"Making a Murderer" on Netflix

hamptontom
hamptontom Posts: 536 Member
edited November 13 in Chit-Chat
(I went back seven pages and didn't see any similarly themed threads...hope this isn't a duplicate)


Anybody else watching this?

Being a multipart documentary, I don't know how "anti-spoilerish" we need to be, as you can get a synopsis of what actually happened in 30 seconds with a web browser pointed at The Google, so...

I'll start out by saying that while I understand why people would want to sign petitions regarding this guys' incarceration status, I'm not sure why a bigger groundswell hasn't emerged to formally go after the Sheriff and District Attorney who pushed him into prison the first time around...I don't think anybody can argue that sufficient evidence doesn't exist to show that they purposely ignored evidence and hung that guy out to dry the first time around.

Is this show pissing anyone else off, or is it just me?
«13

Replies

  • wortez
    wortez Posts: 278 Member
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html?_r=0
    Apparently the doc left out details to fit the narrative.

  • Norcohydro
    Norcohydro Posts: 122 Member
    Sure.. If you believe that deviant.
  • Alluminati
    Alluminati Posts: 6,208 Member
    Yeah let's all get on the bandwagon.
    #Kony2012
  • hamptontom
    hamptontom Posts: 536 Member
    wortez wrote: »
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/arts/television/ken-kratz-making-a-murderer.html?_r=0
    Apparently the doc left out details to fit the narrative.

    yeah, Kratz is making the talk-show circuit repeating the same talking points...but the stuff that they left out was pretty trivial, compared to what they actually included.

    Methinks he doth protest too much.

    And, frankly - I haven't even gotten far enough into this thing to get too caught up in the second trial...but it's pretty obvious that they conspired to give him the shaft the first time around.

    ...regardless of his deviant status.
  • sw33tp3a15
    sw33tp3a15 Posts: 1,674 Member
    I have 2 episodes left to watch.

    It hasn't pissed me off. It has only left me speechless a couple of times. It just made me aware how people with authority are manipulating the system and how many other innocent people could be behind bars.
  • Flab2Fab27
    Flab2Fab27 Posts: 461 Member
    Regardless of whether or not he actually did it, it was up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had done it. The documentary did a great job of showing how much reasonable doubt was shown to the jury. The fact that there were people on the jury that had connections to the police department and the defence couldn't replace them didn't give him a chance at a fair trial.
  • april27kelli
    april27kelli Posts: 338 Member
    I just wanna know if Brendan ever got to see WrestleMania...
  • SisterSueGetsFit
    SisterSueGetsFit Posts: 1,211 Member
    april27kelli wrote: »
    I just wanna know if Brendan ever got to see WrestleMania...

    Lol. That's clever.
  • hazman81
    hazman81 Posts: 86 Member
    My thoughts are wether he is guilty or not there is a lot of shady things done by mantaowoc sheriff dept! That do not make them look good
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • KrystinaMTL
    KrystinaMTL Posts: 1,338 Member
    Reality is so much more frightening than Fiction could ever try to be.
    My jaw dropped a good 20 times watching this series.
    Un-friggen-believable.
  • azulvioleta6
    azulvioleta6 Posts: 4,195 Member
    It's scary as heck.

    I wonder about what really happened...and would be shocked if those deputies didn't have something to do with it.

    It also was a reminder about how different the regions of the US are...I barely recognize the way those people live. So different from either coast.
  • kiddiebqueen17
    kiddiebqueen17 Posts: 100 Member
    All the staff at the school I work in were talking about it last week. Had no idea what it was all about so I watched the first epslisode during my last treadmill workout.
  • JuneGem6471
    JuneGem6471 Posts: 1,001 Member
    I didn't think the state proved "beyond a reasonable doubt " I felt there was plenty of doubt with evidence tampering alone, so much of the state's case didn't add up
  • nomorefatgirl78
    nomorefatgirl78 Posts: 61 Member
    We watched it over the weekend and I've never been so pissed off over something on tv as much as this. I haven't googled anything about it but am curious if a child psychologist was called in to give Brendan an eval, why a body language expert was not called to talk about the cops in question's testimonies and whether an expert regarding how exactly that blood could've been transferred and pooled the way it was by the ignition. I worked in law enforcement for 5 years (until the stress got the better of me) and I will honestly say that there are so much cover ups that go on to cover somebody's *kitten* for something, it's unreal.
  • jlisa24
    jlisa24 Posts: 305 Member
    I got about 35 mins in and was bored and fell asleep. I am not sure how everyone got so,into it ita like a long drawn out anticlimactic CSI: The Boonies.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,033 Member
    Detectives are good at manipulation when interrogating. While I would say that the majority of perps will try to minimize their involvement in any crime, getting them to admit to doing things they probably didn't do is part of a detective's resume.
    The problem here is that people SHOULDN'T speak with detectives on a serious crime without a lawyer. I don't care if they are flat out innocent or not, a good detective will get you to say or confess to things that didn't involve you.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • AskTracyAnnK28
    AskTracyAnnK28 Posts: 2,817 Member
    I'd like to think that the documentary was one-sided and left out important details, because the thought of our justice system actually doing that to someone just sickens me.
  • kchuskey
    kchuskey Posts: 882 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Detectives are good at manipulation when interrogating. While I would say that the majority of perps will try to minimize their involvement in any crime, getting them to admit to doing things they probably didn't do is part of a detective's resume.
    The problem here is that people SHOULDN'T speak with detectives on a serious crime without a lawyer. I don't care if they are flat out innocent or not, a good detective will get you to say or confess to things that didn't involve you.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png



