|
Atticus Finch posted:I also can't get over Judge Fox admitting Brendan's original lawyer was a piece of poo poo that thought Brendan was innocent and STILL denying a new trial. Not only that, he admitted his lawyer did a hosed up thing but somehow still allowed the confession obtained from said hosed up thing to play in court. What?
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
MrCodeDude posted:How did the news know the information about Teresa being chained up to the bed? In her police statement they read back to her at Brendan's trial she said Teresa was tied to a chair not a bed which doesn't match either. She was full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
I just want to remind people that the ONLY blood-oriented evidence that they found at all, whatsoever in this case was in the RAV4. And there was like MASSIVE amount of blood (and hair encrusted to the blood) that belonged to Teresa in the back of the RAV4, which seems utterly and completely inconsistent with the prosecution's contention that Teresa essentially went into Steve's trailer, never emerged alive, and was burned in the backyard. I don't see where or how that leaves room for Teresa's hair and blood to wind up in the back of her own truck (obvious transportation of the body). kaworu fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
So Ken Kratz is receiving death threats? I mean, doctors get murdered in this country for doing their actual job. What's the hold up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Man gently caress Ken Kratz and gently caress theresa's brother jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:So Ken Kratz is receiving death threats? I mean, doctors get murdered in this country for doing their actual job. What's the hold up? I have to admit, it is rather satisfying that when it was discovered that Ken Kratz was not only a total creep but a serial adulterer who sends scary texts and intimidates and manipulates domestic abuse victims into having sex with him - what the woman said was that she was terrified that if she didn't comply he wouldn't prosecute the case and might even find some way to go after her. Oh, and he was a Xanax/Vicodin addict using heavily the *entire* time the trial was going on and for years after and probably before. I know I mentioned that before but it just compounds it at all. That Kratz was stoned on Vicodin and Xanax every time we saw him in that documentary, most likely. And because of all this, in his words, he "lost his 25-year job and reputation as a prosector, lost his wife and children, lost his house, and lost most of his money"" or something to that effect. I gotta admit it is almost satisfying enough just to hear that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
The REAL Goobusters posted:Man gently caress Ken Kratz and gently caress theresa's brother jesus christ This, plus all cops and prosecutors. But that brother angered me more than anyone else. His smug loving face makes me want to artisanally drown him in my piss. Seriously, why even spend all that money on a mock trial? Whenever a crime happens, why can't you just have one fat retarded slob of a cop point to a random name in a phone book and then put that person away for life? Saves millions and the result is the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
You guys want to see something really sketchy as ALL hell? Go to Episode 2 and fast-forward to about 45:20 (45 minutes 20 seconds) into that episode. That's approximately when there is an early interview with Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas (Teresa's ex-boyfriend). Watch this interview, and watch how they answer these questions. This interview took place I think after they had found the car on the Avery property and sometime early on in that 8-day search of the entire grounds. It is the WEIRDEST goddamn interview, and the two of them are REALLY obviously lying -- badly -- and not prepared at all for the questions they are being asked. I'm just gonna transcribe this because frankly it's incredible: quote:Reporter: Did they find anything while you were out searching? These guys are stammering, giving each other significant looks, speaking in broken and incomplete sentences (a dead give-away) and weirdly contradicting themselves. Out of all the sketchy interviews I saw Mike Halbach (and the ex-boyfriend) give, this takes the cake. Maybe I am operating a bit on my intuition and instinct, but everything I know and have learned about human behavior tells me these guys are lying through their teeth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
My friend just had jury duty for an attempted murder case. I forget the exact details, but it was something like: Gang member tries to sell weed to random kid at his house. Kid says no. Gang member thinks kid is in another gang, decides to open fire on the front of the house 10 min later. I think the kid 15ish, was autistic so the defenses case was that this kid couldn't positively ID the shooter. The kid picked him out 2 line ups too. She said it was crazy. All half the jurors wanted to do was to go back to their families / jobs, no one wanted to be there. She totally felt he was guilty, but there were a few jurors who were not guilty all the way. One juror barely spoke English and she said her vote was just going to be the same as the other Spanish lady. After 3-4 days she was the only one saying guilty because everyone wanted to leave to she changed her vote. When the not guilty was read, the gang member jumped up and cheered, and my friend is still convinced he did it. I know it's reversed in this case, but it's still wrong, and shows how no one seems to give a poo poo about random peoples lives. I loved this series, but god did it make me loving mad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
