for the love of God.

 

Except his first interview which is not the same.  Look, I get the West Memphis Three case and the pressure put on in confessions.  There are a lot of things wrong with the way Dassey got rail-roaded, but there is far too much being made of one snippet of a larger context.  And the larger context here does matter.  

 

Again, it can be possible that the cops both railroaded Dassey and his confession legitimately points to his and Avery's involvement.  

 

Frankly, I have no clue what happened because this whole thing is a mess.  Even his defense attorney's admit they don't have a clue how this went down and acknowledge that it might well have been Avery.  Read the article Brock posted, it's a brilliant recap as to why you shouldn't take this TV show as a serious statement of the facts on this case.

 

What it does do is give us a glimpse into how the system can be so easily rigged to push whatever agenda the police want and how so many people don't have a real chance to beat it no matter how innocent they are.  That's what matters.  The details on his guilt or innocence (the things that matter to actually make a case one way or the other) are lost in the agenda of the film-makers.

[Shane Wahl]

I also think that one should clearly go beyond the documentary for more information. I have done so.

 

That said, I think in 10 hours worth, one can forget about certain things at the beginning . . . I mean there were still people in that department claiming ON THE STAND that they didn't believe Avery was not guilty of the rape in 1985! Think about that for a second! And who? The current Sheriff!

Also, have any of you even seen "Dexter"? Haha. Changing a mattress isn't going to do squat in terms of DNA evidence of shooting someone in the head.

I marvel at this discussion. It's almost comical.

 

Are you forgetting about the two *recorded* phone calls with Jodi that day, the first just after he would have just killed and done whatever with Teresa and the second while he would have had to have been burning her body?

And . . . um . . . Teresa was there around 2:30. How does that square with your little Brendan Dassey fake as hell confession?

 

I mean . . . you have got to be kidding me.

[Shane Wahl]

Go ahead and chronicle the "most damning evidence" omitted in the documentary.

 

Wild conversations happened for years and years after "Paradise Lost" about Damien's psych history and all sorts of ridiculous things. Much the same is going on here.

[Shane Wahl]

 

 

Did anyone watch the interview with Jodi (Avery's former fiance) on HLN?

 

I am wondering what people draw from it. For example, my father-in-law think that is rather damning for Avery. I feel that is holds absolutely no bearing on anything regarding this case however. She seems to perfectly recall things that show Avery in a negative light, while claiming that "it was 8-10 years ago now" for things that may go against the Avery is a monster narrative. Avery was clearly not a good dude, but doesn't mean he murdered someone. Just another example of the media being an avenue to rub someone's name through the mud without presenting anything that holds any merit. That is whether he is guilty or not.

 

The media's despicable one-sideness in this whole matter continues. The documentary dares to show the other side of someone who was never presumed innocent and the whining ensues. Good god.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The media's despicable one-sideness in this whole matter continues. The documentary dares to show the other side of someone who was never presumed innocent and the whining ensues. Good god.

Tone it down a bit. We're all having a reasonable discussion that highlights good points from multiple sides of the argument. Stop referring to those who don't agree with you as naive and whining.

 

Most of us "arguing" with you agree the justice system is flawed and police are too easily corrupted, yet you continue to act as we're ignorant of the world around us. We disagree with the specific details and the presentation, not the point at large.

[TheLeviathan]

You might just want to back down a bit, you keep speaking as if you've got all the answers when the truth is that virtually no one has the answers.  

 

I personally don't mind if someone believes he's innocent, as I said, I really don't have a clue.  It's incredibly difficult to piece together what happened here.  It seems to be a poorly made case against him, but so was the case against OJ and that doesn't mean he's innocent.

 

Pushing for a new trial is even a fair request.  Pushing to exonerate him on the basis of a bunch of conspiracy theories and guesses (ooooh....Dassey's dad sure looked fishy....I bet it's him!) is freaking preposterous.

[Shane Wahl]

Here are the Dassey "confessions" in full:

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/dassey_confessions_links.html

 

Good luck telling me that this involves any "forthcoming" statements.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Here are the Dassey "confessions" in full:

http://www.convolutedbrian.com/dassey_confessions_links.html

 

Good luck telling me that this involves any "forthcoming" statements.

 

I think you've amply demonstrated that a discussion on the matter is not of interest to you.  That's fine, it just doesn't make it all that enticing to try and tell you much of anything on the matter.