    Especially when they are as smart as a bag of hammers
  • melmelw03
    melmelw03 Posts: 5,332 Member
    This was a good one. Reminded me of the Paradise Lost ones that HBO did about the West Memphis Three.
    My main question is, where the hell was the DNA evidence???? There would have been so much blood. The whole thing is beyond shady. I hope they make this a regular series though, because it was very interesting.
  • ashleybreanna13
    ashleybreanna13 Posts: 249 Member
    edited January 2016
    My thought is... in order to convict someone, he needs to be, without-a-doubt, guilty. There were many doubts, so I have no clue how he was convicted. That Colburn fella... got on my damn NERVES.
  • Fit4LifeGal79
    Fit4LifeGal79 Posts: 5,577 Member
    Based on what I saw in the documentary I don't see how any jury would convict him. Then I feel like there has to be a whole other part of this case that is missing from the documentary. A lot of people involved in this case looked real shady.
  • Jacwhite22
    Jacwhite22 Posts: 7,010 Member
    It's a documentary. Well done as it is having it's intended effect. That said it leaves out lots of information pertinent to the case. Do I think he had a fair trial....no. Do I think he murdered the photographer....yes. Brendan Dassey's confession is portrayed way different than the full transcript. Do yourself a favor and read the full confession...it's on reddit.
  • blakeym
    blakeym Posts: 97 Member
    He's as guilty of the murder of that poor woman as the day is long.
  • _lyndseybrooke_
    _lyndseybrooke_ Posts: 2,561 Member
    From an entertainment standpoint, I was underwhelmed by the entire thing. People are making such a huge deal out of it, so I think I was expecting too much. I get why it's interesting, but it's not not worth the hype. As if this kind of thing has never happened to someone before.

    Honestly, as soon as they revealed that Steven threw a cat over a fire when he was younger, that was all I needed to know about him. Dude ain't right...but that doesn't mean he shouldn't get a fair trial. I don't know about freeing the dude, which is what a lot of people want to see happen. I'm not entirely convinced he didn't do it, but he should at least get a retrial.

    The whole thing with Brendan was just odd. That boy's got some problems, but he doesn't deserve to be in prison just because he's missing some brain cells and has the personality of a wet mop.

    All in all, I'd much rather watch Orange is the New Black.
  • kchuskey
    kchuskey Posts: 882 Member
    Here is my issue with this.... This entire documentary series was made to lean towards the innocence of Steven Avery. The trial lasted 6 weeks, 5 days a week. So that's about 240 hours worth of evidence, that was condensed down to what? like 3 or 4 hours of total trial coverage? My thinking isn't whether or not Avery is innocent,but whether the state proved it. I think with what evidence we saw, it clearly raises doubt. I don't think the police killed Halbech, and framed Avery. I truly think they think he was guilty, and they may have framed him, to make sure he was prosecuted for it. I could go on for hours, but I digress.
  • tonileigh820
    tonileigh820 Posts: 761 Member
    the documentary is basically one sided, favoring Steven Avery, because the prosecution/state didn't want to be a part of the documentary.

    I have been sort of following this case for years but after watching the show I was truly sickened! I don't know if I believe 100% Avery is innocent, but the state didn't prove beyond doubt that he was guilty (even with their planted evidence) so he should be free right now.

    I think the police found her car somewhere with her dead body inside, knew she was scheduled to be at the averys before her disappearance, so they brought her car to the lot and planted whatever evidence they could to make sure STEVEN was the one blamed, basically to save their own *kitten* (and money).

  • tonileigh820
    tonileigh820 Posts: 761 Member
    ashleybreanna13 wrote: »
    My thought is... in order to convict someone, he needs to be, without-a-doubt, guilty. There were many doubts, so I have no clue how he was convicted. That Colburn fella... got on my damn NERVES.

    I couldn't stand him either! or that kratz! just his voice made me wanna rip my ears off
  • kchuskey
    kchuskey Posts: 882 Member
    tonileigh820 wrote: »
    the documentary is basically one sided, favoring Steven Avery, because the prosecution/state didn't want to be a part of the documentary.

    I have been sort of following this case for years but after watching the show I was truly sickened! I don't know if I believe 100% Avery is innocent, but the state didn't prove beyond doubt that he was guilty (even with their planted evidence) so he should be free right now.

    I think the police found her car somewhere with her dead body inside, knew she was scheduled to be at the averys before her disappearance, so they brought her car to the lot and planted whatever evidence they could to make sure STEVEN was the one blamed, basically to save their own *kitten* (and money).



    We should have an office somewhere together. :)
  • tonileigh820
    tonileigh820 Posts: 761 Member
    kchuskey wrote: »
    tonileigh820 wrote: »
    the documentary is basically one sided, favoring Steven Avery, because the prosecution/state didn't want to be a part of the documentary.

    I have been sort of following this case for years but after watching the show I was truly sickened! I don't know if I believe 100% Avery is innocent, but the state didn't prove beyond doubt that he was guilty (even with their planted evidence) so he should be free right now.

    I think the police found her car somewhere with her dead body inside, knew she was scheduled to be at the averys before her disappearance, so they brought her car to the lot and planted whatever evidence they could to make sure STEVEN was the one blamed, basically to save their own *kitten* (and money).



    We should have an office somewhere together. :)

    hell yeah! I just looked back and read what you had to say! I could go on and on and on about this
This discussion has been closed.

Categories