I'm re-watching this and wondering how come the defense wasn't able to suggest that someone else did the crime... is there anyone following this that can explain why they would't be allowed to suggest that it was someone else? I think they could suggest it was Brendan.. but they weren't going to do that, obviously. >edit: fixed wrong word< Lipumira fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Halfway through episode 1 and already steaming mad. Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
WTF did I just watch. loving hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Lipumira posted:I'm re-watching this and wondering how come the defense wasn't able to suggest that someone else did the crime... is there anyone following this that can explain why they would't be allowed to suggest that it was someone else? The defense are there for the accused. They cannot go around accusing other people, afaik. They're not private investigators either, so they have no evidence to assign to suspects. They couldn't use the 1985 case at all due to the agreed restitution, to highlight that people who shouldn't have been involved were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Among all the other things people have already mentioned, one thing really got to me that hasn't been brought up. When the judge was sentencing Steve in ep. 8 he mentions how Steve's past crimes are a clear indicator he murdered Theresa. He says that his crimes have been building over time in their severity, so it's no wonder he raped and killed Theresa, clearly implying that he believes Steve was guilty of the 1985 sexual assault. It's insane this guy was allowed to preside over this case and then shot down all the appeals that followed afterwards. Steve was guilty from day one in this guy's eyes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Jesus this whole thing was a rollercoaster. It was like a hillbilly season 3 of Fargo. I don't think I've ever binge watched 10 hours of a documentary. I was preparing myself for Avery to get screwed over in the end, but I was not expecting the jury to also buy as fact that poor idiot teenager's clearly coerced confession. And unless they edited out a whole bunch of other poo poo, that seemed like the entirety of that case. My favorite parts were definitely the defense attorney team. Although contextually this is probably the world's worst analogy possible to choose, they were like good cop and bad cop. Dean Strang acted like he was in playing the part of a lone virtuous public defender taking on the system in a Matlock remake. And I liked Jerry Buting because he looks and sounds like Grima Wormtongue with a haircut. Contrast that to that Len Kachinsky guy, Brendan's first defense attorney. It's absurd to watch a lawyer so blatantly screw over a teenager in real-time and on camera. I can't imagine how lonely that must have made that kid feel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Well there is a decent sized sub-reddit for this documentary in which someone claims to have email correspondence with Ken Kratz where he talks about additional evidence that was not included in the documentary. His reputation aside, I found some of it interesting none the less.quote:First off, let it be known after watching this documentary (twice trough) I'm more then convinced Steven and Dassey are innocent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Lipumira posted:I'm re-watching this and wondering how come the defense wasn't able to suggest that someone else did the crime... is there anyone following this that can explain why they would't be allowed to suggest that it was someone else? This is explained in episode 5 or 6. They say that, since it's been so long by the time of the trial, and since the police didn't go after anyone else, that if they bring up the theory that it was anyone else they'd have to present a theory about who else it would have been and that the defense just didn't have any actual evidence, so if they brought it up it would make them look even worse. It kind of makes sense, it's basically a lose/lose situation for the defense at that point because the cops never gathered any information or evidence about any other suspects, period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Hoo boy. A huge amount of that "evidence" is circumstantial as hell like everything from the prosecution and doesn't tie directly to Avery very well, and he's speaking as if 100% certain that it was Avery who murdered her which doesn't do much for his credibility. Something that really doesn't make sense - if Teresa was so scared of Avery and he was this creep who used an alternate name to lure her there the second time, why was there that phone message on the documentary of Teresa calling up Avery, calling him by name, and in a friendly tone of voice making sure about their appointment, and confirming who she was by name. Unless the filmmakers took an earlier phone message from sometime before Oct 31 and misrepresented that? Because that makes no sense. I don't see how Steven's DNA on the hood of Teresa's car is anything beyond circumstantial - it could have gotten there during the appointment they had. Maybe his hand was resting there for a second. Jesus. Or how stuff like all this about Terea's remains in the pit/barrel weren't directly addressed by the documentary already. I wouldn't trust a single goddamn thing an inmate says because most will corroborate the location of Jimmy Hoffa's body