Jolfa Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Anyone watched this? What do you make of it? It's a 10 part documentary of what would be my worst nightmare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 insane story. there is a huge reddit forum about it. occasionally interesting, other times pretty crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann2707 Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 Loved watching this, Guilty or not? I vote not guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) i'm totally 50/50. can't make up my mind, there's just too many conincidences on both sides. the policing and prosecuting was a total joke though. Edited February 3, 2016 by jeff costello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 The nephew's case was pretty clear to me that he was a slow kid, pushed into a false confession. You don't cut someones throat in a bedroom, drag the body outside to a garage and leave no trace of blood anywhere. His first lawyer was a complete joke and screwed him. Absolutely gobsmacked they convicted him and refuse all requests for a retrial. Steven's case was not so clear and the show is obviously biased towards his innocence, but regardless of what wasn't included there was enough there to create a reasonable doubt in anyone's mind, unfortunately broadcasting the entire case on national TV makes an impression on all who view it including the jury. In the UK you're not even allowed to discuss anything relating to a case with your closest family, never mind have it sensationalised by the media. Despite the obvious bias in the series, I have very little doubt that they are both innocent. Imagine being sent down TWICE for crimes you didn't commit though, they've literally taken half that guys life and everything he loved away from him, the thought of something like that happening to me scares the shit out of me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrialsIsHard Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 The thing that bothered me about Making a Murderer was the place of the documentary within the case, they had footage from very early on in the case- almost as if they were following him before he got convicted the first time. The documentary clearly sways the viewer towards Steven and certainly Brendan being innocent and by the end I was in virtually no doubt. Which is strange because unanimously the american jury voted guilty whether due to prejudices against the Averys or due to manipulation from the American media- but it certainly doesn't add up. If I've learned anything from this case is that if I ended up in a similar situation to Steven, the first thing I would do is employ someone to make a very gripping documentary about and pay to have it put on Netflix. There is no way this case won't be revisited now that tens of millions people hold an opinion about it. What better way for an aspiring defence lawyer than to work unpaid on the Avery case and get him out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) The bulk of the older footage would have been from his previous case and public coverage. It shows you at the end that Steven is in possession of copies of ALL of the case files, which would have included a lot of what was shown. I was foreman on a jury on a case of two young lads on trial for burglary a few years ago, there was almost nothing to pin it to them, but the prosecution put forward a good case. When we went to deliberation by show of hands we were 8-4 not guilty, when I asked the 4 why they thought the lads were guilty all one or two of them had was previous form and they basically looked the type, the other two or three had no opinion to offer as to why they were saying guilty. That's in the UK system where ANY reason for you to be anything but impartial rules you out of that jury, and any outside contact is strictly forbidden and still people are so close minded, prejudiced and stubborn. This case elected a jury from a town where it was the hottest news story around and plastered the details of the case all over the news every day, how is that fair? Edited February 3, 2016 by Jolfa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jolfa said: Despite the obvious bias in the series, i'm not sure whether that's relly the case. the directors recently answered to some accusations by the prosecution/police-side and they had pretty good answers. stuff they were accused of having left out was also not used in court. 55 minutes ago, TrialsIsHard said: The thing that bothered me about Making a Murderer was the place of the documentary within the case, they had footage from very early on in the case- almost as if they were following him before he got convicted the first time. the directors started following the case shortly after his arrest. they said they learned about it from the front page of the new york times. regarding jury: after the doc. one juror (not the one in the doc.) came forward and said something like they were purposely going for a contradictory verdict (guilty on murder, not guilty on burning the corpse), because they were stuck and wanted to get it over with. they assumed a verdict like that would quickly be revised in an appeal. Edited February 3, 2016 by jeff costello Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 3, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, jeff costello said: regarding jury: after the doc. one juror (not the one in the doc.) came forward and said something like that they were stuck and were purposely going for a contradictory verdict (guilty on murder, not guilty on burning the corpse), because they were stuck and wanted to get it over. they assumed a verdict like that would quickly be revised in appeal. Surely the logical thing to do if that were the case would be to not reach a verdict at all as it had to be unanimous...