[Shane Wahl]

If I were tried for something I didn't commit, I would be terrified to have many of the people in this thread in the jury.

Trust cops, at all costs.

[Seauville]

I just simply can't believe how the jury went from 7 thinking he was innocent to convicting him guilty without a reasonable doubt. I am not well-versed enough in trials to know if that is common or not though.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If I were tried for something I didn't commit, I would be terrified to have many of the people in this thread in the jury.

Trust cops, at all costs.

I haven't seen anyone say that. Levi and I certainly don't have that opinion and have stated it more times than I care to revisit.

 

If that last sentence was directed toward either Levi or myself, maybe you should take a break from this thread because that's a blatant strawman argument.

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, I don't trust the cops at all.  I wonder how this was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  I wonder how Theresa was actually killed.

 

But I wonder about those things because I lack anything more than a one-sided portrayal to make up my mind.  And even if I had both sides in this case I'm not sure I could figure it out.

 

Which seems to put me in agreement with Avery's defense attorneys.  So, yeah, not sure what your deal is right now man but you might want to back it down a bit.

[Shane Wahl]

 

 

I think you've amply demonstrated that a discussion on the matter is not of interest to you.  That's fine, it just doesn't make it all that enticing to try and tell you much of anything on the matter.

You are claiming that Dassey is forthcoming in this interrogation and offers information that was not provided to him or questioned out of him.

What, exactly?

You have all offered squat with regard to specifics.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I just simply can't believe how the jury went from 7 thinking he was innocent to convicting him guilty without a reasonable doubt. I am not well-versed enough in trials to know if that is common or not though.

It's an interesting aspect of our jury system that few talk about. By the end of a trial - certainly a trial of this length and rigor - juries are tired. They're underpaid. They just want to get back to living their lives. One strong voice can dominate the entire process through brute force.

 

It's basically 12 Angry Men in reverse. Is that what happened with Avery? Dunno, hard to say, but it's a point worth discussing.

[Vanimal46]

 

I just simply can't believe how the jury went from 7 thinking he was innocent to convicting him guilty without a reasonable doubt. I am not well-versed enough in trials to know if that is common or not though.

There was a juror that came out to talk to the producers of the documentary prior to it being released on Netflix. The article is here if you'd like to read about it. 

[Seauville]

 

It's an interesting aspect of our jury system that few talk about. By the end of a trial - certainly a trial of this length and rigor - juries are tired. They're underpaid. They just want to get back to living their lives. One strong voice can dominate the entire process through brute force.

 

It's basically 12 Angry Men in reverse. Is that what happened with Avery? Dunno, hard to say, but it's a point worth discussing.

True. I watched this whole case, from 2002 (or 2003, i don't remember) to 2015 in a span of three days. The ordeal was much longer for the people actually involved. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

You are claiming that Dassey is forthcoming in this interrogation and offers information that was not provided to him or questioned out of him.

What, exactly?

You have all offered squat with regard to specifics.

 

Would you be even open to it if I did?  I mean, you've completely butchered every post in here that isn't saying

 

"Let's light our torches and pitchforks and go free this clearly innocent man!!!!"

 

So, yeah, I don't see the point in offering up a contention to that viewpoint.

[Vanimal46]

 

It's an interesting aspect of our jury system that few talk about. By the end of a trial - certainly a trial of this length and rigor - juries are tired. They're underpaid. They just want to get back to living their lives. One strong voice can dominate the entire process through brute force.

 

It's basically 12 Angry Men in reverse. Is that what happened with Avery? Dunno, hard to say, but it's a point worth discussing.

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. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Okay, this goes for everybody in the thread. Stick to the arguments made by other posters and keep your view of the other posters to yourself.

 

Next person to step over the line gets a warning. This isn't a hard rule to follow, folks. Take a deep breath.

[Seauville]

 

There was a juror that came out to talk to the producers of the documentary prior to it being released on Netflix. The article is here if you'd like to read about it. 

That is a very interesting read. Sometimes it is hard to remember that it is a group of regular joe schmoes that are in these juries.  While trading votes in theory seems very morally wrong, it also happens in many other avenues of life. Instead of people trying to just handle the issue here and now themselves, they frame their actions/answers based on a potential consequence/end result. The fact that personal safety was at stake also adds another layer to the mess.