for you if you offer them an incentive like an even slightly reduced sentence. Also, I didn't know ballistics was so advanced they could tell the exact date a bullet was fired months after finding it. They found the bullet MUCH later on in February or March, did they not? It certainly was not there in the initial 8-day search but turned up much later. Perhaps Mr. Kratz is confused. He was taking an awful lot of recreational drugs during that trial. kaworu fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Maybe. Circumstantial or not, that is a lot of stuff that never came up in the documentary. It at least goes to show that the documentary was edited in such a way to make the case appear like it was much more stacked towards Arvey's favor than it actually was. I would have at least liked to see whether the defense team struggled to answer that evidence in front of the jury. It would have helped explain why the jury came to that decision. Being a Netflix production, ten parts to start with, and full of filler and B-roll of aerial shots, it's not like length was a concern.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that by the time the trial started, I was so hooked that I probably would have watched it even if it had been just a continuous unedited dump of the whole trial from a courtroom camera feed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Sex Weirdo posted:Well there is a decent sized sub-reddit for this documentary in which someone claims to have email correspondence with Ken Kratz where he talks about additional evidence that was not included in the documentary. His reputation aside, I found some of it interesting none the less. Ignoring the fact that Kratz's reddit presented evidence ranges from nothing of value to circumstantial at best, there's still the matter of the Manitowac officer (who were all supposed to have handed it off to calumet) calling in the car before it had been "found" at the lot, the Manitowac officer (who were all supposed to have handed it off to calumet) finding the key "behind a bookcase" on the hundredth search attempt, Lenk changing his time of finding the car in the lot from 2pm in the day to 6 at night, the explicit instruction to the FBI not to find EDTA in the sample, and so on. So, even if Kratz is right and his evidence is worth something, the Manitowac officers are still doing a bunch of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
It's nice to see that cops all over the US are using the exact same methods when they are coercing mentally challenged people and/or children. They did the same thing to the West Memphis Three, they focussed on the retarded kid and forced a confession out of him, then used that to convict the others. Take a look at the WM3 (Arkansas, 1994), Murder on a Sunday Morning (Florida, 2000), Central Park Five (NYC, 1989), and Capturing the Friedmans (NY, 1987). Cops interrogate children without their parents present, sometimes for HOURS, and promise them that everything will be OK and they can go home if they just "confess". This isn't an anomaly in a small, corrupt rust belt Sheriff's office, it seems to be the national law enforcement norm. It's baffling that cops still don't understand that they're doing a bad thing. Every LEO interviewed in the above documentaries is so smug and confident, even when the "criminals" have been completely exonerated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that Avery killed her. That doesn't make anything the Cops did any less despicable though. The story about him lighting a cat on Fire didn't leave my mind during any of the 10 hours...
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Kampfbereit posted:It's nice to see that cops all over the US are using the exact same methods when they are coercing mentally challenged people and/or children. They did the same thing to the West Memphis Three, they focussed on the retarded kid and forced a confession out of him, then used that to convict the others. One of my favorites was when DNA evidence cleared a prisoner of having been the one who left the DNA at the scene, the prosecutor basically said "This guy is a murderer and has been in jail for 10 years! Plus, all that means is he probably had someone else with him commit the crime and they left the only DNA trace! THIS GUY IS A MURDERER HE WILL KILL IF YOU OVERTURN THIS CASE!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Yea, Avery is a turd who threw a cat on a fire, and pulled his dong and a gun on his cousins. His saintly act of "not raping a lady one time" doesn't swerve him off a path to murder. The last couple episodes really revealed that Avery thought he wouldn't get caught again. He tried a clean up as much if not more than PD That was after him. The two kids tearfully recasting their statements read more to me like they know their story os right but can't speak of it or the entire family will fall apart. So they try a last minute recant hail marry and it fails.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:16
|
|
|