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 3, 2016 Report Share Posted February 3, 2016 here's a link to that story. i think i got the info from a video of an interview of the filmmakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 21 hours ago, jeff costello said: i'm totally 50/50. can't make up my mind, there's just too many conincidences on both sides. the policing and prosecuting was a total joke though. Agreed on all points. 17 hours ago, Jolfa said: The nephew's case was pretty clear to me that he was a slow kid, pushed into a false confession. You don't cut someones throat in a bedroom, drag the body outside to a garage and leave no trace of blood anywhere. His first lawyer was a complete joke and screwed him. Absolutely gobsmacked they convicted him and refuse all requests for a retrial. Agree with this too. I'm pretty sure that his nephew had nothing to do with it. And I'm torn with Steven. However if I was in the jury I'd maybe voting not guilty even though I'm 50/50 on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 4, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 4 hours ago, JT! said: However if I was in the jury I'd maybe voting not guilty even though I'm 50/50 on the matter. That's exactly the point, reasonable doubt, I don't believe anyone could say they were 100% certain that Steven did it, even less twelve people be 100% on the matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 4, 2016 Report Share Posted February 4, 2016 the problem is, that "the police planted the blood" is in almost every case not a part of all things reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 It is when evidence had been opened and a needle had pierced a tube full of blood for no known reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 in this case, yes. mostly because the people involved have a strong motive, rather than just a broken piece of tape. but just saying, if i was in a jury and exposed to a different kind of information, i'm not sure whether i'd buy into the framing-by-police story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 1 hour ago, jeff costello said: but just saying, if i was in a jury and exposed to a different kind of information, i'm not sure whether i'd buy into the framing-by-police story. Not even if the same police had done exactly that to the same defendant before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 yeah, this case is special one. my point was mostly that it's easy to say what you'd have done if you were on the jury after watching some tv show. i assume when you're on a jury you're fed information in a very selective way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann2707 Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 1 hour ago, jeff costello said: i assume when you're on a jury you're fed information in a very selective way. Oh you mean like what was shown to us on the last 3 episodes of the series... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 5, 2016 Report Share Posted February 5, 2016 you mean the sexting of the prosecutor part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted February 6, 2016 Report Share Posted February 6, 2016 Watched the whole series over the past couple of days (after seeing this thread) and seriously can't believe the system could be so f**ked up to convict both and then refuse any kind of retrial etc. after conviction. So many things just don't add up in Steve's case from start to finish it's just mental to think that the jury still found him guilty. Having said that I do feel the series didn't really make some things clear, especially when things went to trial. Very little was made of the lack of blood, the tampered with blood vial, the fact he didn't use the car crusher, the cop ringing in with Teresa's numberplate for no reason and also what the prosecutors actually think happened to the victim. Bone fragments show she was (probably) shot and obviously burned but how did the body get smashed into tiny pieces? Surely that's more than just a bonfire? The whole thing stinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff costello Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 the body was also burnt in another place first, THEN transported to the burn pit in front of his trailer. i don't think there's any more info available on the things you mentioned. no one but avery (then dassey) was ever investigated. the doc was not really of the investigative kind, more an overview of what's already known (mostly by family, defense and media), but no one was interested in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted February 7, 2016 Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 It just makes a mockery of the US system in its entirety. I imagine if anything even remotely similar happened in the UK everything would be done so much more thoroughly and professionally. I see there are recent actions filed at the federal level and a petition to investigate things on the US government site so maybe this series will force the correct course of action. Even if it comes back proving that he did it so long as things are done properly it would be hugely worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 7, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/making-a-murderer-cold-case-investigator-believes-notorious-serial-killer-was-guilty-and-not-steven-a6824891.html An interesting bit of reading. Edited February 7, 2016 by Jolfa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.