Oh thank christ there's a thread for this. I started watching it last weekend before heading off for Xmas and am just picking it up again now that I'm back home...my Xmas travels took me to Manitowoc County so I was constantly reminded of this drat thing while I was away from it. The HTR (local paper) did 2 big front-page stories about the documentary on the 22nd, one that was more straight-up PR and the other a reaction piece including quotes from the current Manitowoc sheriff and others. They're not exactly gripping journalism, but here you go: http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/local/2015/12/18/netflix-releases-steven-avery-documentary/77561088/ http://www.htrnews.com/story/news/local/2015/12/21/sheriff-making-murderer-movie-not-documentary/77715576/ mcmagic posted:I'm pretty sure that Avery killed her. That doesn't make anything the Cops did any less despicable though. The story about him lighting a cat on Fire didn't leave my mind during any of the 10 hours... That's the thing for me: I am less interested in his innocence than I am in seeing law enforcement and the courts operate properly. Kampfbereit posted:It's nice to see that cops all over the US are using the exact same methods when they are coercing mentally challenged people and/or children. They did the same thing to the West Memphis Three, they focussed on the retarded kid and forced a confession out of him, then used that to convict the others. I feel so bad for Brendan Dassey in all this, there should be safeguards to protect suspects like him from being blatantly taken advantage of. But it is absolutely true that the same type of thing happens practically everywhere in the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
How do people watch a documentary in which cops probably planted evidence and clearly got a ton of poo poo wrong, and then just assume the cops had to be right about the animal cruelty thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
lol yeah i hope all of you who are ever arrested are condemned for something utterly unrelated by a corrupt and biased legal system. The evidence used to convict Avery was garbage, and the kid's confession was coerced and meaningless (hint: kids will say anything if you badger them enough as the consequences are beyond their understanding--this sort of poo poo had led to waves of false incarceration and moral panics). Murderer or not, the defense presented a mountain of reasonable doubt and the local keystones should have not been anywhere near or in anyway involved with the investigation given their declared conflict of interest. Grem posted:The two kids tearfully recasting their statements read more to me like they know their story os right but can't speak of it or the entire family will fall apart. So they try a last minute recant hail marry and it fails. Kids will say all sorts of zany thing if pressured, led (e.g. "the satanic cult then had ritual sex with you. Isn't that right?") or for attention. You just desperately need to believe that cops are good and this couldn't happen to you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
Grem posted:Yea, Avery is a turd who threw a cat on a fire, and pulled his dong and a gun on his cousins. His saintly act of "not raping a lady one time" doesn't swerve him off a path to murder. The last couple episodes really revealed that Avery thought he wouldn't get caught again. He tried a clean up as much if not more than PD That was after him. The two kids tearfully recasting their statements read more to me like they know their story os right but can't speak of it or the entire family will fall apart. So they try a last minute recant hail marry and it fails. "Recant"? Did you not see how the "interrogations" of these mentally subnormal children took place? They had no idea what they were saying, and the piece of poo poo cops threw them under the bus out of incompetence and laziness. All their initial statements said nothing of burning toes, it wasn't until Riegert and Fassbender flat out TOLD them what to say that they "remembered" the "truth". After three hours of cajoling, Brendan is coerced into making up a horrifying fairy tale, because he thinks that'll get him out of there. After he "confessed" to a rape/murder that exactly ZERO physical evidence supports (no chains, ropes, blood, or hair in the bedroom or anywhere inside the trailer), he thinks he'll get to go back to school for his project report, and those two sadistic cunts just string him along. This is exactly how the cops forced kids to "confess" to crimes they didn't commit in all the other documentaries I mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
TrixR4kids posted:How do people watch a documentary in which cops probably planted evidence and clearly got a ton of poo poo wrong, and then just assume the cops had to be right about the animal cruelty thing? I think he admitted it, pleaded guilty and did time for it. The show does try to paint him as a guy who did bad poo poo but consistently owns up to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
I think it was very well done. I tried my best to keep in mind that the documentary is leading me to a conclusion but it still brought out a lot of anger and something like awe at the balls on these people. I've had the theme song in my head since I finished, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
kaworu posted:You guys want to see something really sketchy as ALL hell? Go to Episode 2 and fast-forward to about 45:20 (45 minutes 20 seconds) into that episode. That's approximately when there is an early interview with Mike Halbach and Ryan Hillegas (Teresa's ex-boyfriend). My wife and I have watched the first three episodes so far, and we caught this - but there's an even sketchier one. The very first interview they show with Halbech's brother, he drops a line about how his "grieving process" will last for weeks or years. At this point, Teresa has been missing for three days, and they haven't even found her car yet. My wife pointed out how sketchy it was for him to already be talking like he knew she was dead, then that second interview just compounded it. We both think either the brother did it, or the brother was in cahoots with whoever did. His blind refusal to even consider for an instant anyone other than Avery might have done it just clinches it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Grem posted:Yea, Avery is a turd who threw a cat on a fire, and pulled his dong and a gun on his cousins. His saintly act of "not raping a lady one time" doesn't swerve him off a path to murder. The last couple episodes really revealed that Avery thought he wouldn't get caught again. He tried a clean up as much if not more than PD That was after him. The two kids tearfully recasting their statements read more to me like they know their story os right but can't speak of it or the entire family will fall apart. So they try a last minute recant hail marry and it fails. How does not being a rapist somehow fit in with this so called "path to murder" as you put it? And what is his "path to murder"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
precision posted:This is explained in episode 5 or 6. They say that, since it's been so long by the time of the trial, and since the police didn't go after anyone else, that if they bring up the theory that it was anyone else they'd have to present a theory about who else it would have been and that the defense just didn't have any actual evidence, so if they brought it up it would make them look even worse. Must have missed that. I saw that they said that a pre-trial motion happened that determined they couldn't bring in a 3rd party as a suspect... I guess I've watched too much TV and always thought that "someone else did it" was a valid defense. Maybe it is as long as you're basically saying "My guy *didn't* do it" as long you're not saying "But the ex-boyfriend did" And yes, it backed them into a corner for sure. As I watch it just continues to strike me how so many people (police, judge, jurors) had a chance to do the fair thing and just didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
I'm on episode 3 now, watching Brendan's interrogation is just about the most infuriating thing I've ever seen. Holy Christ I'm shaking I'm so angry right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
TL posted:I'm on episode 3 now, watching Brendan's interrogation is just about the most infuriating thing I've ever seen. Holy Christ I'm shaking I'm so angry right now. God, just wait 'till episode 4, you will be screaming at the TV. I can't believe how hosed up it was, the lawyers appointed to Brendan I had forgotten that his first public defender turned out to be second cousins with Teresa Halbach! I mean good loving god. He was the one who came before Len Kachinsky!  Also, petition: https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-free-steven-avery?recruiter=438194618&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink Don't know if it'll make any sort of a difference but they just hit the 20,000 mark and they had barely broken 3,000 when I signed it a few days ago. kaworu fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Popular Human posted:My wife and I have watched the first three episodes so far, and we caught this - but there's an even sketchier one. The very first interview they show with Halbech's brother, he drops a line about how his "grieving process" will last for weeks or years. At this point, Teresa has been missing for three days, and they haven't even found her car yet. My wife pointed out how sketchy it was for him to already be talking like he knew she was dead, then that second interview just compounded it. I don't know what the motive would be for killing your sister. The brother was at the trials and sentencing every day. Seems like a lot to go through... I still think it has to be someone who lived on or close to the Avery property and knew enough to intercept her leaving the property and then burn her body close to the property. Again, I am going to bring up Bobby Dassey and Scott Tadych who just happen to give each other an alibi during the time Steven says she would have leaving. I know there's no motive there either for them, but their testimony changed considerably from the time they were first interviewed to the time of the trial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Carew posted:I think he admitted it, pleaded guilty and did time for it. The show does try to paint him as a guy who did bad poo poo but consistently owns up to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
So now that I'm halfway through, I will say I don't know if Avery did it, though I certainly have enough doubt that if I were a juror I wouldn't be able to vote to convict in good conscience. But my god, everything about Brendan Dassey absolutely breaks my heart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Frankly, I think the two Dassey-Centric episodes (episode 4, "Indefensible," Episode 9, "Lack of Humility,") were probably the two best episodes in the doc series arguably, though I'd rather judge at as a whole. But Avery's case is very muddled and I doubt we will ever get the facts straight or find out with any degree of certainty what transpired, while there really is not the same mystery where Dassey's case is concerned, at least I don't think so. It's absolutely... well, indefensible, inexcusable, any number of such words. I think when I lost it as when that investigator that Kachinsky had hired had spread all that poo poo in front of him and have him a form to fill out with two options: "I, _________, am either (sorry for what I did) or (not sorry for what I did). Check applicable box. If you ARE sorry, please explain why in the space below." I mean, good loving lord. And the poor kid is too dim to even realize what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 01:03
|
|